One trick pony Locked

Lin Evans wrote:

DMillier wrote:

The Q might be an improvement but it needs an order of magnitude improvement more to get to the stage where people would chose it for the camera itself rather than the sensor.

And I don't believe for one second that you believe that image quality is the only criteria. If it was, you'd not be using Sigma, you'd be using technical cameras the size of a truck with 5 metre wide sheets of film. No, like everyone else, you chose a camera as a compromise of many factors including at least a minimal level of convenience!

Image quality "is" the criteria for me. A camera the size of a truck with film of any size would not give me the image quality I want because I couldn't get the camera and film to the location where I shoot. The reason I don't shoot full frame is very similar. I can't "carry" the ideal gear I might want at the altitude I work in. To use a full frame camera, even a light one like the Sony 36 megapixel model, I still would have to have an 800mm lens which weighs 13 pounds, a substantial tripod, a gimbal head which weighs over 3 pounds and even without any other accessories, I'm now looking at twenty pounds plus the weight of my survival geat and it's very likely I would miss my shot because my subjects don't pose until I get the tripod, head, lens and camera set up to take the shot. So is it really a "compromise" to not have a camera the size of a truck and a huge sheet of film? Not at all. It's only a compromise if the alternative were "possible" which they are not. It's not about "convenience" it's about reality.

I stick with my point: despite the Q's improvements, no one would but one unless it had a Foveon sensor. When Sigma can build a camera that performs well enough that it has appeal as a camera rather than a fine lens and a box housing a foveon sensor, then they will fly, not before.

But the point is, without the Foveon sensor, it's just another "also-ran" camera. The best mechanicals and electronics are of little value to me if I can't get the quality I want in a photo. I use whatever works best for the task at hand. Sometimes its a Nikon, sometimes a Pentax, sometimes a Canon, sometimes a Sony or other tool. Many times it's a Sigma. Would you have paid $1500 for your DP2M if it had an EVF and a higher resolution LCD? Would you even need a higher resolution LCD if you had an EVF. So if the camera were considerably larger to accept a sufficiently large battery to get 400 frames rather than 100 frames would it be worth the additional cost? All the complaining about the "camera" body makes me laugh. I have dozens of very expensive high-end cameras but what do I use for every opportunity were it's suitable? I use the Sigma. Does the plethora of features and "conveniences" on my other cameras make me reach for them instead of the Sigma? No. So the point about no one using a Sigma unless it had a Foveon sensor is a moot point. It "does" have a Foveon sensor...

Best regards,

Lin

But if the Bugatti Veyron didn't have a 16 cylinder engine, nobody would want it!

That's what it sounds like to me, when someone says something like, "If it didn't have a Foveon sensor in it, . . . "

One way I look at this whole issue about why people like the Sigma cameras is this:

My dad HATES little sports cars - even Ferraris and Porsches. To him, a big luxury car, like a Lexus LS 470 is the car of choice. Is it fast? NO. Does it handle? NO. Is it sleek and beautiful? He thinks so . . . but most people don't. Is he wrong?

Maybe the Sigmas are like the Lexus . . . but people just haven't figured that out yet.

Maybe Sigmas are more like the Teslas . . . different . . . and in some ways better . . . but definitely unconventional.