The Sigma SLR Strategy?

[scottburgess]

Many company moves make sense to me, but I still haven't figured out why Sigma is still producing their Foveon-based SLR bodies, or for that matter any SLR bodies of their own.

Do they believe they will eventually win substantial market share in SLR bodies with so many stronger players? Do they mainly want to hang on to potentially valuable patents in case of industry contraction? Is there a solid future for the Foveon sensor, and is this the best way to use it?

I'm not knocking Sigma here. I think they are arguably the most successful of the independent lens makers and as such can probably continue making a decent living. But what precisely is the value derived from making their own SLR lineup?

Someone please help me understand this one.

 

[ScottyP]

Maybe they think their improved lenses, and their mount-switching service could drive buyers to their camera offerings. So far I have not heard it is working. I think they have a lot of negatives to overcome with the Foveon. You get a file that is 3x larger to store and work with, without achieving the resolution you'd get from tripling the megapixels in a normal way, and they bog the processor down so badly they get a slow FPS. Hard to see the advantage so far.

It's hard not to think they might do better going with the more traditional sensor, perhaps even one purchased from Sony, ala Nikons strategy.

If they want to continue to be innovative in a little different, they should copy Fuji's non-Bayer sensor strategy instead.

 

[ajfotofilmagem]

I think Sigma need to partner with another company that has manufacturing technology, to improve the Foveon sensor. This could result in cameras with color depth greater than the Bayer pattern, even if you continue with resolution and noise worse. Sigma have a camera for photographing fashion shoots, macro, and other applications where fast AF and firing in bursts is not necessary. Those who have missed the color positive film, have a digital camera tailored to your needs. It is clear that not just have a great sensor, and ergonomics of the Sigma cameras need drastic improvements.

 

[9VIII]

The latest foveon sensor actually doesn't triple the effective resolution, only doubling it instead by alternating the red and green sensels.

If they could specifically manage solid AF with their own lens and body combination, while bringing the UI and overall body specs to a more competitive level, I would consider getting a Sigma body to run Sigma glass. The glass is certainly up to par right now.

 

[Hillsilly]

I've read many reviews where people state they love the look of the Sigma images. Ignoring MP claims, high initial prices etc, I wouldn't knock a company for having a go at the SLR market, especially if they have different ideas and technology to use.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

If they could specifically manage solid AF with their own lens and body combination, while bringing the UI and overall body specs to a more competitive level, I would consider getting a Sigma body to run Sigma glass. The glass is certainly up to par right now.

+1

 

[Albi86]

I think it would be nice if we started seeing 3rd party camera makers.

Patents for EF and F mounts are long gone. Blackmagic already makes cameras in EF mount.

I would love to have a Sigma camera with a FF Foveon sensor that takes Canon glass.

I would love a Zeiss camera especially designed around ZE/ZF lenses.

For smaller companies that have limited revenues in camera sales, it could be an interesting option.

 

[Rienzphotoz]

I think it would be nice if we started seeing 3rd party camera makers.

Patents for EF and F mounts are long gone. Blackmagic already makes cameras in EF mount.

I would love to have a Sigma camera with a FF Foveon sensor that takes Canon glass.

I would love a Zeiss camera especially designed around ZE/ZF lenses.

For smaller companies that have limited revenues in camera sales, it could be an interesting option.

+1