Why on earth doesn't Foveon...

[kerkula]

It's a reasonable question to ask. The problem is that the big manufacturers don't always think like consumers. They have a bottom line to consider and since Nikon and Canon are the market leaders at the moment they have no real insentive to switch to a sensor that might only provide marginal returns. It would be very costly. Not only are we talking about the license to Sigma for the chip but whole business plans would have to be rewritten. This would be especially true for Canon with their proprietary chips. They probably haven't paid off their capital investments and R&D costs for their CMOS line.

Unfortunately superior technology doesn't always survive in the market place. Most experts thought the Betamax was the better video cassette format but it lost out to VHS.

kerkula

 

[rubank]

Since Nikon obviously is prepared to sell the D200 body, and Foveon most certainly would be keen on selling a few more sensors you could set up your own factory merging the two. I´m abolutely sure it would be a huge success, you could be in for some serious profit

I´ll even supply you with a suitable name: Delta

 

[JLK]

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

Hint,

Photos at Pbase would indicate that the X3 was in prototype (as early as 1999). A heck of a lot bigger than what it is today.

As for Minolta, I have no clue. I've heard the same rumor with Nikon.

--
Jim

 

[Henrik Andersson]

--
Henrik

 

[Roland Karlsson]

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

 

[tammons]

--
http://www.troyammons.com
http://www.pbase.com/tammons
http://www.troyammons.deviantart.com

 

[Erik Magnuson]

Photos at Pbase would indicate that the X3 was in prototype (as
early as 1999).

"Fully sampled color" images were available - but they did not use a single chip. Look at what they were selling at photokina 2000 - that's why I included this reference.

--
Erik

 

[GodSpeaks]

It's the Sigma mount that stops me from buying the camera. I do not want/need a set of lenses that are sigma mount. They just have no resale value.
--

The greatest of mankind's criminals are those who delude themselves into thinking they have done 'the right thing.'

• Rayna Butler

 

[Henrik Andersson]

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.

I don't think Kodak would touch the Foveon sensor, unless they partner like FillFactory did.

What does the R1 offer compared to a DSLR with live preview ?

--
Henrik

 

[Cephalotus]

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

Sigma decided that they want to have their own system (SA) for whatever reason... (prestige?)

So the SD14 is a camera with SA mount and if they would make the same camera with Nikon or Canon mount who would ever buy the SA version? (you can get every Sigma SA lenses also for Nikon & Canon + many more).

So making their SA cameras also with Canon or Nikon mount they would kill their own SA system immediately.

 

[Cephalotus]

It's the Sigma mount that stops me from buying the camera. I do
not want/need a set of lenses that are sigma mount. They just have
no resale value.

So it would be very cheap to buy a SA system with 2nd hand lenses?

 

[JLK]

Photos at Pbase would indicate that the X3 was in prototype (as
early as 1999).

"Fully sampled color" images were available - but they did not use
a single chip. Look at what they were selling at photokina 2000 -
that's why I included this reference.

--
Erik

Indeed, they did have the prism based 3 chip imager for Hassy (the dFinity). That's not what I'm referring to.

--
Jim

 

[JLK]

1. Canon manufacturers their own chips. Although one could make a great case for image improvement in Canon cameras if they contracted Foveon to do a 12MP x3 chip (a "SD36"), you'd have to ask the question:

"Does Canon have a problem selling cameras?"

2. Nikon uses Sony chips in both their dSLR line and their point-n-shoot cameras. Might there be an issue with Nikon dropping Sony's chip and going with a Foveon??

3. Kodak would have been a very logical partner with Foveon to build a dSLR. When in the last 20 years has Kodak shown foresight and logic and make a good strategic business decision and stuck it through?? (disclaimer---ex Kodaker here...)

4. Sony. No. Pentax. I don't know enought about them. Leica? Would have been nice, but they got a nice Kodak chip.

5. Sigma---a family run business that wants to be a complete imaging system. A great choice. Now---why don't they sell Canon and Nikon mounts??? Where do you think Nikon, Canon, and Sigma make their money---with the cameras, or with the lenses?

The SD14 is reportedly a very nice camera with a great viewfinder, a 100,000x better shutter, and improvements in almost all major areas where users were looking for them. The only current issue that I see was the lead trial balloon that they sent up regarding MSRP. If they divide that by the crop factor, they'll be in a great position to sell a bunch of these.

--
Jim

 

[Roland Karlsson]

Sigma decided that they want to have their own system (SA) for
whatever reason... (prestige?)

So the SD14 is a camera with SA mount and if they would make the
same camera with Nikon or Canon mount who would ever buy the SA
version? (you can get every Sigma SA lenses also for Nikon & Canon
+ many more).

So making their SA cameras also with Canon or Nikon mount they
would kill their own SA system immediately.

Thats correct.

Its a pity though that Foveon is stuck with the Sigma then.

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

 

[Roland Karlsson]

What does the R1 offer compared to a DSLR with live preview ?

A lens that never fall off?

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

 

[nickleback]

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).

I think you misread the rumour. Right before the statement the question is "Are you excited about Minolta finally bringing out a quality SLR digital?". The Konica-Minolta 7D was introduced in the fall of 2004. If you go back "more than two years earlier", that brings you to early 2002, exactly when the SD9 was introduced.

--
Seen in a fortune cookie:
Fear is the darkroom where negatives are developed

 

[Peter G]

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

To reiterate a few things.
Fuji, Canon, Sony all make their own sensors. You can forget them right away.

Basically you have to sell to who is left, where it is mainly a foveon vs Sony game. And there are many issues and obstacles.

1: Nikon, Pentax are set on 1.5 crop. 1.7 would not be acceptable.

The big question in my mind, is why build yet another 1.7 crop sensor? Why disadvantage themselves like this?

Even if they built a 1.5 crop sensor, there is no guarantee anyone would bite. I don't think they have a compelling case.

2: I surmise sigma sensors are more expensive than Sonys for a few reasons. Economy of Scale, Penny pinching on 1.7 crop, and being fabless (profit must be taken at two stages for Foveon and for the Fab).

3: Sony has demonstrated ability to deliver large volumes and ramp new designs fairly quickly, and deliver chips that have faster datapaths etc. Foveon has not and represents a risk.

4: Foveon sensor may fail to meet all design targets. High ISO performance may still not be up to par. Off angle light may be more problematic (hence the 1.7 crop).

5: Possibly no competetive advantage is seen in the design.

While it generates Buzz for Sigma, Nikon and Pentax don't need that buzz so much and it the design is behind in any area, it could be more of a curiousity than a serious design.

Though a vocal minority see special quality the vast majority just don't care and see just a different set of tradeoffs.

Summary:

Basically I think that is it. I think they are not getting into any of the big guys unless they demonstrate massive success in the market elsewhere first. Like the Sigma SD14 outselling D200s. I think we all know that is not going to happen.

I think they failed to capitalize on their second chance, just as they did with their first. By delivering just 4.6 MP X3 in a 1.7 crop they will again be aiming for parity with entry level 10MP bayer cameras in image quality ( the way most people perceive it). Parity is not the way to win with a new design.

If you go by the green sensor parity in image quality as most do (essentially the 2X factor).
Consider that the original camera had:

3.4 MP green vs typical bayer with 3.0MP green. (Slightly more than typical bayer)

Now they have:

4.6MP green vs typical bayer with 5.0 MP green. (slightly less than typical bayer)

It should be clear that out of the blocks they will be in a similar competetive position as they were last time. Perhaps even slightly worse off. Consider that they are also no longer the hot new technology and they will not generate any more heat than they did last release. If anything they face many more DSLR competetors this time around. Sony A100, Pentax K10D, Canon 400d, 30d, Nikon D80, D200...

At minimum they should have delievered 1.5 crop 6MP X3 for this iteration to at least start ahead of the competition and to have the crop other potential customers might use.

 

[Thom Hogan]

Tristan Cope wrote:
Let's do this backwards from the way you presented it...

b) they are contractually tied to Sigma

I've said it before: that would have been a silly move on the part of Foveon, as it would have been tantamount to saying that they were trying to build a business on limited unit sales. Even under the most wildly optimistic scenario, Sigma-only sensor sales wouldn't have been enough to build the revenue flow that Foveon needed. I suppose it's possible that Foveon did a short-term exclusive with Sigma just to get the sensor into the market in A body, but anything longer than a six month period would have been suicide.

a) because none of the other manufacturers were or are interested

There are multiple reasons why a manufacturer might not be interested:

1. They get a better price for sensors elsewhere.
2. They make their own sensors (i.e. have design/fab costs to repay).

3. The Foveon sensor didn't have the performance necessary for all models (think D2hs or 1DnII).
4. They were bribed to stay with current supplier (see #1).
5. The upgrade path was unclear compared to competitors.
6. They didn't believe Foveon's business model would sustain them.
7. They were approached incorrectly.

The truth is probably a combination of all of those. I know a few engineering teams that considered the Foveon sensors. What I heard them say would tend to support that statement.

--
Thom Hogan
author, Nikon Field Guide & Nikon Flash Guide
editor, Nikon DSLR Report
author, Complete Guides: D50, D70, D100, D200, D1 series, D2h, D2x, S2 Pro
http://www.bythom.com

 

[theponja]

What do you think ,Tom?

Really, from a bussiness point of view I don't understand how Foveon is in the bussiness.

but now we have here another Foveon Sensor in a Sigma camera.

Regards
Luis

 

[Joseph S Wisniewski]

"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.

Some shutters "leak" too much light to allow the mirror to be locked up for extended periods of time. To get blades to move very fast (for high x sync time) or very smoothly (for high max shutter speeds) on low cost shutters, often the blades have minimum overlap, and light can bounce between the blades a few times and make it through to the film or sensor.

Nikon claimed this was the case with the original N80 shutter used in D100, as well as the shutter in the F100 film cameras. N80 had a 0.4 second mirror "prefire" feature. I guess that this meant they thought you can't have enough light "leak" in 0.4 seconds to screw up a picture.

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.

Exactly. Sigma made a big point in announcing the cures to complaints about SD10. These centered around it's auto focus, power system, JPEG support, etc. not being up to the same level as competing cameras. Rather than announce "hey, we're more competitive now", they chose to put a more positive spin on it. What's wrong with that?

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.

Yup.

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.

--
Normally, a signature this small can't open its own jumpgate.

Ciao! Joe

http://www.swissarmyfork.com