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

Iain G Foulds wrote:

… Sorry Joe, that makes no sense. If they need sensors to design lenses for other cameras, they would simply use other camera’s sensors.

That's what they did with the fp L. I believe they wanted to get into making cinema lenses, which they did, and I think they felt a desire to prove they could make a camera that could not only do video, but be small too. Thus they made the fp, and frankly I think they hit it out of the park with that camera, even though it is not well known or sold in vast numbers. After-all, how many serious movie makers are out there? Sure, there are a few people who use it for vlogging, and some people who like to shoot stills AND video with them, and surely those people are what helped the fp become the best selling full-frame camera in Tokyo (or was it Japan?) the month after it was introduced (at least I think that's what happened). Anyway, the fp L makes a lot of sense. Sigma probably wanted to improve the auto-focus, upgrade the video capabilities slightly, and improve the still image quality. They did all that with the fp L, and they added a new camera in L mount to their stable of cameras that they could use to test their lenses . . . though they were probably already using a Sony A7r IV to test their lenses by that point.

Still, making a camera that offers excellent image quality would surely motivate the lens designers and testers to produce the best lenses they could, so that excellent camera would have Sigma lenses available to produce the best images it could. No doubt the competition they face in the L mount realm now helps to motivate them to produce truly excellent lenses too. I mean how do you make a lens to compete with Leica lenses for around $1,000 to $2,000? That must be quite a challenge for them.