[axl]

I don't get it at all (the LL article comes to the same conclusion you do). It strikes such an odd note that it's disturbing. Perhaps we're going to see substantial price increases from all of the manufacturers in Japan? Maybe not on this scale, but maybe we're in for some surprises.

I somehow don't think so. Or at least I hope not

With regards to SD1 pricing, I think it's downright silly. In UK it's over £6000! I mean comon! Unless you extrpolate you are ending with pixel dimensions of K-7 (ish) image. The only way to get the the resolution and detail Sigma marketing is dreaming will rival the MF cameras is to extrapolate 3fold. Which is silly if you ask me.
It's really shame, the hype around this camera was high and quite a few folks had high hopes for it but with this price...I think it'll be as succesful as Contax N digital...

[Pentaxor]

I don't get it at all (the LL article comes to the same conclusion you do). It strikes such an odd note that it's disturbing. Perhaps we're going to see substantial price increases from all of the manufacturers in Japan? Maybe not on this scale, but maybe we're in for some surprises.

well, the X100 retained it's original price eventhough it's plants were massively affected by the earthquake and tsunami. so I don't think where the justification for such price came from.

there are a lot of things that I consider why I arrived at such a conclusion. if we are going to look on how Pentax marketed the 645D and K-5 and how both became a commercial success, we'll see the differences between the two camera companies on how their approach (recipe for success) is on their respective products. basically, Sigma did the opposite of what Pentax did.

[uccemebug]

well, the X100 retained it's original price eventhough it's plants were massively affected by the earthquake and tsunami. so I don't think where the justification for such price came from.

there are a lot of things that I consider why I arrived at such a conclusion. if we are going to look on how Pentax marketed the 645D and K-5 and how both became a commercial success, we'll see the differences between the two camera companies on how their approach (recipe for success) is on their respective products. basically, Sigma did the opposite of what Pentax did.

Agreed. But with Panasonic entering a huge era of attrition and Sony's recent numbers it doesn't look good for the Japanese firms that have been doing all of the innovating recently. With steady power shortages this summer, my guess is they'll simply be unable to deliver the usual numbers of units this year. Higher prices - perhaps much higher - would seem very possible. Maybe Sigma's price is a simple reflection of the fact that they don't want to sell these things by the boatload.

[Pentaxor]

Agreed. But with Panasonic entering a huge era of attrition and Sony's recent numbers it doesn't look good for the Japanese firms that have been doing all of the innovating recently. With steady power shortages this summer, my guess is they'll simply be unable to deliver the usual numbers of units this year. Higher prices - perhaps much higher - would seem very possible. Maybe Sigma's price is a simple reflection of the fact that they don't want to sell these things by the boatload.

if that is the case, they could have postponed it. I'm not sure if Sigma will be at a loss. Fuji doesn't look to be looking that bad. we know they had been short due to the unexpected disaster in Japan, but that didn't made them to jack up their prices as they might be aware of the repercussions of selling them mightily high. Sigma could had been honest but chose not to. with the stiff competition nowadays, I don't think that any of the current manufacturers would try to cover their costs by jacking up the prices. I would say take the small loss or break even this year and hope for a better one next year.

[uccemebug]

if that is the case, they could have postponed it. I'm not sure if Sigma will be at a loss. Fuji doesn't look to be looking that bad. we know they had been short due to the unexpected disaster in Japan, but that didn't made them to jack up their prices as they might be aware of the repercussions of selling them mightily high. Sigma could had been honest but chose not to. with the stiff competition nowadays, I don't think that any of the current manufacturers would try to cover their costs by jacking up the prices. I would say take the small loss or break even this year and hope for a better one next year.

Good point about Fuji, but they haven't really been maintaining a line of products that's all that expensive to build.

Having seen how sharply "sentiment" had taken a nose-dive in Japan from late 2008 through the end of 2010 when I left I'm not sure that the manufacturers have too many years left in them of riding things out. I get the impression from the stories I'm seeing that this crisis has prompted Japanese industry to finally tackle a lot of the reforms that they haven't over the course of twenty years of "no growth": they're still laying off; they're making pronouncements about investment in India and SE Asia; they're now openly talking about moving jobs abroad. This is a period of great change in Japan. That said, let's hope it all comes to nothing for the camera makers. 8)

[Pentaxor]

Good point about Fuji, but they haven't really been maintaining a line of products that's all that expensive to build.

Having seen how sharply "sentiment" had taken a nose-dive in Japan from late 2008 through the end of 2010 when I left I'm not sure that the manufacturers have too many years left in them of riding things out. I get the impression from the stories I'm seeing that this crisis has prompted Japanese industry to finally tackle a lot of the reforms that they haven't over the course of twenty years of "no growth": they're still laying off; they're making pronouncements about investment in India and SE Asia; they're now openly talking about moving jobs abroad. This is a period of great change in Japan. That said, let's hope it all comes to nothing for the camera makers. 8)

hmmm...I think that is the downfall of developed countries. this is the growing trend nowadays. companies are looking for ways to minimize costs inorder to gain profit. could be the evil the globalization has brought up. this does not limit Japan, but the U.S., Canada as well. I believe Europe would follow the same route soon as they are undergoing this downward spiral by paying off some deficits of their own. the world economic crisis made this situation a lot worse.

[uccemebug]

hmmm...I think that is the downfall of developed countries.

Yes.

this does not limit Japan, but the U.S., Canada as well.

We're the pioneers! We had, what, 90%+ of the world's manufacturing capability at the end of WWII and did what. Stripped whatever could be shipped, turned what we could into condos, and left the rest to rot.

And we've turned our services industries into thin veneers of companies headquartered abroad and staffed abroad.

I set off a career in IT seventeen years ago and recently had the opportunity to watch a jobs in the Japanese financial industry go where the North American ones already were: Asia. When you're dealing with Laotian software developers, you really get a sense of how far things have gone! 8^/

[Digitalis]

sigma is in a bit of a Fix with Nikon over Image stabilisation patents - sigma is being sued 12.5 Billion yen.

I think this is a sign of the apocalypse...for sigma.

[uccemebug]

sigma is in a bit of a Fix with Nikon over Image stabilisation patents - sigma is being sued 12.5 Billion yen.

I think this is a sign of the apocalypse...for sigma.

Yikes. I wonder what Nikon has in mind.

P.S. Ricoh's just announced some big cuts.

[thibs]

Yep, it's not that Digma really competes with Nikon. Or do they?

[falconeye]

Hi friends,

let me join the party.

So, I compared the probably most impressive sample provided by Sigma ( SD1-001 at Sample Photo Gallery | SIGMA SD1 : Special Contents ) (linked here far too often for this thread to load on some mobile devices ....) against one of my own photos.

To save bandwidth, I mounted the full photos (15% magnification) and crops (100% magnification) into one image.

Please, don't argue about the high light source contrast in my portrait...

Some meta data for the Pentax image:
DA 70 Ltd., 70mm, f/8.0, 1/125s, ISO80 pushed one stop, converted from RAW by LR3.

Please, click onto image to enlarge to correct size!!
(and undo the browser's resize to fit ...)

I don't know what you think, but IMHO the Sigma SD1 sample photo doesn't meet the quality of "my" sample. And according to the Sigma website, samples provided were allowed to be obtained from RAW and with "retouching" by the photographers allowed. What I did to my photo too. So I guess, this is a fair comparison after all. Esp. as Sigma had a choice of photographers and samples...

In conclusion, I don't think the SD1 does any better in good light compared to a K-5. Resolution-wise. Despite the K-5's AA filter

OTOH, I'm sure the 645D smashes the SD1 resolution wise and the K-5 is far superior in almost all other aspects (speed, high ISO, weather etc.).

So, I am sorry to say but at the moment, I can't see the point in Sigma's market proposition. Which is sad for an otherwise interesting technology.


P.S.
The second Sigma sample (SD1-002) has identical parameters (70mm f/8 and exact same distance to the model). But if you compare the eye detail of my sample and SD1-002, the SD1 sample looks "unusable" The hair detail in SD1-002 is better but I decided to use SD1-001 for my comparison.

[Class A]

Hi Falk,

stunning model! Hope we'll see more of her.

To save bandwidth, I mounted the full photos (15% magnification) and crops (100% magnification) into one image.

Something is odd. When I view the original Sigma Sigma-SDIM7925AA.jpg file side to side with your crop, the eye appears significantly larger than in your 100% crop. That shouldn't be the case?!?

I turned off all browser magnification, btw, because I don't like image rescaling.

While your sample shows great detail and is very convincing, the comparison with the SD 1 might not be entirely fair, depending on what rescaling occurred with which image.

BTW, the part where the lashes are the sharpest in the SD 1 image (towards the outer corner of the eye) is not visible in your crop. The focus is pretty forward, making the iris look dull. Any shot with a detailed iris will look more impressive in comparison.

[gazonk]

In conclusion, I don't think the SD1 does any better in good light compared to a K-5. Resolution-wise. Despite the K-5's AA filter

I had a look at the landscape (Grand Canyon?) image, and was underwhelmed. At first look, the colors look nice, but if you look in the lower dark parts, the colors are really murky. I thought I could see cyan/magenta blotchy noise, but wasn't quite sure if it was actual color variations in the landscape in this specific image, so I had a look at the Vegas image as well, and if I crank up the exposure in the dark (street) parts of that image, I see the same pattern noise. I really doubt the SD1 can match the DR of the K-5.

[Pentaxor]

I had a look at the landscape (Grand Canyon?) image, and was underwhelmed. At first look, the colors look nice, but if you look in the lower dark parts, the colors are really murky. I thought I could see cyan/magenta blotchy noise, but wasn't quite sure if it was actual color variations in the landscape in this specific image, so I had a look at the Vegas image as well, and if I crank up the exposure in the dark (street) parts of that image, I see the same pattern noise. I really doubt the SD1 can match the DR of the K-5.

DR could be in the highlight range. tonality on salvaging highlights is better compared from underexposed images. I'm just saying the possibility of the SD1's DR is in the opposite side of the graph which would make more sense, rather than in the shadows.

[Aku Ankka]

then your findings are flawed. understanding the laws of physics and sensor technology that you only know isn't enough if you don't have the actual sample that would support such claim as such. textbook knowledge is only as good as a mere theory without proper experimentation that would support the as evident fact.

Wrong. Assuming that having a sample of some piece of technology in hand is a requirement to understanding it would mean that no new technology ever would see light, at least none that were planned

thank you for clarifying this as I had assumed that you had any experience with any Sigma cameras. but since it is evident that you haven't, this makes your findings highly suspect.

I do have access to Sigma images, I do understand how the sensor works, I do understand how the relevant physics work, yet all that is irrelevant because I don't own a Sigma camera? Will the same be true for every other product and technology in the world - only those owning a product can know anything about them?

the Pentax K-5 real maximum ISO is 1600? where did you get that?

The Sony sensor has maximum gain for ISO 1600. Everything beyoond that is made in software.

of course it is relevant. it would show how Sigma improved the so-called noise performance at ISO levels that you are worried about. of course, anyone can add a few more stops on the camera. but I was referring to the performance at High
ISO levels. as I said previously, it wouldn't make sense for Sigma to boost up the ISO if the performance is not even up to it. the only possible reason why they would boost up the ISO is if they made some real significant improvement of the Foveon sensor with respect to performance.

You don't seem to understand that the Foveon technology has certain hard limitations - no actual hand holding of a Sigma camera is needed to understand them. One of theses limitations is the noise factor (for color imagery). This is because of the very weak color separation which forces the noise up. This is something that no mumbo jumbo will overcome.

On the other hand, if the new sensor in the Sigma is based on the recent patent presented in many forums, then the sensor will have correlated double sampling which takes away so-called reset-noise. This is somehting that is indeed fixable, and what we do not know if it's happened or not. If that patent describes the SD1 sensor, then it'll also have only a quarter of the red and green photodiodes compared to the blue ones.

thanks for the laugh. but the difference between you and LL is that LL actually do some tests and experimentations, aside from textbook knowledge inorder to see the consistency to their findings if it is such or not. in other words, they have more bearing than what you could only offer.

You should learn to be more critical of photography sites nstead of laughing at other people. Laughing at others is not polite.

LL has a long history of very subjective articles which carefully avoid reality when it comes to hard performance figures. However, they also do have plenty of articles of interest, but the ones which should have some scientific accuracy do not usually have much.

this ultimately defeats your argument considering that there are better cameras out there as you have generalized. also why the interest if you already knew more about the SD1 and I quote "you knew already about sensor technology and their limitations and the laws of physics" even if you don't have the SD1 nor have any experience of it yet. it's funny how you the devalue a camera yet interested to get one for a price that would be able to afford it. very ironic, not to mention pointless as well.

I am not sure if you just want to insult me with you lack of reason and logic, or what? There is nothing that will defeat my argument in me saying that I might buy SD1 if the price is under 1k. As I said, it is an interesting product (well, the sensor is, the camera itself is not), and should be very good for black and white photography where the noise from the color separation does not come to play.

It seems like you live in a world of absolutes. I don't. While I am critical on the Sigma cameras and Foveon sensors, that does not mean I fail to see their merits. I live in a world where one may be interested in a flawed product and even buy one - your words strongly indicate that such behavior is not possible in your world.