Chuck Norcutt wrote:
> I don't believe the technically worst solution has won. The working solution
> has won. Foveon was a great idea on paper but it hasn't delivered on its
> hopeful promises. That's why it hasn't succeeded.
>
I think you are probably right.
On the other hand, Sigma's small size and presumably limited R&D budget
may have hurt its development. In addition to any missed opportunities
in sensor development itself, Sigma is way behind the bigger players in
camera development.
I was amused to read Mike's "World's Shortest Camera Review: The Sigma
DP2" yesterday. It seems he wanted so badly for it to be good that he
couldn't trust other reports and had to see for himself:
"For me, the camera's egregious lack of responsiveness makes it a
non-starter. Workarounds are all well and good, but I would just prefer
to have a camera that works better.
I wanted to like the Sigma DP2. I really did. But it's like a tripod
with two legs: what's missing overwhelms what's done well. I have to
call a personal verdict of "not recommended.""
Users have pretty universally praised the image output, Foveon sensor,
and lens, Sigma's expertise, but hated the rest of the camera.
I assume Foveon tried flogging the sensor to companies with better
resources to develop it. Perhaps Sigma has done so, too. Hard to imagine
that they make any money off their camera sales.
It might be interesting to see what a few months development work and
inclusion of such a sensor in an alternate version of a mid-high end
DSLR from Nikon, Sony or Canon might be like, or a m4/3 from Panasonic.
(Olympus and Pentax are left out not out of prejudice, but because of
size and R&D budget.)
Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|