How can Sigma make sure the FFF is the best success it can be? Locked

Tom Schum wrote:

Iain G Foulds wrote:

… Respectfully, the biggest mistake that Sigma can make (and will likely make) is trying for a home run in the camera world- ie covering all the bases.

… All that matters is that the camera can produce an image that is clearly separate and above the pack. Failing this is failure for the company and continued obscurity and irrelevance.

I agree wholeheartedly. Scottelly wrote, "Frankly I think speed of operation is going to be key, as will image quality, of course."

Image quality is key. The rest of it might be nice but is not essential. Phase focus is usually accomplished by dedicating some pixels exclusively, and then interpolating over them so they aren't visible in the final image. I think this is a bad idea too, personally.

It seems to be OK on the sdQH. I haven't seen any sign of visible interpolated pixels.

It ought to be all about image quality. If Foveon perfection is not good enough, there are plenty of other cameras out there, including the fp and fp L.

The Panasonic FF cameras give nice Bayer images too.

If the full frame Foveon is not feasible, let's have an APS-C implementation, but let it be Foveon.

The current problem is how to make a three-layer sensor at all, since Sigma dumped the Foveon company. (I suspect all the good people there were gone, anyway.) If Sigma can make an APS-C sensor, they can make an APS-H or a FF.

I think a Sigma FFF will look very different as one option among the various L mount cameras as opposed to one with a unique lens mount. If the price is right, people may well buy it as a second camera, as they might buy a Leica monochrom.

Don