The next Foveon camera?

tarmov wrote:

Doppler9000 wrote:

tarmov wrote:

The subjective impact of extra noise is subjective - some eyes are better and some brains can better impute some noise to its liking.

Which brings us to the cruz of the differences in opinion: you believe that the Foveon market niche is too small to be sustainable in the long run, while most of the Sigma forum participants

Indeed. A small group with no information about the financial realities of the proposition.

What makes you think a larger group with no intersection with that smaller group would have more information?

I realize you’re trying to make a point, but why did you add the assumption of no intersection? Given Sigma’s historical marketing approach, many of the potential FFF buyers are likely to have some experience with Sigma cameras in the past.

The question you posed was whether or not the market for the FFF was too small to be sustainable. Sustainability would require a sufficiently large group of people that would pay high enough prices to make the investment profitable. Sensor manufacture requires large production volumes to keep unit costs low. So, the smaller the market, the higher the unit cost (see Leica Q2). If the Sigma forum had hundreds or thousands of members saying they might buy the camera, that would provide more information than if it is five or six people, who have self-selected as particularly ardent fans, and have no idea how much the camera would cost.

(and the CEO of Sigma) think otherwise.

The CEO of Sigma is developing the camera to honor the legacy of his father, it seems. Given that they have no idea of the ultimate costs of development or production, imputing sustainability is a stretch.