What would the FFF have to do in order to be competative?

dellaaa wrote:

Without an end goal in site, i.e. better resolution at all costs, the FFF has no direction and no goal to achieve.

The end goal has always been better image quality at a competitive price. The SD1 achieved that, though the public did not believe Sigma's claims, which were eventually proven accurate, so Sigma had to drop the price of their cameras, or not sell them. The Quattros did it even better, with an expanding line of truly excellent lenses to back up thise cameras. The biggest problem though, was that there were just two new cameras to choose from, and they were basically tje same camera. People want more variety than that, and they want truly high-end, professional options too (even if they don't have the budget to buy such options - we dream of getting our dream camera "some day").

Then the switch to L mount happened, and seeing that the completion of their FFF sensor development was far off in the future, it seems that Sigma decided to try a CFA sensor, and it worked out well for them. The fp sold better than any Sigma camera before (at least in the beginning it did). Then they decided to offer a high-res CFA camera too. It was the least expensive camera with a sensor that offered more than 45 MP, and it still is, if I'm not mistaken.

So what is the "end goal" for the FFF? I think it has not changed, though it looks more and more like the first one will just be a development step toward an ultimate future sensor.

This point was missed by everyone. Oh well.

There is just so far a logical discussion can go, after awhile, emotions take over as they always do.

In one post in this thread someone says something like, "The FFF will never match Bayer for dynamic range." I beg to differ. Just because the Quattro sensors didn't quite match their Bayer competition does not mean that there will never be a Foveon sensor that can match its CFA competition. It is possible for Foveon sensors to improve. They have in the past, and they will no doubt improve in the future. I think it's wrong to say, "Without an end goal in site, i.e. better resolution at all costs, the FFF has no direction and no goal to achieve." Besides, how do we know that better resolution is not coming in the form of a "quattrified" version of the first FFF? We don't. Sigma may decide to do that, and if they do, it will outresolve any 100 MP Bayer pattern CFA sensor in existence.

The FFF will have advantages over 24 MP, 36 MP, and even 60 MP Bayer sensors, though the advantages will be rarely visible. I do think that will be enough to sell out a short run of those sensors though. Don't forger that there are many Leica shooters out there with big budgets, and there are many Merrill and Quattro shooters who have been waiting a long time for a full-frame camera from Sigma, with a Foveon sensor in it. For all we know, Sigma may decide to make just 5,000 of the FFF, and they will all sell in just a year or two.