As previously stated, Sigma is part of the L-mount initiative. Not only as a lens vendor. In a press release, Sigma state they’ll develop an L-mount camera:
All future interchangeable-lens camera systems developed by SIGMA will feature the L-mount. SIGMA does not plan to develop new cameras equipped with an SA-mount.
Whether they’ll use the Foveon sensor technology or not is a question that is not answered there. I think they make the right choice here to not create their own mount.
In all the buzz around the Canon EOS R full frame mirrorless, almost unnoticed, Canon announced the EF-M 32mm f/1.4 STM lens for the EOS M:
Aimed at entry- and enthusiast-level photographers, the EF-M 32mm F/1.4 STM is a small (1.99in/50.5mm long) and light (8.29oz/235g) lens thatâ€™s the 35mm-equivalent of a 51mm lens, which provides an angle-of-view thatâ€™s similar to the human eye.
It is the fastest lens for the system, an almost equivalent to the 50mm f/1.4 found on the EOS line. If I had an EOS-M, I’d probably get it to supplement the 22mm f/2 (pancake).
But will that system live in parallel from the EOS-R? For how long?
One of the new features of the EOS R is the control ring. Similarly found on the Canon PowerShot G7X, a ring that you can use to control things, at the tip of the lens. Like the G7X, the ring does click when rotated and can be heard. According to Canon you can get it disabled (YouTube):
â€œThis clicks will make a slight audible sound as you rotate the ring. For critical video shooters concerned about the possibility of recording this sound, Canon service technicians can modify your RF lens and remove the click stops for a fee.â€
That’s right. Not with a button like on the G7X MarkII but sent back to the service center.
DPReview tells usYou probably don’t know what ISO means â€“ and that’s a problem to explain what ISO (sensitivity) mean in the world of digital photography, compared to film, and why it is different.
This brings us to the biggest problem with using a clumsy metaphor for film sensitivity as the way of setting image brightness in digital: it means we arenâ€™t given the tools to optimally expose our sensors.
Digital photography cameras are built on film photography. While some things are similar, when it comes to the image capture, things are totally different leading to a design that is often suboptimal at best.
Not sure who remembers the Nikon 1 mirrorless ? DPReview informs us tgat Nikon just announced they discontinued the Nikon 1, without a surprise.
The move to kill off the Nikon 1 line shouldn’t come as a surprise. In addition to the rumors flying around, the newest camera in the lineup was launched more than three years ago on April 2, 2015.
In comparison, Canon EOS M seems to have more traction in the market place.
Despite rumors, Nikon still doesn’t have a mirrorless system to replace this. Will they?
Canon Rumors has something about a rumoured Canon full frame mirrorless:
We have now confirmed from a couple of good sources that a full frame mirrorless camera is well into its development cycle, as the camera is being used by select Canon pro photographers.
One of the biggest unanswered questions about Canonâ€™s upcoming camera is whether it will feature a native EF lens mount. Allowing Canon photographers to seamlessly use their entire existing arsenal of Canon lenses would be a huge boon to the cameraâ€™s ability to disrupt the market.
I wrote previously whether a SLR mount on mirrorless would make sense?
The answer is a NO.
What I see, if that camera actually exists, is an EF-M mount for full frame, possibly compatible with the actual EF-M downward (full frame on APS-C) but not the other way due to coverage, similarly to the EF-S mount cameras, that can use EF mount lenses. Like for the EOS-M, I also see an adapter available for EF lenses.
Time will tell if that gets to be beyond a rumour. At this time I have no speculation about its specs.
NPR: How Kodak’s Shirley Cards Set Photography’s Skin-Tone Standard.
An interesting tidbit of the history of photography: Kodak printing calibration that was setting a skin-tone standard when in reality there is none.