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

Scottelly wrote:

To Be competitive:

1. It needs to be responsive with reasonable battery life

2. It needs to work with other editors out of the box

3. It needs to have a reasonable price.

The sheer image quality game now belongs to monsters like the GFX100s.

Some people just don't want an expensive, heavy, limited system, like the GFX. With 250mm as the longest lens available, the 100 MP Fujis just won't make good wildlife cameras, and with 20mm being the widest focal length available, Fuji just can't compete with the smaller full-frame cameras.

Don't get me wrong. I think Fuji's built a great system with good features in their cameras, and they've built a great system of lenses, but it's not L mount or E mount, and it seems like it never will be. It seems to me like Fuji's medium format system will always be bigger, heavier, and more expensive.

I used the GFXs because it can produce 400MP images with RGB at every position for only a 300g heavier body.

Maybe the A7RiV is a better benchmark as it can produce 240mp RGB images for a similar weight with access to plenty of glass.

The point being that if the goal is absolute peak resolution, the battle is over. Bayer cameras have the title.

But as long as Sigma make their system affordable enough (No $9,700 SD1 initial release), and reliable enough, they will still find an audience. I don't think they need to out compete those systems in terms of specs.