Hi,
I know this topic has been through before. I just want to see what
people think about it now. Perhaps I am beating a dead horse but
would SA mount be eventually phrased out? Should one stop
collecting SA-mount lenses and save up for the new 4/3 system? I
understand that Sigma would continue their SA lenses along with the
new 4/3 lenses for the time being but I would hate to spend all the
money to build a whole system of SA lenses and then they become
worthless.
It comes down to these two simple and at least non-contradictory
statements:
No, it doesn't. While your two statements are non-contradicting, they do not include all possabilities, nor are they mutually exclusive.
1) If Sigma is going to continue to make cameras they will contine
to use the SA mount.
2) If Sigma is not going to continue to make cameras they will not
continue to use the SA mount.
Point 2 is obvious. Point 1 looks at the question from a light not
often shined on the subject, which is - why is Sigma making cameras
in the first place? If the eventual goal is to become a camera
maker as large as Nikon or Canon then the only course of action
that makes sense is a unique mount, just as Canon built thier
empire on the Canon mount.
Here's the primary flaw. Canon's new mount gave them several tactical advantages compared to their old mount, or any other mount currently on the market. Although Nikon actually had an AF version of the Nikon mount on the market before Canon had EOS, and Minolta had their Maxxum/Dynax mount, it's pretty obvious that EOS was such a huge move that Canon was planning it well before the Nikon and Minolta launches.
Canon designed the EOS mount to give them a tactical advantage over every other mount on the market.
EOS is more mechanically reliable that Canon's FD "breechlock" mount, and indexes more precisely than Canon's FD, Nikon's F, or either Minoltas old or new mounts.
EOS has all the good features of every other mount: electrically operated in lens aperture mechanism (like Minolta Maxxum), electrically operated in lens focus motor (like Nikon's first system, F3-AF).
EOS is a big mount, accomodates f1.0 and f1.2 lenses much easier than the Nikon or Minolta mounts.
EOS has a reduced registration distance, which let Canon make and sell a Nikon adapter (yes, as a Canon branded part) to woo Nikon users.
The SA mount doens't offer users any advantage over any other modern mount, it's not a sales tool, it's a tool for Sigma to restrict users.
After all, did Canon grow to the size they are by using the Nikon
mount to start with?
Actually, Canon chose to "start with" Nikon making their lenses. But they grew "to the size they are" by designing a unique mount, built to do everything right.
A bonus question - If the four thirds mounts is going to be a
roaring success, why are we not all using M42 lenses today?
Ummm, because M42 doesn't accomodate autofocus, any camera control of aperture control at all (whether electrically or mechanically coupled), doesn't lock lenses in place so they can "escape", and takes three turns to mount a lens, instead of a 60 degree rotation like a 3 claw bayonette.
In short, M42 offers a lot less than people expect from a lens mount. Four-thirds, on the other hand, offers a lot more than people expect, and the things it offers will eventially become part of what people do expect. It raises the bar. The four-thirds mount offers advantages (for small sensor cameras, anyway) over every other mount on the market, including Canon's EOS.
4/3 extends the "electrically operated" concept to focus by wire and zoom by wire. The cameras has to support these protocols, although it's not mandatory for lenses to support either of them: Oly 4/3 lenses support focus by wire, Oly lenses don't, and neither support zoom by wire.
4/3 adds a storage area to each lens for abberation correction parameters, so a camera can use this data internally to correct images, or carry it through to the raw file for later processing.
4/3 has a 2 way communication protocol, so a lens's chip can be flashed, by the user in the field. No more sending lenses back to Sigma to be "rechipped" when a new camera breaks the AF ballistics parameters.
Basically in my mind the whole camera industry is in flux and I
don't think you can yet call a long-term winner. It's like looking
into a hurricane and prediciting a particular cat flying through
the air will wind up on a roof or up a tree.
--
---> Kendall
http://www.pbase.com/kgelner
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/user_home
http://www.kigiphoto.com/Gallery
--
Detroit Reds Wings - Original Six Hockey with Motown Style!
Twentyone, eight, and two, we're back on track!
Ottawa is a fluke, the cup is coming home to Detroit!
Detroit Pistons - Fifteen and Three!
Number 1 in the NBA!
Detroit Lions - Third from the bottom, and we will take it!
Four and nine, even when when we lose, we do it right.
(I remember the 'good old days' of the net, when any signature over four lines was considered 'rude')
Ciao!
Joe
http://www.swissarmyfork.com 
