[clackers]

That's funny considering Canon, Nikon, & Sony all buy lenses from Tamron, Sigma, & Tokina.

The issue is *not* companies outsourcing manufacturers to make their products, Winder, a board wants that.
It's where those lens companies start offering their own branded alternatives, and keep the money!

AFAIK, something like the Sigma 24-70mm is not licensed by Nikon, who receive no royalties, and additionally it competes with their OEM product.

---

Last edited by clackers; 10-18-2018 at 05:10 PM.

[Winder]

The issue is *not* companies outsourcing manufacturers to make their products, Winder, a board wants that.
It's where those lens companies start offering their own branded alternatives, and keep the money!

AFAIK, something like the Sigma 24-70mm is not licensed by Nikon, who receive no royalties, and additionally it competes with their OEM product.

Nikon also benefits from Sigma producing a 24-70mm even if they don't make royalties. The bigger the ecosystem the more users you will attract and as good as Sigma glass is, a lot of people will eventually upgrade to native glass as they can afford. Ricoh needs Sigma making ART glass in K-mount. That would open the door up for a lot more K-mount bodies being sold. There is a reason why Panasonic wanted Sigma to join its "new" L-mount. Companies who can't handle the competition need to stay on the sidelines.

[pres589]

"Ricoh needs Sigma making ART glass in K-mount. That would open the door up for a lot more K-mount bodies being sold."

Good luck proving this either way. I think there are very few lenses in the consumer space that sell bodies in the "I want this lens and that's why I had to get into this company's ecosystem" way. I really doubt someone would say "I really want that Sigma Art 35, so I guess I'll pick the Pentax K-1 to match".

[Winder]

"Ricoh needs Sigma making ART glass in K-mount. That would open the door up for a lot more K-mount bodies being sold."

Good luck proving this either way. I think there are very few lenses in the consumer space that sell bodies in the "I want this lens and that's why I had to get into this company's ecosystem" way. I really doubt someone would say "I really want that Sigma Art 35, so I guess I'll pick the Pentax K-1 to match".

You are looking at it from the wrong angle. When I first started shooting with Pentax I looked at the lenses that were available and the Sigma 85mm was an option at that time. The first lenses that I bought for K-mount , 2 of the 3 were Sigma. I was buying in with the expectation that Pentax would release a FF body and I wanted to buy FF glass even though it was an APS-C body. Had the Sigma glass not been available at that time, I probably would have gone to Nikon instead. I prefer native glass, but Ricoh is way behind in providing that.

When I switched over to mostly Sony and the A9. The first lenses I bought were the Zeiss 35mm F.1,4, 55mm F/1.8, Sony 85mm F/1.8, Sony 100mm STF GM, & the Zeiss Batis 135mm APO. Of that list only the brand new D-FA* 50mm F/1.4 would be an option for Ricoh. Everything else would require 3rd party or legacy glass.

[pres589]

You kind of made some classic mistakes in buying something today hoping that it would offer what you wanted in the future. But that's a different topic for another time.

I think people that want to shoot Sigma glass are not going to look for a Pentax body to do it with. I think they're going to look at Sony, or Canon, or Nikon. I base that one people posting on other, brand-agnostic photo forums I've been witness to (I stay with PF and only find this other stuff when searching for information) where people just want the Art glass and they don't seem to know why beyond "it's the sharpest" or "my friend takes great pictures with his Sigma Art lens" and technical detail down to *focal length* isn't known by the person asking. So they're not going to go for the niche option like a Pentax or even one of Sigma's own cameras.

And I can't really prove this with real numbers or research either. We're just guessing based on our own little set of experiences and tiny sample sizes.

[Winder]

You kind of made some classic mistakes in buying something today hoping that it would offer what you wanted in the future. But that's a different topic for another time.

I think people that want to shoot Sigma glass are not going to look for a Pentax body to do it with. I think they're going to look at Sony, or Canon, or Nikon. I base that one people posting on other, brand-agnostic photo forums I've been witness to (I stay with PF and only find this other stuff when searching for information) where people just want the Art glass and they don't seem to know why beyond "it's the sharpest" or "my friend takes great pictures with his Sigma Art lens" and technical detail down to *focal length* isn't known by the person asking. So they're not going to go for the niche option like a Pentax or even one of Sigma's own cameras.

And I can't really prove this with real numbers or research either. We're just guessing based on our own little set of experiences and tiny sample sizes.

I didn't make a mistake. Ricoh made a FF. It was pretty obvious that one was going to be made, it just took longer than expected.


Its not about people "wanting to shoot Sigma". Its about people needing glass for specific needs. When looking at a camera line, the question is do they have the glass you need.

I was shooting with both the K-1 and the Sony A7II for a while. Once the A9 came out and Sony added the lenses that were most important to me, I switched over to mostly Sony, but the brand is irrelevant. Had Sigma glass been available earlier I might have moved over earlier. By the time Sigma announced the ART glass for Sony I already had what I needed in native glass, so it didn't matter.

[pres589]

Did you buy a bunch of glass for a camera that didn't show up before you then exited the ecosystem for another lens mount or not?

[Jonathan Mac]

You kind of made some classic mistakes in buying something today hoping that it would offer what you wanted in the future. But that's a different topic for another time.

I think people that want to shoot Sigma glass are not going to look for a Pentax body to do it with. I think they're going to look at Sony, or Canon, or Nikon. I base that one people posting on other, brand-agnostic photo forums I've been witness to (I stay with PF and only find this other stuff when searching for information) where people just want the Art glass and they don't seem to know why beyond "it's the sharpest" or "my friend takes great pictures with his Sigma Art lens" and technical detail down to *focal length* isn't known by the person asking. So they're not going to go for the niche option like a Pentax or even one of Sigma's own cameras.

And I can't really prove this with real numbers or research either. We're just guessing based on our own little set of experiences and tiny sample sizes.

"Ricoh needs Sigma making ART glass in K-mount. That would open the door up for a lot more K-mount bodies being sold."

Good luck proving this either way. I think there are very few lenses in the consumer space that sell bodies in the "I want this lens and that's why I had to get into this company's ecosystem" way. I really doubt someone would say "I really want that Sigma Art 35, so I guess I'll pick the Pentax K-1 to match".

Buying into a system on the expectation that it will develop into something else is not a mistake as such, it's a risk, which is something different.

People who are inclined towards a certain Pentax body, or towards their perception of the way Pentax make camera bodies, will be influenced by other factors which add to, or detract from, the ecosystem as a whole. The existence of Sigma (or other third party) lenses in that ecosystem is one factor which will push a buyer towards buying into Pentax. If all the factors together are enough for that user to reach the tipping point of buying into the Pentax system then Pentax will gain an additional user. It's very simple. The same applies for an existing user who is considering changing - a range of factors which are to be assessed to make the decision.

[Winder]

Buying into a system on the expectation that it will develop into something else is not a mistake as such, it's a risk, which is something different.

I actually bought a couple of Fuji X-mount lenses with the expectation that I would buy into the system eventually. I got them on sale at a very good deal. I had 3 X-mount lenses and not body. I ended up selling the glass for a little more that what I paid after I accounted for shipping and e-bay fees. There is a lot to like about Fuji. They are dedicated to the system that that shows with the constant improvements to firmware and the speed at which they bring new glass to market. I really wish Olympus would join the L-mount system. I really like Olympus bodies and lenses. Olympus has patented 7 FF lenses over the years, so maybe they are working on their own system. I ended up with Sony and while I don't care much for Sony as a brand or company, their cameras give me the features that I'm looking for.

[clackers]

Nikon also benefits from Sigma producing a 24-70mm even if they don't make royalties. The bigger the ecosystem the more users you will attract and as good as Sigma glass is, a lot of people will eventually upgrade to native glass as they can afford.

That is so occasional amongst thousands of buyers that Nikon know it's not true, Winder.

It's why Apple used to permit clones of the Mac - more diverse hardware, like the enterprise Tower workstations - but withdrew all the licences when they realized they were making the razors but other people were selling the blades.

IBM and the PC was very much like that.

What a successful company wants is a walled garden, in an industry with high development costs but small margins like cameras, you want to make us much of the money for yourself, not as a platform for third party manufacturers.

[Winder]

Wang Hao, the head of Sigma China has been interviewed by a member of the biggest photography gear rental company irentals.cn.

Q: So there are four big players in the FF mirrorless market now, what’s Sigma’s strategy?
A: Our distribution of R&D resource really depends on the sale of the bodies. But we also have our own prediction, what I can say is that FF mirrorless is definitely the future.
Q: Since Sigma already has a well-established F1.4 ART prime line, what are you going to do next? Maybe even larger aperture?
A: Actually we’ve noticed that mirrorless users values compactness over shear sharpness, so we are thinking about going that direction.
Q: We noticed that there is no compact 35mm equivalent lens for Sony E-mount right now, not from any manufacturer. The rumor says Sony has some restriction to protect the RX1 series, is that true?
A: As far as I know there is no such thing. Sony E-mount is the most open lens mount we’ve ever worked with.
Q: Nikon & Canon hasn’t opened their new lens mount protocol, so what’s Sigma’s plan about R/Z mount?
A: At the moment there is no official partnership between Canon-Nikon and Sigma. We have to get the camera bodies first to see what we can do.

[mecrox]

Wang Hao, the head of Sigma China has been interviewed by a member of the biggest photography gear rental company irentals.cn.

Q: So there are four big players in the FF mirrorless market now, what’s Sigma’s strategy?
A: Our distribution of R&D resource really depends on the sale of the bodies. But we also have our own prediction, what I can say is that FF mirrorless is definitely the future.
Q: Since Sigma already has a well-established F1.4 ART prime line, what are you going to do next? Maybe even larger aperture?
A: Actually we’ve noticed that mirrorless users values compactness over shear sharpness, so we are thinking about going that direction.
Q: We noticed that there is no compact 35mm equivalent lens for Sony E-mount right now, not from any manufacturer. The rumor says Sony has some restriction to protect the RX1 series, is that true?
A: As far as I know there is no such thing. Sony E-mount is the most open lens mount we’ve ever worked with.
Q: Nikon & Canon hasn’t opened their new lens mount protocol, so what’s Sigma’s plan about R/Z mount?
A: At the moment there is no official partnership between Canon-Nikon and Sigma. We have to get the camera bodies first to see what we can do.

Rational and to be expected. They will work with what they can work with now, which means E and very soon L mounts and the legacy mounts they already cover, and wait to see how the new Canon and Nikon mounts pan out (and how easy they are to reverse engineer, presumably).

I don't doubt that FF mirrorless is definitely the future for Sigma but it doesn't follow that what is good for Sigma is good for everyone else. It sounds a bit unlikely, tbh. There is already quite a population of photographers who simply don't want or need massive FF lenses, particularly for telephoto. Some will pay handsomely for the miniaturisation which comes with weight-saving on other formats, etc. Only time will tell.

[Kunzite]

I don't doubt that FF mirrorless is definitely the future for Sigma but it doesn't follow that what is good for Sigma is good for everyone else. It sounds a bit unlikely, tbh. There is already quite a population of photographers who simply don't want or need massive FF lenses, particularly for telephoto. Some will pay handsomely for the miniaturisation which comes with weight-saving on other formats, etc. Only time will tell.

To state the obvious, each manufacturer say things that are convenient to them. Sigma, newly launched partnership in the L alliance, would naturally say FF mirrorless is the future. Fujifilm says "we'll never do FF!" (recent DPR interview). Ricoh Imaging believes that DSLRs are here to stay.

Likely they are all right to a certain extent. Or rather, FF mirrorless is the present among other competing formats and technologies; APS-C has and will have its place; and DSLRs are here to stay.
Trouble is, we're educated to look for a single "winner". So, which would kill everything else?

[mecrox]

To state the obvious, each manufacturer say things that are convenient to them. Sigma, newly launched partnership in the L alliance, would naturally say FF mirrorless is the future. Fujifilm says "we'll never do FF!" (recent DPR interview). Ricoh Imaging believes that DSLRs are here to stay.

Likely they are all right to a certain extent. Or rather, FF mirrorless is the present among other competing formats and technologies; APS-C has and will have its place; and DSLRs are here to stay.
Trouble is, we're educated to look for a single "winner". So, which would kill everything else?

I see FF as a potentially orphan format, in fact, despite the current furore. If I were a landscape or high-end art photographer, I would go straight to medium format. If I were after sports or wildlife, I would head for APS-C or in some cases even M43. For general knockabout stuff, a sensor as small as the M43 one is in fact perfectly fine and will deliver good, publishable results in good light or even quite bad light if IBIS is engaged. Of course this is easier said than done because the big manufacturers are trying to force formats on people, so lens choice, AF questions and professional support start to crop up because they are reserved for some models/formats only. Still, strip it all out and that doesn't leave all that much for which FF is a must-have rather than just a preference for the vast majority of customers.

[Kunzite]

Nope, FF is here to stay; it reaches a sweet spot of high image quality and affordability. You just cannot buy a medium format camera for the price of a K-1
It's enough to be "just a preference for the vast majority of customers", don't you think?