Why only 4.6MP?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: Processing Program
Next: curanzia versicherung, berufsunf�higkeits versicherung, berufsunf�higkeitsversicherung f�r selbst�ndige, berufsunf�higkeitsversicherung preis, versicherung vergleich,
From: nospam on 26 Feb 2010 12:55 In article <4b88010c$0$1595$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: > A 4.6MP Foveon sensor is no better than a 4.6MP Bayer sensor. They both > have the same number of pixels. The Bayer uses interpolation, the Foveon > uses silicon color separation. Neither is ideal, both work. that's not entirely true. a 4.6 mp foveon can use a weaker anti-alias filter (but not skip it entirely like sigma does), so the end effect is a little bit better resolution. it's certainly not double or 3x the resolution or some of the other ludicrous claims i've seen. then there's the issue of noise and dynamic range, which is where foveon is weakest.
From: SMS on 26 Feb 2010 14:04 nospam wrote: > In article <4b8801f1$0$1595$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, SMS > <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: > >>> let's not forget that the sd14 initially sold for $1599 >> No they didn't. > > actually, they did. > >> That was the asking price. > > and the diehard fanbois paid that for the first few months. Yeah, okay, a few diehard fanbois paid that, but even most fanbois knew that the prices would quickly plunge.
From: SMS on 26 Feb 2010 14:08 nospam wrote: > In article <4b87ff15$0$1662$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, SMS > <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: > >> To invest huge amounts of money in sensor >> development for a line of D-SLRs with close to 0% market share does not >> make any sense. > > yet sigma says they are working on future foveon sensors, for high end > cameras! Of course they say that. If they don't say that, then the few people that are buying the SD14 would not be doing so. if they think they're going to compete with the likes of nikon > or canon, they're on crack. some day, they're going to realize they > can't fund this sinkhole forever. Lens sales are very profitable. Much more so than bodies.
From: nospam on 26 Feb 2010 14:37 In article <4b881b4c$0$1661$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: > Yeah, okay, a few diehard fanbois paid that, but even most fanbois knew > that the prices would quickly plunge. they do now. how many will be the first to buy the sd15 when they know that a few months later, it's going to be half the price?
From: nospam on 26 Feb 2010 14:37
In article <4b881c27$0$1603$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: > > yet sigma says they are working on future foveon sensors, for high end > > cameras! > > Of course they say that. If they don't say that, then the few people > that are buying the SD14 would not be doing so. they could say nothing and let people fantasize. after all, the fans keep pining for a full frame sensor, despite it being impossible. the sd15 has been announced twice and it *still* doesn't have a ship date or price. it's probably going to be an even bigger train wreck than the sd14 was. > > if they think they're going to compete with the likes of nikon > > or canon, they're on crack. some day, they're going to realize they > > can't fund this sinkhole forever. > > Lens sales are very profitable. Much more so than bodies. true, but they're sinking a lot of those profits into keeping foveon going. designing and fabbing a sensor is *not* cheap, and now that they bought foveon, sigma gets to pay for *all* of it. they also have the custom chipsets (true ii) which are also not cheap to design and fab as well as the camera itself, plus manufacturing everything in low volumes and needing to dump the results at fire sale prices. how much money do you think they lost selling the sd14 at $350 retail?? that's 80% off the initial price! there's no way in hell they can make an sd14 for $350. losing money on each sale is not a good business model. |