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

Oldwino wrote:

I think Sigma's FF Foveon could well be aimed at people who are looking for a "edge" or a "difference" over standard-fare cameras, and those people are the types that, right now, buy a Hasselblad X1(2)D or (somewhat) the Fuji GFX series. I think the resolution and color from a FF Foveon sensor could compete with those medium format cameras (well, the color from the Hasselblad is really really good). Medium format quality in a smaller package would be appealing.

FF Foveon is never going to be mainstream. It will always be a niche for those who appreciate it and know how they want to use it.

If Sigma try to make an "everyone's" camera, it will fail, simply because it will disappoint everyone in some way.

I don't agree with this. Through the years Sigma has tried more and more to make their cameras fit the market they sell lenses to, and it has worked reasonably well for such a small company that is trying to compete with the sea of high-powered companies like Nikon, Canon, and Sony. Their cameras have been niche, no doubt, but more and more they became faster and better. Could they do video? No, but Sigma did put video capability into the DP Merrill cameras, no doubt in an attempt to enter that arena. Unfortunately that was a failure, though it did give them some experience in the video world, and now they have made two cameras that can do video very well . . . so well in fact that some cinematographers have decided to use those cameras to make movies.

I'm not suggesting the fp and fp L are "everyone cameras." I am suggesting that Sigma's cameras through the years were not only similar to most of the competition in many ways, and that Sigma tried to keep pace with the companies they were trying to compete with. The SD1 is a good example. That camera had a larger sensor, which offered a lot more resolution than its predecessor. It offered SO much resolution that it was at the top of the heap, with regard to low-ISO image quality in a world where 12 MP full-frame cameras and 18 MP APS-C cameras dominated the DSLR camera market - cameras like the Nikon D3, D700, and D300, the Canon 5 D, and the Canon 7 D. Sigma's camera competed with Nikon's flagship D3x, which was the highest resolution full-frame DSLR of its time. I believe Sigma priced the SD1 against that camera (in the beginning it was more, but then the price was quickly dropped to about $200 or $300 lower than the price of the Nikon D3x, if I remember correctly). The biggest problem at the time was that Sigma did not have their range of excellent Art lenses. Sure, they had a few very good EX lenses available in SA mount, but they did not have such a great range available as they did a few years later, when they introduced the SD Quattro. By the time the SD Quattro H came along, Sigma had what I would consider to be a very competitive range of lenses, when compared to even the biggest companies in the business, though they did not have a full range of cameras, and the SD Quattro H was no Canon 5Ds or Nikon D800 competitor. Sure, its image quality was approximately the same, or even slightly better than that of the Nikon D800, but certainly the speed of operation was not as good. It was quite a nice try though, and Sigma's cameras were far less expensive than their competition.

I believe that was the time when Sigma was probably doing their best in the camera market. They will get there again, eventually, I believe. It's probably impossible for a small company to make a full range of lenses and cameras. Certainly Sigma is trying though, and I believe they are going to continue to make not only three-layer sensors, but a variety of cameras (possibly three or even five cameras at the same time, though they will be introduced gradually, over the years). Sigma was selling four dp Quattros and two SD Quattros at once. They were all what I would call fairly new cameras, which were good options for people who wanted to shoot landscapes with something different. Did they work for portraiture? Sure! Did they work for macro. Yes. Did they work for product photography. I think so. They have been called good studio cameras - not just the SD Quattro and SD Quattro H, but the dp Quattro series too. They are not sports or wedding cameras, in my opinion, though some people have used them to shoot sports or weddings.

In the future I think Sigma just might indeed make a camera for shooting sports. I wouldn't be surprised. It might even have a three-layer sensor. We shall see. Today the SD Quattro and SD Quattro H certainly have the ability to shoot at ISO 800, and I've seen decent results from an SD Quattro that was used at ISO 1600. Maybe the FFF will work alright at ISO 3200, which is where many photographers set their ISO for shooting a lot of night and indoor sporting events. I recently shot outdoor during the day with my Nikon D810, and I was using ISO 800 when shooting Polo in direct sunlight with my 200-400mm f4 VR lens. That might seem crazy, but I was stopped down a little, and I wanted to keep my shutter speed high (1/800 to 1/1000 at a minimum). Anyway, if the FFF can do ISO 3200 as well as the SD Quattro H can do ISO 1600 it seems to me that Sigma will have a useful sensor for high-ISO shooting of sports and other low-light stuff (i.e. indoor weddings). If the camera focuses and operates quickly, like my Nikon D810, I will use it for such shooting situations, and Sigma will have finally made a camera that works for shooting sports and things like birds in flight at dawn and dusk. We'll see, I guess.