Sigma, SD15 delayed. Does anyone care?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
From: nospam on 31 May 2010 21:28 In article <310520101735030226%rag(a)nospam.techline.com>, Mr. Strat <rag(a)nospam.techline.com> wrote: > > Sigma has once again delayed the launch of its long-awaited SD15 DSLR, > > Amateur Photographer understands. > > What loser is awaiting this POS? <http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/forum.asp?forum=1027&/sigma-slr-talk- forum/> the funny thing is, a lot of the hardcore fanbois are completely disillusioned with sigma and the sd15 debacle. if that doesn't spell failure, i don't know what does.
From: Scott W on 1 Jun 2010 23:16 On May 27, 11:11 am, RichA <rander3...(a)gmail.com> wrote: > Sigma's SD15 DSLR hit by further delay > Thursday 27th May 2010 > > Sigma has once again delayed the launch of its long-awaited SD15 DSLR, > Amateur Photographer understands. Does anyone care? No.
From: nospam on 2 Jun 2010 16:10 In article <4c0638dc$0$1630$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: > Not to defend Sigma, but it's rather incredible that a rental company > would even rent their lenses out in the first place. It would be like a > tool rental company renting out tools from Harbor Freight. Products > designed to be inexpensive and lightly used are not good products to > rent out. not all sigma lenses are low priced junk. look at the new 70-200 stabilized lens which is supposedly priced around $2000 (i don't think it's out yet so no actual pricing that i could find). they also have some niche lenses that nobody else makes. people are willing to pay for sigma lenses, so why not rent/sell them? however, lensrentals said they will *not* carry sigma when there's an alternative.
From: J. Clarke on 2 Jun 2010 17:42 On 6/2/2010 4:10 PM, nospam wrote: > In article<4c0638dc$0$1630$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, SMS > <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: > >> Not to defend Sigma, but it's rather incredible that a rental company >> would even rent their lenses out in the first place. It would be like a >> tool rental company renting out tools from Harbor Freight. Products >> designed to be inexpensive and lightly used are not good products to >> rent out. > > not all sigma lenses are low priced junk. look at the new 70-200 > stabilized lens which is supposedly priced around $2000 (i don't think > it's out yet so no actual pricing that i could find). The price has no bearing on whether or not it's junk you know. High priced junk is still junk. I'm not saying that the new 70-200 _is_ junk mind you but based on past performance it's best to assume the worst until proven wrong. > they also have some niche lenses that nobody else makes. people are > willing to pay for sigma lenses, so why not rent/sell them? however, > lensrentals said they will *not* carry sigma when there's an > alternative.
From: nospam on 2 Jun 2010 18:11
In article <hu6ka701qjp(a)news5.newsguy.com>, J. Clarke <jclarke.usenet(a)cox.net> wrote: > > not all sigma lenses are low priced junk. look at the new 70-200 > > stabilized lens which is supposedly priced around $2000 (i don't think > > it's out yet so no actual pricing that i could find). > > The price has no bearing on whether or not it's junk you know. High > priced junk is still junk. I'm not saying that the new 70-200 _is_ junk > mind you but based on past performance it's best to assume the worst > until proven wrong. my point is that sigma is now offering lenses that cost *more* than the exact same thing the camera makers offer. if someone is going to buy a third party lens, it should be *less* expensive, or be wildly different like the 200-500/2.8. |