'tan on the 'log

brap

>internal zoom
>sharp across the zoom, all apertures
>bright
>small and light for what it is
>is like carrying 3-4 primes in 1
>multiple mounts
did Sigma just singlehandedly save APS-C?

I've worked it out
Go to a photography exhibit, and look cool and aloof
Then stand next to some art hoe and say "the composition is poor and the lighting is flat"
Just repeat these things and she'll be impressed

Why is the motion blur in this image so ugly?

The photo is fine or whatever. But look at the hands. It's just extremely unsettling, and I know my Canon dslr (while struggling in low light) wouldn't ever make such a monstrosity.

Do you ever find yourself resorting to B&W when you can't salvage the colors in a picture due to light?

The best example I can think of is outdoor photo shoots. I see plenty of photographers who either due to bad luck or retardation end up doing photo shoots in very boring/unflattering natural light which results in very bad looking pictures, in which there isn't much to do to salvage it. I really don't have a clue as to what the average person thinks of B&W, there must be a reason as to why these photographers would rather post their poorly lit and edited pictures instead of just removing that variable entirely. Thoughts? How can one avoid this problem if you want to shoot with natural light? Is it just luck?

Why do we hate him so bad?

Yes, I am shilling my own bags here as biz would have said it. Why you might ask? Well I am glad you asked.
>Normies and hipsters don't know about Konica yet
>Copal shutter that works without battery
>Looks cool
>Often bundled with excellent glass (50mm F1.7, 40mm F1.8, 28mm F3.5)
>Readily available
>Sellers don't know how to check for functionality, lots of them on the market as "for parts" bundled with easily serviceable glass that makes it a low risk. Usually it is just a battery change that is needed, perhaps a spray with contact cleaner in the battery compartment.
>Can swap leatherette for bright colors thus making them more appealing for women
I feel like they are underrated for what they are compared to other cameras of the era that are often riddled with common faults such as the Olympus OM-1 for instance with its foam that disintegrates in the viewfinder causing black spots that needs complicated servicing to fix. Then there is the AE-1 which is reliant on the electronics to work in order to fire and lots of those are kicking the bucket as we speak etc.
I may have overlooked something, but I am a retard after all. Feel free to point out flaws in my reasoning.

Is the Ansel Adams trilogy relevant for digital shooting?

It is quite literally ni-kon
Not this fucking Nigh-kon bullshit, which I have no idea where it started
Nikon are a japanese company, therefore the prononciation is ni ko n
There is no debate