>>3843914> Are Sigma just eccentric weirdosYep.
Basically, the key to understanding Sigma is that they are a third-party company.
I.e., their primary business is making lenses for other manufacturers that fill niches that Canon, Nikon, Sony, etc don't want to fill. Traditionally, their #1 niche has been "Like the first-party, but way cheaper", but they've also branched out a bunch to "Shit the first-party company wouldn't bother with".
That philosophy extends to their cameras as well. They're cognizant of the fact that their cameras won't ever be the standard all-arounders that everyone else produces, so they don't make cameras that fit those niches. You won't find a Rebel-equivalent from Sigma, and you won't even find a R5-equivalent.
What you will find is a DP2 Quattro. A weird little mirrorless with a weird sensor technology no one else uses which fits a veeery specific niche and can be profitable there because no one else makes anything even vaguely similar.
If you want an entry level camera, Canon, Nikon, Pentax, Sony, Olympus, and Fuji are happy to sell you one of those. If you want a camera without a Foveon-type sensor, you have to go to Sigma.
So it's similar with their full frame cameras. Why the hell would you buy a hypothetical regular Sigma mirrorless over an EOS R, Nikon Z, Sony E, Leica L, or Panasonic Lumix S? You wouldn't, unless they could make it super cheap, and they don't have the economies of scale to go after *any* of them on price.
But what if you wanted the absolute smallest full frame mirrorless on the market? Something you could easily use as the centerpiece of a professional video rig by putting it in a cage with a bunch of other accessories? Well, that's a niche no one else is really serving right now. You've some super-high-end cameras similar to that with price tags in the five-digit range, and you've got the BlackMagic Pocket Cinema line, but those aren't full frame.
Boom, Sigma found its niche and slid right in.
