Why on earth doesn't Foveon...

[R Johns]

--partner with a major camera manufacturer (ala - Fuji and Nikon)?

I mean no offense to Sigma fans, but putting the Foveon sensor into a Sigma body, is like putting a silky smooth V-12 engine into a Hyundai (no offense to Hyundai fans either).

I don't know how to phrase the question without sounding too rough, but I really don't mean any harm.

I looked at the specs for the camera, and it occured to me that this camera body doesn't have anything going for it. Sigma has to mention things like;

"In-camera JPEG support"
"2.5-inch LCD screen"
"5-point autofocus"
and "Mirror lockup"

as part of the SD-14's nine Feature Technologies (scratches head).

Somebody needs to introduce Foveon to Canon...

Regards...

Russ



Greater is He that is within me, than he who is in this world...

 

[richard stone]

The Sigma isn't for you. Don't buy one.

 

[JustMosing]

Somebody needs to introduce Foveon to Canon...

What's in it for Canon?

 

[R Johns]

The Sigma isn't for you. Don't buy one.

--Richard,

Like I said, I'm sorry to sound so rough. I am amazed at the images that I see taken from the SD-10 users in your forum. Don't you feel that the body is lacking?

Regards...

Russ



Greater is He that is within me, than he who is in this world...

 

[JoePhoto]

I have to totally agree. There is little question that the image quality is the best-on-the-market ... if it could only be combined with the superior processing power for faster frame rate / buffer / AF / maybe in-camera AS .... it would be the ideal camera.

The new model does not even catch-up with the competition, it can be expected that newer cameras from others will quickly even more surpass it.

--partner with a major camera manufacturer (ala - Fuji and Nikon)?

I mean no offense to Sigma fans, but putting the Foveon sensor into
a Sigma body, is like putting a silky smooth V-12 engine into a
Hyundai (no offense to Hyundai fans either).

I don't know how to phrase the question without sounding too rough,
but I really don't mean any harm.

I looked at the specs for the camera, and it occured to me that
this camera body doesn't have anything going for it. Sigma has to
mention things like;

"In-camera JPEG support"
"2.5-inch LCD screen"
"5-point autofocus"
and "Mirror lockup"

as part of the SD-14's nine Feature Technologies (scratches head).

Somebody needs to introduce Foveon to Canon...

Regards...

Russ



Greater is He that is within me, than he who is in this world...

--
Thanks for reading .... JoePhoto

( Do You Ever STOP to THINK --- and FORGET to START Again ??? )

 

[R Johns]

Somebody needs to introduce Foveon to Canon...

What's in it for Canon?

--Uh, profits from the licensing of their camera bodies and sale of accessories...

Regards...

Russ



Greater is He that is within me, than he who is in this world...

 

[PhotoTraveler]

I think the sigma looks/sounds very interesting. The problem is the mount. If sigma made it for multiple mounts, it would be much more interesting. I simply won't buy it because of the sigma mount.

If sigma had decided before they made there mount/hacked canons mount. To make a body, but sell it for all 4 major mounts, it would have made for a much more interesting situation.

 

[T3]

Somebody needs to introduce Foveon to Canon...

Sigma already has a Canon-mount body. It's the body they provided to Kodak for use as the Kodak SLR-C (Canon-mount). Just like Kodak put a Kodak sensor into it, Sigma could have just as easily put a Foveon sensor into it.

Kodak SLR-C:



Sigma SD-10:

 

[T3]

What's in it for Canon?

It doesn't matter what's in it for Canon. Sigma makes Canon-mount lenses and flashes without Canon's authorization or blessing, so they could do the same by offering a Canon-mount body. They don't need Canon to be involved at all. In fact, the Kodak SLR-C (Canon-mount body) used a Sigma SD-10 body with a fully-compatible Canon EF mount.

And by the way, according to Canon's Chuck Westfall, Canon doesn't license their lens mount to any third parties. All the third-party companies offering Canon mount lenses are the product of un-licensed reverse engineering.

 

[optical_illusion]

--partner with a major camera manufacturer (ala - Fuji and Nikon)?

Maybe because of this reason as follows:

I feel bad for the folks at Foveon. Minolta was ready to go with a model
using their sensor more than two years earlier; but the large sensor
manufacturers of the time made some threats, saying if you use their chip
we'll never supply you with anything else, ever. (It sucks being a pioneer
with disruptive technology.)

http://www.yorkshiremedia.com/news/articles_and_reviews/minolta_evangelist_gary_friedman/

Apart from the threats, some folks say high ISO performance of Foveon sensor is poorer than other sensors. If it's true, no wonder other manufacrurers hesitate to use the sensor.

 

[Leo]

Should Sigma pay to, let say Nikon, to use its proprietary mount?
Leo

 

[Kendall Helmstetter Gelner]

"In-camera JPEG support"
"2.5-inch LCD screen"
"5-point autofocus"
and "Mirror lockup"

as part of the SD-14's nine Feature Technologies (scratches head).

For one thing, it's a head-scratcher to me as well why every DSLR does NOT include mirror-lockup. Yet many do not. It's a notable feature for that reason alone.

The JPEG support is notable because so many people have decried the SD-10 for not having it, so they had to put that front and center to let people know it has arrived and they need not be scared for the lack of it any longer.

Other camera makers include the rest of the sorts of details you've pointed out all the time...

Sigma has actually been a good parter for Foveon - they've stuck by them when some might have quit. They deserve points for loyalty if nothing else.

Would the world be an even more interesting place if Nkon or Canon also had a Foveon sensor? Certainly. But it seems to me that even though it has taken a little longer than it might have with other camera makers, Sigma is definatley moving the right direction in delivering a body worthy of the sensor within. In the meantime Foveon and Sigma have both benefited from what each has learned from the other.

Somebody needs to introduce Foveon to Canon...

Canon is too busy preening in the mirror to be introduced to anyone else, now and for some time to come.

--
---> Kendall
http://InsideAperture.com
http://www.pbase.com/kgelner
http://www.pbase.com/sigmasd9/user_home

 

[T3]

Should Sigma pay to, let say Nikon, to use its proprietary mount?
Leo

Sigma wouldn't need to pay. They don't pay to use the Nikon or Canon mounts for any of their lenses. The only reason they would need to pay is if they were buying bodies from Nikon (or Canon), like Fuji does with Fuji's Nikon-mount DSLR bodies. But if Sigma supplied its own bodies, using reverse-engineered Nikon or Canon mounts, it would be the same as they have been doing for years with their Nikon and Canon mount Sigma-brand lenses.

But even if thbey did "pay" Nikon or Canon, they would still stand to make tons of money by selling a whole lot more bodies!

 

[digital_ray_of_light]

Foveon and Sigma have a partnership. I am not familiar with the details of their agreement, but it may give Sigma some exclusive rights.

This has been discussed before in detail, but basically this is just the beginning for the new Foveon sensor that can have mass-market appeal (in-camera JPEG). We have already been surprised by the Sigma DP1 using this sensor. Obviously neither Sigma nor Foveon are mass-market manufacturers like Canon/Sony/etc, so we can't expect 20 new models in one go.

But the DP1 is definately a sign that perhaps more surprises may be coming up?

The SD14 is one camera, it is going to have trade-offs and it can't be everything to everyone. Even companies with deep line-ups like Canon/Nikon people are complaining that their preferred camera is not made...

--partner with a major camera manufacturer (ala - Fuji and Nikon)?

I mean no offense to Sigma fans, but putting the Foveon sensor into
a Sigma body, is like putting a silky smooth V-12 engine into a
Hyundai (no offense to Hyundai fans either).

I don't know how to phrase the question without sounding too rough,
but I really don't mean any harm.

I looked at the specs for the camera, and it occured to me that
this camera body doesn't have anything going for it. Sigma has to
mention things like;

"In-camera JPEG support"
"2.5-inch LCD screen"
"5-point autofocus"
and "Mirror lockup"

as part of the SD-14's nine Feature Technologies (scratches head).

Somebody needs to introduce Foveon to Canon...

Regards...

Russ



Greater is He that is within me, than he who is in this world...

--
Comprehensive Photokina 2006 speculation: http://photographyetc.livejournal.com

 

[nikonians]

Like the OP said, Fuji or Nikon, I don't think he asked about Canon. (smirk)

Just having some fun with you T3

Regards,
JohnnyK

--
http://www.johnk.smugmug.com

 

[Rock Lee]

nt = no text

--
Pbase:
http://www.pbase.com/robotzer0

Comments are welcomed.

 

[Adria_tic]

what would you say about R1 type camera with Foven sensor by Kodak or Polarod?
Just this is a right moment for some to punch in this gap.

 

[Tristan Cope]

Either:

a) because none of the other manufacturers were or are interested
or
b) they are contractually tied to Sigma

It might be a bit of both, but Canon would not be interested as they make their own sensors - they wouldn't want to pay the price premium to Foveon, same goes for Fuji. Nikon might be a possibility, but Sony would be pretty upset if that happened. There are a lot of vested interests in the conventional CCD technology, a bit like the oil industry and their opinions on fuel efficient vehicles.

I mean no offense to Sigma fans, but putting the Foveon sensor into
a Sigma body, is like putting a silky smooth V-12 engine into a
Hyundai (no offense to Hyundai fans either).

Sigma are aware of the limitations of their camera body. They say so quite openly: "If you could have fundamentally better technology would you settle for added improved functions instead?"

In other words, their question is: would you prefer to have all the bells and whistles and settle for lesser image quality? Your answer to their question is "yes - I'm less bothered by image quality and more interested in bells and whistles".

I'm simplifying a bit because it does, of course, depend a bit on what your intended use is. I would say the SD bodies are far from the best for sports photography - I doubt anyone uses an SD10 for serious sports photography. I think there are a fair number using the SD10 for wedding photography, as well as the S3 which has similar limitations in terms of shooting speed and burst depth. The SD10 is great for landscapes. Rather like the Kodak SLR/c it is ideal for studio work. I would think the new SD14 would be perfect for portraits, fashion, glamour, product photography etc.

 

[Roland Karlsson]

...

... except mount and price.

Most "features" in modern DSLRs are really not needed. The SD14 seems to be a solid camera that have what you need. Might want shake reduction ...

But the price at $2000 with kit lens is not right. Make that half.

And the Sigma SA mount is absolutely not right. Make that Canon, Nikon, Pentax, ...

--
Roland
http://klotjohan.mine.nu/~roland/

 

[Erik Magnuson]

I feel bad for the folks at Foveon. Minolta was ready to go with a model

using their sensor more than two years earlier;

That would be a good trick as the SD9 was announced the same time as the X3 sensor (PMA 2002). From the dates on the patents, X3 was not available 2 years earlier. At that time Foveon was selling a prism based "Studio" camera. See Phil's Photokina 2000 report:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0009/00092110photokina1.asp

BTW, the same rumour has been floated with Nikon as the protagonist.

--
Erik