Joseph S Wisniewski
Forum Pro
Not "any argument". There are many arguments that are perfectly valid.
Bary mentioned both the "non standard crop size" and "less lenses". Let's look at "less lenses" first.
Any Sigma lens you can get for Sigma mount can be had in Nikon or Canon mount, cheaper and easier. I routinely shoot a Sigma 30mm f1.4 on my Nikons. In many countries, you simply can't get a Sigma mount lens in a store. In some countries, you can't even get one mail order, without ordering from another country, paying for international shipping, and having to get it through customs. Now, Sigma has greatly improved in recent years, but their quality control is still not up to Nikon or Canon levels. It's not uncommon to have to "cherry pick". You want to be able to try a few lenses in the store, find one that performs well. You can do this in Nikon or Canon mount.
And there are so many lenses you can get in Nikon or Canon mount that you can't get in Sigma mount. There's not a single Sigma lens that has a look I like for portraits. The 105mm macro has a harsh bokeh and manually focusing a macro with a coarse pitched helicoid is not easy for portrait use. Not to mention, with a 1.7x crop, it's a 180mm equivalent, and I seldom use that length for portraits. These days, my "ax" is an 85mm f1.4 Nikon. That's about 130mm equivalent, but both my home studio and MPW have the depth for that, and I grew up with a 135mm.
Nikon and Canon users have the bokeh and control for portraiture, and the speed for sideline sports, lenses like the 50mm f1.4 and f1.8, 85mm f1.4 or 1.2 and f1.8, 105mm f2, 135mm f2, 180mm f2. They have shift lenses, extension tubes, better teleconverters, etc.
Now, about the crop. Sigma knows that their bread and butter is the Nikon and Canon mount, with Sony and Pentax kicking in the next largest share, and their own SA mount coming in last. So, they develop lenses for the 1.5 and 1.6x crop factors. These lenses end up a little "long" on a 1.7x crop. Maybe not enough to hurt all the time, but enough to be annoying at times. The new 70mm, for example, is a 105mm equivalent for 1.5x crop cameras. that's a great, classic portrait length. On the 1.7x crop cameras, it's 119mm. Now, that may not seem like much of a difference, but it's just enough to mean that you need 12 feet from camera to subject instead of 10. Walls are hard to move.
Same thing with the wides. They've got a 10-20. That's a 15mm equivalent on Nikon 1.5x, 17mm on Sigma 1.7x. How many Sigma shooters say they use it mainly for landscapes? 20% less wide angle coverage is a big deal.
If Sigma sells enough cameras for Sigma to be happy, but not enough for Foveon to be happy, then it is not "all good". Their sensor supply may come to a grinding halt, or there may be no new sensor for the SD21 in 2008.
Quite true.
For Foveon.
And Foveon wants to be a big semiconductor company, with lofty goals.
Sigma will never reach the "average 'entry level' consumer". No shelf space, and no incentive for camera stores to push it. Their market, as it stands today, is people with special needs, generally who find them through forums like this.
--
The Pistons led the NBA, and lost in the playoffs.
The Red Wings led the NHL, and lost in the playoffs.
It's up to the Tigers now...
Leading the league, and going all the way!
Ciao!
Joe
http://www.swissarmyfork.com
