… Sigma and Wabi Sabi

Scottelly wrote:

Iain G Foulds wrote:

… Appreciate the good suggestions for working with WB. Though, I know the issues would still be there. Issues that I never had to deal with in 20 years of Nikons.

… My crusade is that the vintage Foveons are perfectable… or at least measurably improved. Believe that their flaws discouraged all but the most patient, technical photographers, relegating their brilliant and unique cameras to essential obscurity.

I think the problem is/was that there was a host of "issues" with Sigma digital cameras. When I first looked into them I didn't realise how slow they work. If I did, at that time I would have seen the slow operational speed as their Achiles heel . . . but at the time I was trying to decide between switching from Canon, or sticking with Canon DSLRs. I wanted the biggest raw shooting buffer I could get, so it was the Canon 5D that I eventually decided to get. My 20D was broken, and I waited for two months, while the repair shop had it. Even after all that time waiting they never got the part. I stupidly rewarded Canon for that debacle, though not immediately, because I was fed up with it, and decided to get a Sony R1, which I used on and off for many years.

Eventually I did get a used Sigma SD14, and I regretted not getting it sooner. Still, the feature set, resolutiin, and speed of operation led me to my Sony A55, and eventually three Sony A65 bodies (I still have one). I even tried a Sony A77. None of my cameras were perfect (the A65 was close, but lacked weather seals, and its raw shooting buffer isn't big enough).

I believe an L mount SD Quattro rH with a more powerful processor, an articulating tilt screen, wi-fi, and a buffer with twice the capacity would be a great camera (but it would have to focus better, so it could compete with the likes of Canon, Nikon, and Sony). I really like Quattro image quality. To compete with the crowd though, Foveon has to step up to another level, so it can perform reasonably well at ISO 3200 and above,

My question is whether the high iso limitations of teh foveon sensor are inherent in the tech. CCD sensors were quite limited as well. CMOS sensors were created that could create images with good image quality at much higher isos. So, took over the market. If Sigma could make a full frame camera with a foveon sensor that would improve high iso performance by at least a stop. But, they have yet to manage that and may never get one on store shelves. Even then, reasonable performance at iso 3200 is likely a dream.

where some sports shooters HAVE to shoot, and many other people do shoot, just because they can (with a Canon 7D, for instance, shooting available light glamor indoors or documentary family photos in available light after sunset).

Even if Sigma were able to make a foveon sensor camera that worked decently at iso 3200 it would remain a niche product. The flagships of Sony, Canon, and Nikon have so many other advantages in terms of sports and wildlife functionality besides high iso performance. Stacked sensors that allow for super fast readout are essential. Amazingly fast af. Super big buffers. High speed activation. Lag free viewfinders. If Sigma did attempt to do this, it would be with a Bayer sensor. But, they won't. Let's see if they can get a new camera with a foveon sensor on the market first.