Designing something beautiful is one thing. Designing something that is also beautifully functional is a rarity. Why has it been left to the minnows to show the big boys how it’s done?
Sigma has just unveiled the remarkable BF, a gorgeous, clean-lined full frame camera that has taken minimalism beyond what anyone thought possible. It features a large LCD on the back (notably, one that doesn’t articulate or fold out) and a control dial. Nothing strange so far. The physical buttons, however, are something a bit different. One of the three is for power, leaving just two buttons for everything else. It’s a bold move given that, unlike the Hasselblad X2D, it doesn’t hold back on the video features. Clearly, it’s not for everyone, but there’s nothing else like it on the market.
You can make a similar argument for Hasselblad. The Swedes have a sense of style like no other, as their furniture design (and prices) will testify, so it was no surprise to see the company create an interface that made the shortcomings of almost every other camera on the market painfully clear. Only Leica comes close, but again, they don’t have to worry too much about video functionality.

You can get an idea of the menu on the BF in this short video from Gordon Laing. Sigma has given the industry a lesson in minimalist design, not just with the clean lines of the aluminum body but also by creating a menu system that doesn't make you want to gouge your eyes out with a fork.
Where Is the Japanese Design Ethos?
Photographers have grumbled about menu systems for years, and manufacturers were content to let these complaints go largely unanswered, feeling no real pressure to make people’s lives easier. For years, we’ve been punished by ugly, confusing layouts, with Sony apparently determined to produce the most labyrinthine and offensive menu system its developers could muster. Photographers' sensibilities simply didn’t deserve consideration—pick a horrific font, stick white text on a black background, choose a hierarchy by throwing broken darts at a list of weirdly abbreviated terms, and then forget about it for ten years. The logic was that cameras could be thoughtfully designed, but the menu systems could remain a shambles. Given how this contradicts the Japanese design ethos, I’ve long been dumbfounded as to why so few seemed to care about this.
Five years ago, I asked whether it was time for manufacturers to ditch buttons and dials and just use a massive LCD touchscreen instead. The comments were a resounding “no freaking way,” which makes sense for most cameras for two reasons: first, it’s not practical, however good a touchscreen might be; second, people like buttons, as further suggested by Sigma’s use of haptic buttons on the back of the BF. Getting rid of buttons makes no sense for the overwhelming majority of use cases, and yet minimalism has its place.
Photographers Deserve Better
Every time I moan about camera menus and poor design, there are people in the comments saying that it doesn’t matter and that once you’ve set up your camera, you rarely have to dive into it. For some, the experience of using a tool doesn’t matter, but for others, like me, the feeling of using something beautiful enhances the image-making experience and shapes the way I create photos. Some camera manufacturers get this; others don’t. Sigma’s line of lenses started to give a hint of this a few years ago, understanding that a non-mechanical aperture ring doesn’t have to feel non-mechanical.
Of course, a tool is a tool; if something is functional, that’s often enough. And, to a degree, those who don’t see any value in pleasing design are right. However, just because cameras can be ugly doesn’t mean all cameras have to be ugly. Simply because menus can be a horrific pit of abbreviations, gaudy colors, and badly designed icons doesn’t mean we don’t deserve better. Thank you, Sigma, for showing us what’s possible.
As usual, let me know your thoughts in the comments below.
Asthetics are OK, but form must follow function. The Sigma looks nice, but, well, nope. No EVF? Really?
Sigma won't be putting any other manufacturers to shame unless they sell a boatload of the BFs. The BF seems more like a vanity product than something photographers are clamoring for.
I think it’s fair to add Leica as a sample of perfect design, especially if we are talking about the whole experience.
I watched the video and simple is simple! Remember when Sony came out with Mod 1's followed by the Mod 2's with IBIS and both with on camera apps that most edited in camera! How long did it take others makers to go mirrorless? If anyone has noticed there is a move for point and shoots cameras as well as film camera AND the most important people not so much photographers have time for editing so jpeg capture and in auto mode.
I have a nephew who is a massive traveler and can and has many of the most expensive cameras but small is his desire, He captures in Auto and carries just a few lenses if only one at a time. He is a geek of a computer person and has the best of the best computer but still edits nothing.
And I will be honest I still use and have two "FUJIFILM WP Z" always in one of my vehicles with a charger and in each case a handful of SD card (hard to find today. For times without one of my several Sony cameras, with it's tripod screw on point it is the perfect dash cam for video of a sunset or snapping a shot with no time to stop, ever drive winding roads in forest during fall colors or out west at sunset time or a rising moon you did not would be there. Oh! waterproof also so going into the surf or out fishing or hunting wait in the dark and hear something and the flash you can see and with no room for the big camera. Hey it works after all these years and images are even great.
My point is any camera will do they are all great because todays SW will edit and enlarge to any size. As long as one leans to operate it, it will last again forever as my old film Ftb with a case of every lens made back in the day as well as the unknown prism filters and hey Kodak is back to a 7 day 24 hour 3 shifts making film again, like I say forever!
We are like scientist and the lab is anywhere and everywhere nature puts on it big SHOW!!
1. after a hurricane had video with the FUJIFILM WP Z in wind and rain.
2. film of me on way home from desert storm, took photos of all my men on det no cruse books on small boys.
3. At USS Arizona 2006 captured faces in oil years before someone made a big deal of theirs.
4. Yes I still play with film no do not process send to Kodak like the old days I can wait.
For me; the A7Cr is perfect. Leica-like manual rangefinder experience when I want it for street or the best auto-focus available when you need it for portraits. 61 MP gives you plenty of room to crop and re-frame after. I have no beard, so I cannot get a Hasselblad 😂
Debating between the a7Cr or embracing my inner Hasselblad owner and growing a beard. Tough call.
At the risk of posting a serious response, I look at cameras and consider what they offer for the cost. Leica and Hasselblad simply are far too expensive and don't offer anything I can't get from the Sony cameras I own. The fact I have a Sony charger and extra batteries is also an additional cost I won't need either and both Leica and Hasselblad's chargers and batteries are very expensive.
I've never been able to grow a decent beard, so I have an A7Cr. Love it, too. Moved from another brand to lighten my kit...success.
Exercises in how to produce an artsy-fartsy device are a waste of time and resources, IMESHO. For me, any camera must have the ergonomics down right for my hands. When I go to buy a camera, the first thing I do is review the specs. If that camera has the qualities and functions that I require, I'll go to my dealer and "try it on". If it fits my hands right, there will likely be a sale. If not, it gets crossed off my list and we move on to the next candidate. The BF is most definitely NOT a serious candidate in my world.
I adore the design of the sigma, couldn't do without a viewfinder though. The Hasselblad is a piece of art and would love to own and use one, but out of my budget ( do have a beard and drink coffee). I don't think the Canon cameras are ugly, I like the smooth and ergonomic design. Really don't like the design of OM or the fuji X series, with all those dials sticking out. And yes they are just tools, and beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
When I look at the pictures of the Sigma BF, I don't think it is beautiful. I have never seen any camera that I thought was beautiful. Never seen a pair of pliers or an oil filter or a deadbold door lock or a lug wrench that I thought was beautiful, either. These things are all tools and equipment, and so are cameras. If someone thinks of a camera as somehow not belonging in the same category as other tools, then they are misguided.
Ah. The 'my world view is the only correct world view' world view. Nonsense, of course.
I am not talking at all about my view of the world. Just my view of what a camera is. It is odd and wrong to turn one small thing into a broad, sweeping generalization.
"It is odd and wrong to turn one small thing into a broad, sweeping generalization."
"If someone thinks of a camera as somehow not belonging in the same category as other tools, then they are misguided."
🤣
I find it odd that you quoted those two statements of mine.
There is no inconsistency whatsoever in those two statements.
I did not say, or imply, that those people are misguided in a broad sense. They are misguided in the single area of how they think about cameras.
Did you somehow jump to some conclusion that I meant something more, or different, than what I actually typed?
Maybe the hipsters will appreciate these cameras though for anyone who shoots sports or wildlife, we need cameras which function.
Agree. When the main buzz about a camera is what it looks like, and not about how it functions, then that seems like a problem to me. A camera is a tool. It is not "more than a tool". No, it isn't.
A camera is a tool in exactly the same way that a pipewrench or a voltage meter or a pair of scissors is a tool. The people who use those tools never talk about or care about what those things look like, so why do some photographers care about what their cameras look like? It's just weird and misguided thinking.
Is a car a tool?
Absolutely. I have always seen a car as a tool, and only a tool. In fact, my car is the most important, and most useful, tool that I own. Followed by my computer, which is followed by my camera & lenses.
This is why I never bother to fix any cosmetic damage such as scratches, dents, rips in the upholstery, etc. My car does everything it needs to do just as well with scratches and dents as it does without scratches and dents, so why do anything about the imperfections?
My car's job is to transport me and all of my gear all round the country, and it does quite a bit of that. On Thursday morning I leave Washington state and drive my car all the way to Pennsylvania. It will be carrying me and all of my photography gear and my camping gear and other necessities. It has a big job to do!
Below is a pic of the car I had from 2011 to 2017. It is transporting an orchard ladder that I painted camouflage, and mounted a ballhead on top of, so that the ladder acts like a 12 foot tall tripod for photographing woodpecker nests up higher in the trees. One tool carrying another tool! You may notice that I also cut away the body material in the front so that it wouldn't get hung up on the brush when I drive it off road.
The other pic is the car I had from 2006 to 2011. It shows a steel bracket that I made and welded up and bolted thru the driver's door. The bracket is made to hold a Wimberley head with a big telephoto lens and camera body. This was before the days of good high ISO performance and modern image stabilization, and having such a bracket to hold everything stable allowed me to get much better pics than I could have gotten with one of those beanbags that were so popular back in those days.
For you, a car is purely functional. I get that. However, do you understand that some people enjoy the process of driving, and feel that cars are more than just tools to get you from A to B?
Yes, Andy, I do understand that many people think of cars as being more than they actually are. Some people think of cameras as being more than they actually are, too. Sentimental attachments and "feelings" have a way of clouding our perception.
I myself enjoy the process of driving, as I drive over 30,000 miles every year, mostly because I want to, not because I have to. Road tripping (in search of wildlife) is my obsession and the love of my life!
I understand that having a tool that looks nice or feels nice gives some people greater enjoyment when using the tool. That's fine. Our feelings do matter a little, I suppose. But a tool does not need to look nice or feel luxurious in order for it to do its job.
Hipsters like old film cameras and complaining about how much film costs 😉.
Looking nice, new aesthetics...
Ok, I need to hold it with my hands, possibly wearing gloves.. so Sigma is a bi no go for me.
Direct access button is a must, sorry.
I completely agree that bringing mobile photographers back to dedicated cameras will require more than just packing in features. For many, form matters just as much as function—maybe even more. Cameras like the Sigma BF and Fujifilm X100VI show that great design can be just as compelling as technical specs.
I love the minimalist aesthetic of the Sigma BF, but the lack of IBIS and its commitment to the L-mount make it a tough sell for me. I need to be able to leverage my E-mount investment. As much as I appreciate what Sigma has done here, I can’t justify a system switch just for the design.
That said, this article makes a great point about how long camera manufacturers have ignored the user experience. Sigma’s clean menu system is a breath of fresh air. Sony’s menus have long been notoriously bad, and it’s wild to think how little effort was put into making them intuitive for so long. More manufacturers should be thinking holistically about design, not just performance. A beautiful tool enhances the creative experience, and photography should always feel good in the hands.
Paul Tocatlian
Kisau Photography
www.kisau.com
Preach Andy!
https://www.uxdesigninstitute.com/blog/10-user-interface-guidelines/ << Why can't the designers at ANY of the Japanese camera companies just read and follow this??
Seriously, look through that guide and think about how many of the rules are broken by EVERY Canon/Nikon/Sony/Fuji/Lumix/OM camera.
There's this survivorship bias where everyone currently interested in traditional cameras is comfortable with the absolutely apalling UI, and thus most camera buyers don't complain about it. But cameras will never attract a new, younger audience. If they do, the buyer will be frustrated, and either not configure their camera ideally or likely abandon it for easier alternatives.
I can't think what UI 'improvements' would truly make my experience taking photos any better though. I don't need a touchscreen and once I've navigated through a menu system, I just map what I need to the custom menu and buttons and dials. As long as the camera doesn't get in the way when I'm taking photos, that's all that matters. I gave up years ago wanting design improvements in cameras and just make the best of what we are provided. For me, life is too short and every minute contemplating camera improvements (which we may never get) is one less minute concentrating on taking photos.
Great points, Sam
The photos are the things that matter, not the tool that we use to make them with.
There's a reason why our obsession is called "photography" and not "cameraography".
Thanks, Tony!
For me it's like sitting down to write with a pen. If I choose a biro, I can write the same story, and of course the story is the thing that matter, but picking up a fountain pen is a different experience that makes writing enjoyable and makes me excited to use it. Some people don't understand or appreciate that difference, and that's fine. Maybe their world is smaller or something. But that lack of comprehension doesn't mean that the rest of us have to be punished.
Andy,
There is no need for you to be disrespectful and insult people who feel differently than you do about using tools and instruments. We do not have a "smaller world". We do not "lack comprehension".
By writing in such a belittling way, you are basically saying that if people do not prioritize the feeling they get by using a certain grade of tool, then they are somehow less intelligent or less aware or less refined than other people. You are not a little bit of a cut above others, because you prioritize the tactile feel or the appearance of tools. Your life is not being lived at a little higher level than others, because you appreciate the feel and appearance of tools over their function. You are no better than those who choose to prioritize function over form.
No need to be so sensitive! You said people who like nice things are "misguided". I asked whether people who don't like nice things have a smaller world. Seems pretty even to me.
I didn't say, or mean, that people who appreciate a camera's form over its function are misguided in an overall sense. They are only misguided about their feelings concerning cameras.
You seem to be making broader, more sweeping statements about people who prefer function over form, as an overall statement encompassing the way they think feel about many things, not just cameras.
I very much appreciate nice things.
I go to art galleries and study the theory behind the pieces that are on exhibit. I read fine literature by some of the all-time "classic" authors. I collect art of various mediums ... as I type this to you I am looking at a carving that sits on my desk ... it is a carving of an eskimo pulling a toboggan ... it is carved out of stone, by an Inuit artist, and it is sublime.
I do not have a particularly small world, either socially or geographically. I attend countless meetings and presentations about wildlife and environmental conservation. I travel all across the US every year, photographing wildlife in dozens of states annually, and making friends all around the country as I find people with common interests. I have gotten interested in birding within the past year, and am actively working to expand my "life list" of species observed in North America - this gets me out and about even more than I was previously. I have friends and family on the east coast, as well as on the west coast, and I spend a lot of time with all of them, trekking back and forth across the continent regularly. This does not seem like a small world to me, especially considering the size of the US relative to most of the world's other nations.
But I make a distinction between functional items and those that are made simply to be "nice things". If something is supposed to perform a function, then I think that it should be all about function. If something is supposed to look good, then it should look good. But to mix the two things is something that I do not do. I understand it, but I disagree with it. Just because someone does not like something, or does not choose something, does not mean that they don't "get it".
I'll take form and usability over meaningless aesthetics any day. I also value the photographs and my days out trying to find new interesting compositions over how pretty cameras look. It is also no wonder companies that try to differentiate themselves from the tried and tested 'boring' designs usually fail as they forget how to make these cameras practical for everyday use plus usually charge too much for them anyway - the Zeiss ZX1 springs to mind here.
I recently purchased a camera. It didn't take me long to turn off all the touch screen functions and a couple of very annoying buttons.
I have never used touch screen functions on a camera, and I hope I never have to. I do not want to have to use my mud-and-grease-and-sticky sap-covered fingers (or heavily glove-clad fingers) to determine which functions are selected.
I’m very curious which camera has annoying buttons.
I can go with Tom about dirty fingers or thick gloves don’t work on a touch screen. But I rather like my touch screen. It’s not necessary to use it, but it’s quicker and I personally like it, you clearly don’t and that’s fair.
The Q Menu button on Fuji Cameras. Too easy to hit. Outrageously annoying.