I think the Foveon+Sigma story is an excellent example of how camera BODY and its functionality overall is significantly more important than just the sensor.
That might be true, but then that's why I like to purchase the sensor in Sigma's smaller and less costly DP series body (or I should say "camera"). Certainly the initial price of the SD-1 was absurd, and a bit of a fiasco...and the current SD Merrill is still not enough camera for the money.
And certainly Sigma makes very few lenses that are capable of making full use of the Merrill sensor's resolution. Perhaps the new 35mm f/1.4, and a couple of their superteles...Again, that's why I like to purchase the DP series camera, because their lenses can and do impart the full resolution onto the sensor.
But I thought this discussion was really more about the sensor itself, rather than a convenient opportunity to slam Sigma for producing less than competitive DSLR's...So it's kind of sad that it has suddenly gone in that direction.
Please, don't assume you know my intent, and don't put words in my mouth. I was not being opportunistic or gleeful about the option to slam Sigma, I was simply stating a fact. The FACT is, they produce an inferior DSLR. It isn't a slam, I am not sadistically getting a rise for bringing the point up. It's just a fact (even according to DPReview, the SD-1 is a real mixed bag, and has some very glaring flaws, quirky dial functionality, etc.) I know certain people like them, but numbers speak loudly, and if Sigma's cameras were better, the numbers would speak to that. The people I know who own Sigma DSLRs own them for the sole purpose of having Foveon. Few ever really bring up the body features or functionality unless the discussion takes a turn for the worse, and they enter full blown defensive mode. Interestingly, but not really surprisingly, nearly every single person I know who owns a Sigma DSLR with a Foveon is a landscape photographer, with one who does portraiture.
In the current flow of discussion, a point was made about why Sigma's Foveon isn't selling because the technology is inferior for one reason or another. I simply wanted to point out that it is less likely that the technology is inferior in general (it most certainly has its strengths, and it excels where it is strong), but Sigma isn't really the company that can bring Foveon to full bear on the market against giants like Nikon, Canon, and Sony. The truly SAD thing is that it is Sigma who owns Foveon, and that they can't seem to execute it's success. Again...I'm not opportunistically trying to bash Sigma here...its just an empirical fact (something based on years of observing Sigma fumble around with their priceless Foveon football, and never really making it, nor the camera bodies that house it, into the end zone...to my own dismay, I might add.)