SD1 at $6800 should be full frame

David Ahn · Jul 28, 2011

$6800 could have been defended if the SD1 had:

Full Frame sensor
Fully state of the art screen, not 460K.
Faster processing speed (more processors, faster flash memory, etc.)
All parts top of the line
Obsessive attention to detail (just the right resistance to every dial, etc.)

Then they could have made an SD45 exactly like the current SD1, at $1600-2000, how much the current SD1 should have cost.

The price wasn't the mistake, the mistake was trying to sell a mid-price camera at flagship prices. Everyone has a flagship product that appeals to a small group of cost is no object types, but those buyers aren't impressed by the SD1's build quality and only a few crazies with more money than sense will actually buy the SD1.

David

Poweruser · Jul 28, 2011

David Ahn said:
$6800 could have been defended if the SD1 had:

Full Frame sensor
Fully state of the art screen, not 460K.
Faster processing speed (more processors, faster flash memory, etc.)
All parts top of the line
Obsessive attention to detail (just the right resistance to every dial, etc.)

Then they could have made an SD45 exactly like the current SD1, at $1600-2000, how much the current SD1 should have cost.

The price wasn't the mistake, the mistake was trying to sell a mid-price camera at flagship prices. Everyone has a flagship product that appeals to a small group of cost is no object types, but those buyers aren't impressed by the SD1's build quality and only a few crazies with more money than sense will actually buy the SD1.

David

Where have you been the last weeks?

Truman Prevatt · Jul 28, 2011

Pretty much right on the target. Non FF sensors at that price are a non-starter. Comparing a ASP sensor to a medium format sensor is a not started because it is a joke.
Just look at the LL review.

Sigma shot itself in both feet on this camera release. Given Sigma's 2 to 4 year development cycle - the SD1 which if sold at what it was which is an ASP sensor camera with minimal features but good image quality compared to other ASP cameras would have done well.

Given we probably won't see another Sigma DSLR for 3 + - years - Sigma has blown off both it's feet up to the knee.

--
Truman
http://www.pbase.com/tprevatt

David Ahn · Jul 28, 2011

Poweruser said:
Where have you been the last weeks?

Sorry, photography is just one of my passions.

I searched "full" (for full frame) in the last 3 weeks of thread titles, but nothing. I read the last few days' worth of discussions about the pricing fiasco, but complaints are mostly 1) price too high (duh), 2) complaints about certain specs, and 3) mentions of a lower spec'ed version of the SD1, but I didn't see any topics specifically about what the DP1 SHOULD have been.

Also, to those hoping for a lower spec'ed version at 7D prices: I can't see them watering the specs down further... to create what, an entry level model priced as a midrange to add to their midrange model priced as a flagship? That would really round out a completely failed product range.

Tom Schum · Jul 28, 2011

Truman Prevatt said:
Given we probably won't see another Sigma DSLR for 3 + - years - Sigma has blown off both it's feet up to the knee.

On the other hand, it might just turn out that this incredible SD1 image quality will turn a lot of people into Sigma camera buyers.

I think the SD1 pricing was off-base, but real connoisseurs are paying attention now. This could be good for Sigma in the long run.
--
Tom Schum

David Ahn · Jul 28, 2011

Truman Prevatt said:
Given we probably won't see another Sigma DSLR for 3 + - years - Sigma has blown off both it's feet up to the knee.

I think they're using a common technique in the video card industry: release a state of the art product at a ridiculous price for those who can't wait and are willing to pay the price, then a few months later, lower prices for those who are less dedicated.

This tactic will likely backfire. Rabid Sigma fans may either overpay now or wait for prices to drop, but others like me who have been waiting for the SD1 to buy in will find it difficult to justify. It's very likely Sigma's plan is to lower prices when the 5D Mk III is released, which will make it a tough decision, but Canon's high ISO performance and refinement will likely make it hard for Sigma to sell the SD1 to anyone but hardcore Foveon devotees.

Lin Evans · Jul 28, 2011

David Ahn wrote:
less dedicated.

David Ahn said:
snip..... It's very likely Sigma's plan is to lower prices when the 5D Mk III is released, which will make it a tough decision, but Canon's high ISO performance and refinement will likely make it hard for Sigma to sell the SD1 to anyone but hardcore Foveon devotees.

Why? High ISO performance doesn't equate to image quality. The IQ of lower ISO on the SD1 is already superior to the 24 megapixel Nikon and 24 megapixel Sony - why would one expect Canon to be any different?

Until AA filters are removed from contemporary CFA sensors, there will be little improvement in IQ at 36x24 mm in terms of optical resolution. The SD1 already out-resolves the 24 mp CFA cameras and adding even six megapixels to the existing sensors without removing the AA filter is not likely to make much difference in optical resolution. At this point it's primarily a "marketing game" to make higher pixel count sensors. My 16 megapixel Nikon D7000 produces essentially the same optical resolution (ignoring extinction resolution) as the 24 megapixel D3X. If an 8 megapixel increase (16 to 24) results in no significant improvement, it's unlikely that another six will help in any meaningful way.

Best regards,

Lin
--
learntomakeslidshows.net

richard stone · Jul 28, 2011

My favorite line on this sort of issue is the line in Adventures in the Screen Trade, by William Goldman: "Nobody knows anything." This is in relation to trying to predict how well a movie will do, but it has some connection, in my view, to this Sigma situation.

Richard
--
My small gallery: http://www.pbase.com/richard44/inbox

SandyF · Jul 28, 2011

We've known for what, a year (seems that way at least) that the SD1 wasn't going to be full frame.

The price was the mistake.

Not the specs, not the sensor.

Let's hope that Sigma can find some face saving way to get the price down or another SD14/15 follow up camera out to market in a reasonable time frame. By reasonable, maybe next year. (?) I'm hoping we'll know more by CES/PMA next January, maybe out by Photokina ... or at least prototypes.... if they cannot simply reduce the SD1 price to something we (most of us) will buy.

Best regards, Sandy
http://www.pbase.com/sandyfleischman (archival)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/sandyfleischmann (current)

David Ahn · Jul 28, 2011

SandyF said:
The price was the mistake.

Not the specs, not the sensor.

You're preaching to the choir, my friend. I think if you reread my original post, you'll see I'm saying the same thing you're saying... just a different way: the SD1 should have been the mid-price product (which you're saying), the $6800 price tag should have been attached to A DIFFERENT PRODUCT: full frame, higher end finishes. In other words, an imaginary product they DIDN'T actually make.

I was fighting two ideas: that the SD1 is somehow worth $6800 (which everyone agrees on), and that Sigma should make a "junior" version of the current SD1; the SD1 IS the junior version of the $6800 product they SHOULD have made.

RKGoth · Jul 28, 2011

David Ahn said:
$6800 could have been defended if the SD1 had:

Full Frame sensor

Who wouldn't love that. But really, if the DR and resolution is up to scratch, why demand full frame?

David Ahn said:
Fully state of the art screen, not 460K.

It's not relevant. Nice, but even Hasselblad have only just moved to VGA res on the 60Mp models.

David Ahn said:
Faster processing speed (more processors, faster flash memory, etc.)

More processors? It's already matching the pipelines of the best systems.

David Ahn said:
All parts top of the line

Interesting. Like what?

David Ahn said:
Obsessive attention to detail (just the right resistance to every dial, etc.)

The body is lovely; I think a lot of people see it, and think it's going to feel like an SD10. It doesn't.

David Ahn said:
The price wasn't the mistake, the mistake was trying to sell a mid-price camera at flagship prices. Everyone has a flagship product that appeals to a small group of cost is no object types, but those buyers aren't impressed by the SD1's build quality and only a few crazies with more money than sense will actually buy the SD1.

Eh, I'm not about to argue that for market relevance and volume sales, the price is right. It's clearly not. However, it's not a poor quality product. Not even close.

Leica M9s have a low res screen, a slightly cheap feeling switch set (they're functional; I'd like a row of metal dots rather than plastic) and until the P model, there was no option for the sapphire glass screen unless you got the £20K Titanium model. However, they - like the SD1 - offer something unique in terms of their image creation and quality.

Don't speculate until you've tried one, and if you've tried one you should be able to explain which of the points above affected your use of the camera. I know there are things on the SD1 I'd like to improve, but you haven't touched on them there.

--
GeekGoth, Writer
http://www.geextreme.com/
P30/Nikon/Sigma/Olympus/Fuji
Music, cars (Citroën mostly), computing, media

David Ahn · Jul 29, 2011

RKGoth said:
Who wouldn't love that. But really, if the DR and resolution is up to scratch, why demand full frame?

1. Market position: every flagship DSLR has FF sensor.

2. FF = more light captured from FF lenses, brighter viewfinder. Larger pixels = more usable light for the sensor.

RKGoth said:
RKGoth said:

Fully state of the art screen, not 460K.

Click to expand...

It's not relevant. Nice, but even Hasselblad have only just moved to VGA res on the 60Mp models.

Maybe not to you. But it's relevant because many prosumer DSLRs have better screens, and EVERY flagship model does.

RKGoth said:
More processors? It's already matching the pipelines of the best systems.

5 fps x 7 frames? Then 1 1/2 minutes to write those to the card? How does that "match the pipeline of the best systems"?

MR @LL states: "A five frame bracket takes just over a MINUTE (emphasis mine) to write to the card... the Sony A900 can write seven files to the same card in 7 SECONDS.

RKGoth said:
Eh, I'm not about to argue that for market relevance and volume sales, the price is right. It's clearly not. However, it's not a poor quality product. Not even close.

So you don't think it's nice enough to justify the price, but I can't ask for nicer build quality? I can't wait to try it out, but MR @LL says "It's a decent APS-C camera with mid-level built quality; at about the $1,000 level."

RKGoth said:
Don't speculate until you've tried one, and if you've tried one you should be able to explain which of the points above affected your use of the camera. I know there are things on the SD1 I'd like to improve, but you haven't touched on them there.

My post never claimed to be a hands-on review of the SD1, but merely musings on the pricing decision. Simply that one must bring their A game and not just their A price. That the SD1 is either the wrong price or the wrong product.

I really wanted one... at $1500-2000. Even at that price I'm quite put off by the GLACIAL write times and lack of multitasking (accessing menus while writing files for OVER A MINUTE). At this point I'm waiting for v2 at a reasonable price, or if I get rich in the next year, the version I originally posted about: FF and top-drawer.

yvind Strm · Jul 29, 2011

RKGoth said:
David Ahn said:

$6800 could have been defended if the SD1 had:

Full Frame sensor

Click to expand...

Who wouldn't love that. But really, if the DR and resolution is up to scratch, why demand full frame?

RKGoth said:

Fully state of the art screen, not 460K.

Click to expand...

It's not relevant. Nice, but even Hasselblad have only just moved to VGA res on the 60Mp models.

Of course it is relevant.
Depending on what you compare to:

a DSLR, it is clearly lacking behind.
a Medium Format camera (if you buy into Sigmas Market hype), you need to consider that MFs has a viewfinder size that is useful for manual focusing. For pro studio work you would want to check the image on the lcd with the SD-1 (even if you have to wait 18 seconds).

RKGoth said:
RKGoth said:

Faster processing speed (more processors, faster flash memory, etc.)

Click to expand...

More processors? It's already matching the pipelines of the best systems.

Really? It must be the slowest DSLR in history. And way slower than the MF cameras.

A Hasselblad can keep up at 1.1 frame per second. A SD-1 is 1 frame every 18 seconds.

Heck, I could shoot 2-3 rolls of 35mm film with my Nikon F3 before the SD-1 had cleared a full buffer of 7 shots.
Add to this that you cannot change settings during the write time....

It's so slow that it is practically unusable for ANY pro work.

RKGoth said:
RKGoth said:

All parts top of the line

Click to expand...

Interesting. Like what?

AF?
LCD?
Viewfinder? Dark, and only 96%. Not changeable.
Only Matte screen. Focusing screen not changeable.
Shutter? only 100K MTF?
Battery? Top of the line?
Only one CF-card?
Processing/write time?

On the SW side:
Limiting WB possibilities?
Non configurable mini-shut down?
No liveview
No tethering

RKGoth said:
RKGoth said:

Obsessive attention to detail (just the right resistance to every dial, etc.)

Click to expand...

The body is lovely; I think a lot of people see it, and think it's going to feel like an SD10. It doesn't.

RKGoth said:

The price wasn't the mistake, the mistake was trying to sell a mid-price camera at flagship prices. Everyone has a flagship product that appeals to a small group of cost is no object types, but those buyers aren't impressed by the SD1's build quality and only a few crazies with more money than sense will actually buy the SD1.

Click to expand...

Eh, I'm not about to argue that for market relevance and volume sales, the price is right. It's clearly not. However, it's not a poor quality product. Not even close.

Leica M9s have a low res screen, a slightly cheap feeling switch set (they're functional; I'd like a row of metal dots rather than plastic) and until the P model, there was no option for the sapphire glass screen unless you got the £20K Titanium model. However, they - like the SD1 - offer something unique in terms of their image creation and quality.

Don't speculate until you've tried one, and if you've tried one you should be able to explain which of the points above affected your use of the camera. I know there are things on the SD1 I'd like to improve, but you haven't touched on them there.

--
GeekGoth, Writer
http://www.geextreme.com/
P30/Nikon/Sigma/Olympus/Fuji
Music, cars (Citroën mostly), computing, media

--
Kind regards
Øyvind
My best images:
http://foto.nordjylland.biz/porta/Portfolio/Best/album/index.html
http://www.pbase.com/norwegianviking/sd14
SD14 Compendium:
http://www.foto.nordjylland.biz/SD14/sd-usertips.htm

ToasterFlyer · Jul 29, 2011

True and have tethered shooting..

Rich
ny

David Ahn said:
$6800 could have been defended if the SD1 had:

Full Frame sensor
Fully state of the art screen, not 460K.
Faster processing speed (more processors, faster flash memory, etc.)
All parts top of the line
Obsessive attention to detail (just the right resistance to every dial, etc.)

Then they could have made an SD45 exactly like the current SD1, at $1600-2000, how much the current SD1 should have cost.

The price wasn't the mistake, the mistake was trying to sell a mid-price camera at flagship prices. Everyone has a flagship product that appeals to a small group of cost is no object types, but those buyers aren't impressed by the SD1's build quality and only a few crazies with more money than sense will actually buy the SD1.

David

kadarpik · Jul 29, 2011

David Ahn said:
$6800 could have been defended if the SD1 had:

Full Frame sensor
Fully state of the art screen, not 460K.
Faster processing speed (more processors, faster flash memory, etc.)
All parts top of the line
Obsessive attention to detail (just the right resistance to every dial, etc.)

This is same as to claim that FF cameras should have full color resolution they does not have, your FF camera 5D2 has pour 5 mpixel red resolution when shooting red roses or red texture. You are another CanNikon marketing campain type or do not know how Bayer system works. Or you are a technical oriented photographer continuously worried about ISO, FPS, lens sharpness and megapixels.

SD1 has 46 Megapixel sensor with real 46 Mpixel photodiodes on board, and from that 15 million of them are red and ...

this definitely has manufacturing cost.

Roland Karlsson · Jul 29, 2011

Whats needed for such expensive equipment is Pro support, a well balanced system and high quality.

If this is in place we can start talking high prices.

A middle tier camera with a unique sensor is not enough - no matter if its APS-C or FF, no matter how good the unique sensor is.

--
Roland

support http://www.openraw.org/
(Sleeping - so the need to support it is even higher)

X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html

Roland Karlsson · Jul 29, 2011

You are making the assumption that a Sigma FF would be a good choice.

I dont think so - at least not now.

Its very expensive to make a FF sensor today. Maybe cheaper in the future.

And - the Sigma lenses are not really up to it.

--
Roland

support http://www.openraw.org/
(Sleeping - so the need to support it is even higher)

X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html

Scott Greiff · Jul 29, 2011

David Ahn said:
$6800 could have been defended if the SD1 had:

Full Frame sensor

Honestly, I don't know why every one is so hung up with measurements. Have you seen the actual output from the camera? Have you seen the output of other FF cameras and compared it? I don't think I've seen better output from a DSLR.

-Scott

--
http://www.lightriverphoto.com
http://www.flickriver.com/photos/scottalangreiff/popular-interesting/

Roland Karlsson · Jul 29, 2011

Scott Greiff said:
Honestly, I don't know why every one is so hung up with measurements.

Hmmmm ... what measurements?

I think its the price everyone talks about.

And now this guy talking about FF - thats no measurement.

Member said:
Have you seen the actual output from the camera? Have you seen the output of other FF cameras and compared it? I don't think I've seen better output from a DSLR.

Ah! Its you that is hung up over measurements!

--
Roland

support http://www.openraw.org/
(Sleeping - so the need to support it is even higher)

X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html

guydamerio · Jul 29, 2011

For my part, I am making the same assumption: FF would be a much better choice, for a variety of reasons, as I have stated before: http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1027&message=39001366

Yes, it may be expensive to make a FF sensor, but after all, that's what this thread is about. You don't argue that a FF Sigma DSLR would justify an even higher price than the SD1, do you?

Concerning lenses: it's the opposite way round. Most current lenses are not up to the SD1's sensor, because of it's high pixel density, which of course demands greater optical resolution from the lens. Existing lenses would be perfectly ok for a FF sensor with the pixel density of the SD15.

Roland Karlsson said:
You are making the assumption that a Sigma FF would be a good choice.

I dont think so - at least not now.

Its very expensive to make a FF sensor today. Maybe cheaper in the future.

And - the Sigma lenses are not really up to it.

--
Roland

support http://www.openraw.org/
(Sleeping - so the need to support it is even higher)

X3F tools : http://www.proxel.se/x3f.html

SD1 at $6800 should be full frame

Member

Leading Member

Community Leader

Member

Forum Pro

Member

Lin Evans

Guest

Senior Member

Forum Pro

Member

Senior Member

Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Active member

Forum Pro

Forum Pro

Scott Greiff

Guest

Forum Pro

Member

Keyboard shortcuts