Damien Demolder
Obi-Tharg-Koala
Reged: 22/08/2001
Posts: 1660
Loc: Essex born and badly-bred
|
|
With the news last week that Sigma has bought sensor manufacturer Foveon, what was an independent optical company dabbling in the camera business, has suddenly become the latest brand that makes bodies, lenses and sensors. It's quite a jump, and demonstrates Sigma's determination in this field.
The question, though, is whether the Foveon sensor is the right one for Sigma to stick by. Although the great in theory, the technology hasn't really produced the stunning results we were expecting. That's not to say that it can't and won't, of course, but it does seem a bit of a risk.
What do you think?
Head to the home page to vote in this week's poll Do you think it’s a good idea for Sigma to buy Foveon?
Thanks for taking part.
damien
--------------------
.
See my photographs at www.wordsonpictures.com
.
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 6283
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
It makes a lot of sense for a camera manufacturer to be in control of its sensor design & manufacture .... the sensor is the heart of a digital camera, in some respects the only component that matters.
The Foveon sensor has not yet demonstrated what I believe to be its full potential, but it was always likely to be starved of development funds so long as it was in the hands of a what was a very small company. In fact I fear that Sigma may not be big enough to fully develop Foveon on its own, but at least the move is positive.
|
TimF
Taking it strictly
Reged: 30/07/2001
Posts: 18969
Loc: Herts/Beds border
|
|
Agreed, though in reality most are not. AFAIK, only Canon, Sony, Panasonic, possibly Samsung, and now Sigma amongst major players produce their sensors in-house.
Sigma's main problem in the SLR field has perhaps always been that those who buy into it are limiting themselves to marque lenses only (that's not to say that the company doesn't make some very fine lenses), and so far some of the more esoteric objectives available from, especially, Canon & Nikon aren't there.
Back in the days when I had an SA-5, the camera was generally pretty good (build quality was a touch on the plasticky side, but that's not unique) apart from the AF, which was always somewhat hesitant. From what I know, Sigma haven't really caught up yet on that front.
--------------------
Tim BSRIPN
If I had all the money I've spent on drink, I'd spend it on drink
|
Benchista
Which Tyler
Reged: 11/08/2000
Posts: 42235
Loc: Everywhere and nowhere, baby
|
|
Quote:
Agreed, though in reality most are not. AFAIK, only Canon, Sony, Panasonic, possibly Samsung, and now Sigma amongst major players produce their sensors in-house.
Nikon have the capability to, as well.
Quote:
Sigma's main problem in the SLR field has perhaps always been that those who buy into it are limiting themselves to marque lenses only (that's not to say that the company doesn't make some very fine lenses), and so far some of the more esoteric objectives available from, especially, Canon & Nikon aren't there.
Back in the days when I had an SA-5, the camera was generally pretty good (build quality was a touch on the plasticky side, but that's not unique) apart from the AF, which was always somewhat hesitant. From what I know, Sigma haven't really caught up yet on that front.
I don't think Sigma's lens line-up is lacking for the huge majority of users now - even for their 1.7x crop, they've got lenses from circular fisheye to long tele, zooms a-plenty, macros, OS lenses - the only things I can think of that they haven't got are macro lenses for greater than 1:1 reproduction, tilt/shift lenses, and soft focus (or similar) lenses, all of which are pretty niche. Wouldn't argue about the AF, though.
Can they do something with Foveon? Maybe. I honestly don't know.
--------------------
Nick
www.nbrphoto.com
Light and Shade II - the new blog
|
TimF
Taking it strictly
Reged: 30/07/2001
Posts: 18969
Loc: Herts/Beds border
|
|
Quote:
Nikon have the capability to, as well.
True, but they've only done so once AFAIK, and not in their present line-up.
--------------------
Tim BSRIPN
If I had all the money I've spent on drink, I'd spend it on drink
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 6283
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Quote:
Sigma's main problem in the SLR field has perhaps always been that those who buy into it are limiting themselves to marque lenses only
Indeed, but that has nothing to do with the size or type of sensor - it's because Sigma have elected to use their own lens mount. It might be a smart move to abandon this and make their cameras with a choice of Canon, Nikon, Sony or Pentax mount but this would depend on (possibly very expensive) licensing and might be confusing to sales staff.
|
Roger_Provins
Made-it Man
Reged: 22/10/2005
Posts: 4368
Loc: Gloucester, UK
|
|
Quote:
... and might be confusing to sales staff.
Oh boy! I can see the mayhem now 
--------------------
Rog
|
mediaman
Nearly Laid Back
Reged: 28/07/2008
Posts: 1057
Loc: edinburgh
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Sigma's main problem in the SLR field has perhaps always been that those who buy into it are limiting themselves to marque lenses only
Indeed, but that has nothing to do with the size or type of sensor - it's because Sigma have elected to use their own lens mount. It might be a smart move to abandon this and make their cameras with a choice of Canon, Nikon, Sony or Pentax mount but this would depend on (possibly very expensive) licensing and might be confusing to sales staff.
It has been said, that the more items made on a factory conveyer belt system... the cheaper that item,
can be produced. [As it was with Tamron T4 mount lenses] and of course, "ordinary" T2 lenses.
The ideal solution for the likes of Sigma, would be to produce their latest model with an overtly enlarged lens mount, that is able to take an adapter to "Convert" that camera to fit your own Nikon/Pentax/Canon lens.
{I had hoped that Tamron would have done this when they bought out Bronica [same lens fitting for ETRS SQAi and GS1 equals lower costs/sold cheaper, yet retaining the same profit margin.]}
This camera could then be used as your main camera using eg Nikon lenses, or as a second back-up body,to your D3 or whatever.
--------------------
Kenny.
The tears of laughter were running down my legs.
|
FujiSigmaNolta
I can pan!
Reged: 21/06/2005
Posts: 2029
|
|
It was a great idea in my opinion and I am sure we will see the Foveon technology take a big leap forward. As pointed out, Foveon was a somewhat small company with limited funds but with Sigma taking over I think these will be exciting times for them.
I don't agree that Sigma should make their cameras available in different mounts, why should that be? If you are intending to establish yourself as a respected,reputable camera maker that is certainly not the way.
As for the results from the technology, well I think they are stunning results and that's why Sigma have fervent followers (some may be somewhat too religious about it).
Obviously those results are obtainable within certain limits, but mount a fine optic in front of that sensor and see the magic for yourselves. It has a quality very comparable to ISO100-200 120 film and a near 3D quality.
I think that part of the problem is that it would be very expensive to produce and sell a sensor with real 14MP (14MPx3) and people will continue to see it as nothing more than a 4.5MP sensor and for some that is not enough. Having said that, you can interpolate an X3F to 8-10MP and they will be very comparable to Bayer based cameras of the same resolutions. Now imagine interpolation sizes with a 14MP Foveon sensor...
--------------------
Regards,
Luis
My Flickr mess
There are no duff cameras only duff photographers
|
beejaybee
Marvin
Reged: 18/07/2007
Posts: 6283
Loc: Really Here In Name Only
|
|
Quote:
I don't agree that Sigma should make their cameras available in different mounts, why should that be?
Sorry for introducing this red herring. But the point was made that Sigma do not have a complete line up of lenses for their own cameras, and there are no third party lenses for them. If they were to make the same cameras but with alternative mounts then people with a commitment to other brands could sample their camera bodies without buying into the whole system, just as they can sample Sigma lenses at present. Surely this would be a marketing plus point? It'd help keep the other manufacturers straight, as well - competition is always a Good Thing. Unless your product is uncompetitive.
|
Barney
Baht 'at
Reged: 16/12/2005
Posts: 11488
Loc: Harrogate, North Yorks
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
I don't agree that Sigma should make their cameras available in different mounts, why should that be?
Sorry for introducing this red herring. But the point was made that Sigma do not have a complete line up of lenses for their own cameras, and there are no third party lenses for them. If they were to make the same cameras but with alternative mounts then people with a commitment to other brands could sample their camera bodies without buying into the whole system, just as they can sample Sigma lenses at present. Surely this would be a marketing plus point? It'd help keep the other manufacturers straight, as well - competition is always a Good Thing. Unless your product is uncompetitive.
It does make sense. The sales lost to the mount manufatcruers could be made up by increased sales of second bodies for Nikon/Canon/ANOther users but then I think if someone was happy buying a Sigma body then they wouldn't be that fussed about buying named lenses and would be happy with Sigma.
--------------------
"Wrong on so many different levels."
Blog - Contre Dour - Capturing the ordinary for posterity.
Flickr
|
GeoffR
Reged: 31/05/2003
Posts: 5070
Loc: Bucks
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
Nikon have the capability to, as well.
True, but they've only done so once AFAIK, and not in their present line-up.
It is a real possibility that Sony are manufacturing a Nikon designed sensor for Nikon cameras using Nikon tooling. That is a red herring though, Sigma controlling their sensor manufacture should allow them control of the development process and that is vital if they are to be number X in a new big five. On the down side, it may prevent/deter others from adopting the technology for their own cameras. We shall have to wait and see.
|
Mojo_66
Rain Kat
Reged: 25/05/2006
Posts: 3974
Loc: Lancs
|
|
Tend to agree with BJB on this one. Sigma are the main user of the Foveon sensor so it makes sense from a R&D perspective to keep it all in house. Hopefully with Sigma's bigger budget the technology will progress faster than it has been doing up to now. I don't think the mount is too much of an issue, the majority of photographers are hobbyists and their needs are generally amply covered by existing Sigma optics, though I believe Sigma can supply mounts for retro conversion of other lenses, and I've seen SD14s with Canon mounts. With regard to other manufacturers adopting the technology you only need to look through the ads in the back pages to realise that the vast majority of them are commited to the Bayer type sensor.
--------------------
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mojo_black/
|
Wheelu
addict
Reged: 31/10/2007
Posts: 568
Loc: UK, up North
|
|
I would like to see a success made of the Foveon sensor. It appears to me that the early progress in the existing technology has slowed and that cramming additional pixels in there does not bring real benefit. What is needed is a change of direction and, just maybe, the Foveon is the answer.
Of course it is always good from a consumer's viewpoint to have more competition in the marketplace and therefore it would be beneficial if Sigma could make this work.
--------------------
Web Site
|
sey
nag picker
Reged: 22/12/2004
Posts: 4020
|
|
Quote:
Quote:
... and might be confusing to sales staff.
Oh boy! I can see the mayhem now
nope, no mayhem or confusion...........the clueless will simply take it in their stride as usual and the carp will flow downstream. 
--------------------
sey
"sometimes a brain is more important than a fancy camera" - Philip Greenspun
|
Previous
Index
Next
Threaded
Edit
Reply
Quote
