Hacker News Reader

Comment by freetime2 | Hacker News Reader

I looked into buying a compact full-frame camera a couple years ago (the Sony a7c2), and came to the conclusion that the size and weight of lenses matters more than the camera body. So personally I don’t really see the point of making a camera body this small if you have to sacrifice on things like IBIS, an EVF, physical controls, and heat dissipation/recording limits.

Are there any particular use cases where a camera this small really offers a significant benefit? Perhaps street photography when paired with certain compact lenses? Or mounted on a gimbal?

Or maybe the L mount and compact size would make this an appealing secondary camera for people who already own L mount lenses for Panasonic or Leica (as well as some DJI and Blackmagic) cameras?

View on HN

With regards to the size and weight of lenses, Sigma also announced the most compact autofocus 50mm f/1.4 lens ever along with the FP-2, which is even smaller than their 50mm f/2 lens. It's really nice when you can just toss a full frame camera with a 50mm f/1.4 into your pocket. Of course, the autofocus is slower and there is no IBIS or EVF. But when it comes to the pareto frontier of small size versus full frame image quality, this is it.

Ok that lens does look pretty awesome [1].

And it looks like there are some interesting ultra compact (and affordable) autofocus lenses from Chinese makers available now compared to when I last looked.

Having more compact full frame lenses on offer is an exciting development IMO. Although none of them are stabilized, which makes the lack of IBIS on the FP2 a bit more painful.

[1] https://www.sigma-global.com/en/news/2026/10/23/012375/

> Sigma developed a powerful autofocus actuator in which coils and magnets, as used in the HLA (High-response Linear Actuator), are arranged in a circle to match the shape of the lens barrel

"We had the genius idea of taking a linear actuator and wrapping it into a circle... let's call it a 'normal motor'!"

Yeah I'm really excited to try this lens - sounds like it'll be optically similar to some film-era 1.4 lenses and they have lots of character. I have a Minolta 50mm f/1.4 I use all the time because it just has a look that I can't get from modern perfect glass.

Those lenses are smaller at the cost of image quality. In photography you can't have a cake and eat it too.

I combine the a7cII with various small primes (Sony 24mm f2.8, Sony 40mm f2.5, Sigma 90mm f2.8, Voigtlander 35mm f1.4) and I have a very capable camera that fits in a tiny bag. It's great for street and travel.

Then when I need to I can attach the same body to a big lens (Tamron 28-200, Sigma 100-400) and slap on a Smallrig grip to counteract the lens weight. It's great for protests and birding.

IMO the benefit is that one can purchase a single body and do big camera and small camera things with it.

The a7cII has a built-in EVF and IBIS, though, and it’s priced similarly to the FP2. Autofocus on the a7cII is probably better, too. I can definitely see the appeal of the a7cII even though in the end I decided to go with a camera system with smaller, less expensive lenses.

Whereas the FP2 seems to compromise more on useful features in the name of compactness.

I came to basically the same conclusion when I purchased some years back. It seemed to me then that even in the ostensibly smaller mount formats, all the manufacturers were chasing larger bodies and lenses, and reserving all the upscale features in those. I think trends have recently convinced manufacturers that compact bodies are "cool", but I'm still waiting for more compact lens options. I ended up just making due with a large body and carefully managing how I travel with lenses.

I had some interest in the first Sigma FP, but my impression is that it was getting used mostly in highly modular video setups, not so much to save space.

The Fp L was great for landscapes because it was so ridiculously tiny for a 61MP camera that you could just chuck it in a waist bag instead of a backpack.

For the lower-resolution versions, they're very popular with video people from my understanding. The Fp was in particular popular with directors for test shots and framing, and they've leaned into that use-case with this new one I believe.

There's a saying "buy the glass, rent the camera" as camera bodies change much more frequently than lenses. There's more camera mounts now than when I first heard the saying though.

I think you've mixed that one up, its usually something like "date the body, marry the glass", implying you'll buy and sell many camera bodies over time but keep good lenses. For non professional work you'd want to own both the body and lens, going to the rental shop every time you go on holiday or to a birthday party would be a pain.

For professional work you rent both the lens and the body so you can use the highest end gear specialized for the one particular job and aren't left hanging on to a $10k lens you use once a year.

> "date the body, marry the glass"

how is that different? They both mean that you won't be keeping the camera while holding onto the lenses. Also, at the time of the saying, it was for professional film shoots and not your take on vacay. Yes, it's an old saying, but rang true for a long time. Similar to Moore's law. Neither are as relevant while still being a bit truthy.

You don't rent the camera body any more than you rent the lens. If you are a hobbiest or doing a job that doesn't require a huge range of gear you should own both.

The saying is more that camera bodies get updated far more often than glass so you should care more about having great glass and swap out the camera bodies as needed. But owning lenses but no camera body would be absurd.

Again, isn't dating and renting equivalent?

Regardless, it is outdated when very few owned film cameras. If you had a chance to buy a set of Cooke lenses for a steal even though you didn't own a camera, you absolutely would if you were able. You could then rent a Red, Arri, or even film cameras as needed. You're forcing this into a modern digital only situation where camera bodies are dirt cheap maybe from being younger so that's your familiarity??

The saying is a little outdated, or at least it needs more nuance rather than being a hard rule.

Nowadays lenses are improving in image quality significantly, particularly in the suppression of chromatic aberrations, and sharpness across the frame in zooms and wide angle lenses. Cheap mirrorless lenses put legendary L glass to shame nowadays. A bunch of Chinese manufacturers have autofocus lenses with amazing image quality. However, the bodies are sort of plateauing with 24 MP sensors still being popular for many years.

Video specs and autofocus have been the major improvements in camera bodies lately. I upgraded to an A7Cii and was impressed that the AF will perfectly lock on to fursuit eyes, while my A7iii would focus on the tip of the nose.

> will perfectly lock on to fursuit eyes

how's the pay shooting the furry community these days?

I do it for free for fun but I see people doing it professionally for around $100-$1000 for a photo shoot, but to get paid that much you need to have some serious creative vision, marketing, a bunch of gear, and spend the day at some scenic location with lighting gear etc.

I've also been looking to hire a videographer to record DJs/the crowd at furry club events but I don't know the market rate for that just yet.

I love my a7c + kit lens + 50mm prime. Its a great compact travel setup And a nice upgrade over my a6000.

6k 60p video in this form factor is extremely solid, though there's no IBIS.

In the PetaPixel review they found that the camera overheated after 33 minutes when recording 4k60p. So 6k60p would be probably overheat even faster than that. Maybe not an issue depending on what you're trying to shoot, but seems like the sort of thing that could be frustrating or even completely ruin your day.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com