BTM_Pix

Right, I'm back with the results.
The bad news is that in a photo aspect ratio its, erm, quite noticeable

The good news (aside from the fact it is sharp) is that in 2.35:1 you can get away with the worst of it if you go for a centre crop 

And when you aren't shooting white(ish) walls, it makes reasonably OK pictures.

Its a different structure with the S1R but along similar lines and yes the point I was (badly) making was that there is possibly more than one upgrade in this firmware that may become available later.
Of course, the additional loaders and post boot pointers could equally be to activate the bricking of the camera routine when people have attempted to hack dodgy serial numbers in to it  

Or less exposure if you buy the NDs as well  
Are they going to do a version for the original Mavic Pro as well, as I get the feeling that sales of the newer version may have slowed a lot since more restrictions have come into place about where you can fly drones so the original would be a bigger market?
Not that it looks like they're having problems selling this one !

I don't have an S1 but out of curiosity I downloaded the v1.2 and v1.1 bin files.
I wasn't particularly surprised that they would be different sizes but hadn't expected the v1.2 file to be 4.5x bigger than v1.1....
Upon, erm, closer inspection, v1.2 contains multiple loaders and post boot references which might suggest that there is more to come in terms of additional functionality via additional license fees.
Let the RAW speculation commence

Right, I'm back with the results.
The bad news is that in a photo aspect ratio its, erm, quite noticeable

The good news (aside from the fact it is sharp) is that in 2.35:1 you can get away with the worst of it if you go for a centre crop 

And when you aren't shooting white(ish) walls, it makes reasonably OK pictures.

Nah, I'm just an infinite number of monkeys with an infinite number of 35mm lenses. Law of averages says that I'll eventually get something in focus and composed properly.
Thanks to the wonders of the MC21 SA>L adapter and some electrical tape over the contacts I can actually try that for you on the SL just to see how much it covers.
Be right back  

I don't have an S1 but out of curiosity I downloaded the v1.2 and v1.1 bin files.
I wasn't particularly surprised that they would be different sizes but hadn't expected the v1.2 file to be 4.5x bigger than v1.1....
Upon, erm, closer inspection, v1.2 contains multiple loaders and post boot references which might suggest that there is more to come in terms of additional functionality via additional license fees.
Let the RAW speculation commence

I imagine Sigma were not impressed in the slightest at the stunt Leica pulled with the MC21. I know I wasn't!
Its a fine balance as well with this stuff because the MC21 was very important as people are naturally cautious about buying into a camera range with a new (to them at least) mount and good EF compatibility would have been a boost, particularly with the paucity of affordable native L mount lenses at launch.
With this new upgrade and native Sigma L mount lenses shortly to become available, the S cameras will get a big boost but still can't help thinking the staggered timing of these releases to get these ducks in a row has been an avoidable hindrance in getting them established.
 

I don't have an S1 but out of curiosity I downloaded the v1.2 and v1.1 bin files.
I wasn't particularly surprised that they would be different sizes but hadn't expected the v1.2 file to be 4.5x bigger than v1.1....
Upon, erm, closer inspection, v1.2 contains multiple loaders and post boot references which might suggest that there is more to come in terms of additional functionality via additional license fees.
Let the RAW speculation commence

I don't have an S1 but out of curiosity I downloaded the v1.2 and v1.1 bin files.
I wasn't particularly surprised that they would be different sizes but hadn't expected the v1.2 file to be 4.5x bigger than v1.1....
Upon, erm, closer inspection, v1.2 contains multiple loaders and post boot references which might suggest that there is more to come in terms of additional functionality via additional license fees.
Let the RAW speculation commence

I have the 30mm 1.4 APS-C ART version for the Sigma SD Quattro, which these ones from a few months ago were taken on.
I use it for product shots and it is a good all rounder.

 
I'm definitely going to have to do a merry go round shot when I go back to the UK as the place I'm going pretty much has an identical one.
If I take the SL then I can use the F mount Sigma 35mm f1.4 ART on it so that we can have a true comparison !

I don't have an S1 but out of curiosity I downloaded the v1.2 and v1.1 bin files.
I wasn't particularly surprised that they would be different sizes but hadn't expected the v1.2 file to be 4.5x bigger than v1.1....
Upon, erm, closer inspection, v1.2 contains multiple loaders and post boot references which might suggest that there is more to come in terms of additional functionality via additional license fees.
Let the RAW speculation commence

Thanks for the link. Honestly, I found it to be a wash with no clear winner between the two. If I had to pick one, I think I preferred the Canon. So far on Flickr, there’s hundreds of pages and I’m only a dozen in, Canon is clearly better in my opinion.
With that being said, I don’t know if I can justify the cost of the Canon when the f/2 is half the price and affords me IS.
Thw Sigma is interesting me. I recently contacted the fella that made that ML Raw video I posted a while back... the one at the WW2 re-enactment and he said the lion share of that video was shot with the Sigma Art 50mm 1.4. So, I am contemplating trying the older EX version and then possibly getting the 30mm 1.4... or testing the 30mm 1.4 first and then later on picking up the 50mm.
Also, I paid so little for the Nikkor 35mm 1.4, it doesn’t make much sense for me to sell it... especially since I like it so much...

I've never used the Canon but I do have an F mount version of the Sigma 35mm f1.4 ART that in an EF mount might give you enough saving to help build a bigger set of Nikkors.
There are quite a lot of comparisons around but I think this one is pretty interesting from a long time user of the Canon.
https://johncarnessali.com/camera-lens-tests/sigma-35mm-1-4-art-lens/6141

I suspect its more political than technical.
With the MC11 they only had to satisfy themselves whereas with the MC21 they have to satisfy their other two partners in the L alliance, both of whom want to sell their own lenses.
Leica threw their toys out of the pram completely and won't entertain the MC21 being on their cameras at all and I would suspect the compromise with Panasonic is that Sigma favour compatibility with the SA mount version of it rather than the EF version.
Sigma always maintained that the MC11 would only work with their own EF lenses rather than Canon or other manufacturers yet we all know that to be quite a conservative stance! In the case of the MC21 perhaps that stipulation has to be seen to be more literal.
When Sigma release the L mount versions of the SD Quattros it will be interesting to see how much better the compatibility of the MC21s are on those.
 

Unfortunately, I like them in a very unhealthy Rick James kind of a way.

Well Im hoping on a new sigma line, a true ART line. Not sure why sigma called it the ART line in the first place, you get almost the opposite of ART images out of them. I wish they will bring out a new line, also sharp wide open maybe less sharp then the sigma ART line now, with the same achromatic abboration, which is pretty good on the ART, the coating of the lens Is also great, but with more interesting bokeh. The current ART line is great for corporate, event stuff and all but I feel the current image is quite bland for narrative stuff. 

I had a quick look at the group for it and once I'd got past the 28294 B&W images one contributor has submitted of his girlfriend I've got to say this particular image might have had me looking on eBay if I didn't already own enough 35mm lenses to start my own travelling exhibition.

Sorry for all the posts but today was my weekly opportunity to look at some footage and do some color massacre... lol.
So here’s another shot from my Nikkor 28mm f/2 lens test...

I suspect its more political than technical.
With the MC11 they only had to satisfy themselves whereas with the MC21 they have to satisfy their other two partners in the L alliance, both of whom want to sell their own lenses.
Leica threw their toys out of the pram completely and won't entertain the MC21 being on their cameras at all and I would suspect the compromise with Panasonic is that Sigma favour compatibility with the SA mount version of it rather than the EF version.
Sigma always maintained that the MC11 would only work with their own EF lenses rather than Canon or other manufacturers yet we all know that to be quite a conservative stance! In the case of the MC21 perhaps that stipulation has to be seen to be more literal.
When Sigma release the L mount versions of the SD Quattros it will be interesting to see how much better the compatibility of the MC21s are on those.
 

Its unfortunate that it produces more noise than an AC/DC gig.

Video grabs from a mystery noisy camera with a mystery unsharp lens
 

Video grabs from a mystery noisy camera with a mystery unsharp lens
 

Good luck getting that St. Bernard into a cardboard box let alone getting it into a bikini.

Its unfortunate that it produces more noise than an AC/DC gig.