I feel like this article was written by a bot. All of its logic is skewed in a way that doesn’t make sense to someone with experience on the topic.
Does this use Panasonic or LG's OLED panel?
So, is HLG simply a standardized, cross brand log curve--kind of like Sony's Hyper Gamma?
So the benefit is that it's a standard, sort of like Rec. 709, where you can output HLG and it's automatically converted to some flavor of HDR?
But for narrative work, or work you're grading, HLG wouldn't be as good a gamma curve as the already establish curves like S-Log2/3, V-log, etc. Am I getting that right?
I can't fault Tilta for building this and charging roughly $500. It looks like they did a good job.
But spending $500 on this cage for my a6300-- instead of selling my a6300 and using that $500 to get the a6500-- would be hard to swallow. (This conflict really highlights what bad move Sony made with the a6300.)
As incredible as the image quality is out of the a6300/6500, I would be nervous to use it as an A cam for any type of event or live coverage (or long shoots like a wedding). It's the perfect gimbal camera, and a brilliant photo camera, but the over heating issue (only sort of solved on the a6500) would make me weary of using it to shoot a serious interview, for example.
If you love your still versions, then pretend like you never read this article. They are optically identical. It's even in Sigma's marketing slogan: "100%/100%," meaning 100% the same optics, 100% different lens housing (and 400% to 500% more expensive).
I don't understand why a site like "NoFilmSchool" would be plugging these lenses as "inexpensive" and a "great deal" when the $799 version of the $3,999 cine lens is optically identical. Wouldn't that be a "top tip" from a site like this? ...save $3,200 and get the "photo" version?
Also, your review implies that these cine versions had the breathing corrected (or that it's not bad as is). Did you actually test these lenses? At least read NewsShooter's review before posting your own. They had these tested in a high precision lab, and while not technically mechanically parfocal, they performed exactly as if they were.
BTW, it's hard to critique a $4K "cine lens" for having a limited zoom range because, for one, this is meant for use in a "production environment," hence the term "cine," which all implies that it's about quality, not convenience. That Sigma has produced a small T2 zoom lens that's worthy of a production environment is what's worth noting.