Reichman: Sigma's only hope, bundle it with their least bad lenses
 

Finally, two professional sources call Sigma's lenses "consumer
grade." Reichman suggests as a way to justify the horrific $9700
price, bundling the body with their "best" lenses. The suggestion is
however, that if the camera can deliver the resolution claimed, most
of the Sigma lenses won't be able to deliver it and you are stuck with
the Sigma bayonet.

But can you imagine what will happen if they were to charge $9700
right off the bat, then drop the price to $2000-$2500? Bloody murder
from less sensible early adopters?

A much smaller scale example was seen here when Fuji released the S5
at nearly $2400 versus Nikon's same-bodied D200 at about $600 less.
It surely limited the Fuji sales, even if the Fuji could claim some
interesting superior attributes.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/es...rational.shtml

Re: Reichman: Sigma's only hope, bundle it with their least bad lenses
 

In article
<0110129e-bd53-4485-a81f-fddd1ddef4da@w10g2000yqa.googlegroups.com>,
RichA <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote:

> Finally, two professional sources call Sigma's lenses "consumer grade."

finally? this isn't news.

sigma has long been known for consumer grade lenses. only recently have
they tried to price some of them higher than the equivalent nikon/canon
version and that failed.

> Reichman suggests as a way to justify the horrific $9700
> price, bundling the body with their "best" lenses. The suggestion is
> however, that if the camera can deliver the resolution claimed, most
> of the Sigma lenses won't be able to deliver it and you are stuck with
> the Sigma bayonet.

there's no easy way out of this. sigma screwed up, big time.

> But can you imagine what will happen if they were to charge $9700
> right off the bat, then drop the price to $2000-$2500? Bloody murder
> from less sensible early adopters?

assuming someone actually pays $9700.

not only are the die hard fanbois no longer interested but the usual
sigma shills are stunned at the price.

it's also what they did with the sd14 - initial street price was $1600,
cut to $1200 months later, ultimately dropping to $350 when they were
blown out on clearance and they still had trouble selling them.

> A much smaller scale example was seen here when Fuji released the S5
> at nearly $2400 versus Nikon's same-bodied D200 at about $600 less.
> It surely limited the Fuji sales, even if the Fuji could claim some
> interesting superior attributes.

fuji bought d200 shells from nikon so they had no choice but to price
it higher than a real d200. it's an entirely different scenario.

sigma makes everything in the sd1, other than using an olympus
autofocus module.

there's simply no way the manufacturing cost is anywhere near $9700.

Re: Reichman: Sigma's only hope, bundle it with their least bad lenses
 

RichA <rander3127@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>Finally, two professional sources call Sigma's lenses "consumer
>grade." Reichman suggests as a way to justify the horrific $9700
>price, bundling the body with their "best" lenses. The suggestion is
>however, that if the camera can deliver the resolution claimed, most
>of the Sigma lenses won't be able to deliver it and you are stuck with
>the Sigma bayonet.


Perhaps some enterprising engineering company will offer to adapt
other, superior brands of lens to the Sigma SA mount? The physical
mount is said to be identical to the Pentax K bayonet mount but with a
different lock. Consequently, you can successfully mount a Pentax K
or KA lens, but there is nothing to prevent the lens rotating in the
mount - except friction.

So it might be possible to modify Pentax K/KA lenses with the addition
of a lock fit the Sigma SA mount and lock the lens in place.

Of course the electronic interface is completely different, so
including AF and other features that are dependent on electronics
would probably not be possible.

Re: Reichman: Sigma's only hope, bundle it with their least bad lenses
 

In article <damlt6tbttsjr92v7ig2vu2rb5560htg2j@4ax.com>, Bruce
<docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote:

> Perhaps some enterprising engineering company will offer to adapt
> other, superior brands of lens to the Sigma SA mount?

there are various adapters and there's someone who modifies the
camera's mount itself to nikon, canon, sony, etc.

> The physical
> mount is said to be identical to the Pentax K bayonet mount but with a
> different lock.

it's basically a k mount flange.

> Consequently, you can successfully mount a Pentax K
> or KA lens, but there is nothing to prevent the lens rotating in the
> mount - except friction.

pentax k mount lenses fit if you cut off the aperture coupling pin, but
if you do, it will no longer work on a pentax.

> So it might be possible to modify Pentax K/KA lenses with the addition
> of a lock fit the Sigma SA mount and lock the lens in place.

just the coupling pin.

> Of course the electronic interface is completely different, so
> including AF and other features that are dependent on electronics
> would probably not be possible.

everything is manual focus & stop-down metering, except for canon
lenses.

sigma mount lenses use canon electronics, so it's possible to convert
canon ef to sigma sa by changing the mount plate and they'll work,
including autofocus. it's also possible to change the camera's mount to
canon ef. the only thing that doesn't work is stabilization.

Re: Reichman: Sigma's only hope, bundle it with their least badlenses
 

On 5/23/2011 3:10 PM, RichA wrote:
> Finally, two professional sources call Sigma's lenses "consumer
> grade." Reichman suggests as a way to justify the horrific $9700
> price, bundling the body with their "best" lenses. The suggestion is
> however, that if the camera can deliver the resolution claimed, most
> of the Sigma lenses won't be able to deliver it and you are stuck with
> the Sigma bayonet.
>
> But can you imagine what will happen if they were to charge $9700
> right off the bat, then drop the price to $2000-$2500? Bloody murder
> from less sensible early adopters?
>
> A much smaller scale example was seen here when Fuji released the S5
> at nearly $2400 versus Nikon's same-bodied D200 at about $600 less.
> It surely limited the Fuji sales, even if the Fuji could claim some
> interesting superior attributes.
>
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/es...rational.shtml
>

YAWN!

--
Peter

Re: Reichman: Sigma's only hope, bundle it with their least badlenses
 

On 24/05/2011 10:10 AM, Rich wrote:
> Bruce<docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote in
> news:damlt6tbttsjr92v7ig2vu2rb5560htg2j@4ax.com:
>
>> RichA<rander3127@gmail.com> wrote:
>>>
>>> Finally, two professional sources call Sigma's lenses "consumer
>>> grade." Reichman suggests as a way to justify the horrific $9700
>>> price, bundling the body with their "best" lenses. The suggestion is
>>> however, that if the camera can deliver the resolution claimed, most
>>> of the Sigma lenses won't be able to deliver it and you are stuck with
>>> the Sigma bayonet.
>>
>>
>> Perhaps some enterprising engineering company will offer to adapt
>> other, superior brands of lens to the Sigma SA mount? The physical
>> mount is said to be identical to the Pentax K bayonet mount but with a
>> different lock. Consequently, you can successfully mount a Pentax K
>> or KA lens, but there is nothing to prevent the lens rotating in the
>> mount - except friction.
>>
>> So it might be possible to modify Pentax K/KA lenses with the addition
>> of a lock fit the Sigma SA mount and lock the lens in place.
>>
>> Of course the electronic interface is completely different, so
>> including AF and other features that are dependent on electronics
>> would probably not be possible.
>>
>>
>>
>
> Interesting, I wasn't aware of this, thank you.

Using Pentax (PK) lenses on a Sigma SA mount camera won't work.
The main reason is the the SA mount register is the same as Canon EF (or
EF-s) and so without a spacer (modified PK macro ring?) it would never
be able to focus.
Maybe a better idea would be to exchange the camera's SA mount with a EF
mount.
From what little I've bothered to research about the SA mount uses the
same electronic comms as Canon EF, but don't quote what I've written as
the final word on this (I could *gasp* be wrong about this).

Re: Reichman: Sigma's only hope, bundle it with their least bad lenses
 

In article <4ddb5f0b$0$15070$afc38c87@news.optusnet.com.au> , dj_nme
<dj_nme@optusnet.com.au> wrote:

> Using Pentax (PK) lenses on a Sigma SA mount camera won't work.

it does work, just need to remove the aperture coupling pin because it
will hit the colour matching filter, also known as the dust protector.

> The main reason is the the SA mount register is the same as Canon EF (or
> EF-s) and so without a spacer (modified PK macro ring?) it would never
> be able to focus.

it will not focus as close as it would on pentax (normally not a huge
issue) and also go past infinity (not a problem at all), but otherwise
it works fine.

> Maybe a better idea would be to exchange the camera's SA mount with a EF
> mount.

also an option but that's more money and voids any warranty, which with
sigma products is desperately needed, especially with the cameras.

> From what little I've bothered to research about the SA mount uses the
> same electronic comms as Canon EF, but don't quote what I've written as
> the final word on this (I could *gasp* be wrong about this).

it does.

Re: Reichman: Sigma's only hope, bundle it with their least badlenses
 

On 25/05/2011 12:20 AM, nospam wrote:
> In article<4ddb5f0b$0$15070$afc38c87@news.optusnet.co m.au>, dj_nme
> <dj_nme@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>
>> Using Pentax (PK) lenses on a Sigma SA mount camera won't work.
>
> it does work, just need to remove the aperture coupling pin because it
> will hit the colour matching filter, also known as the dust protector.

That would seem a shame, to ruin a perfectly good Pentax lens to fit it
onto a Sigma dSLR. ;)

>> The main reason is the the SA mount register is the same as Canon EF (or
>> EF-s) and so without a spacer (modified PK macro ring?) it would never
>> be able to focus.
>
> it will not focus as close as it would on pentax (normally not a huge
> issue) and also go past infinity (not a problem at all), but otherwise
> it works fine.
>
>> Maybe a better idea would be to exchange the camera's SA mount with a EF
>> mount.
>
> also an option but that's more money and voids any warranty, which with
> sigma products is desperately needed, especially with the cameras.

I don't know which is nastier: your subtle(?) jab at Sigma reliabilitly
or mine about ruining a PK lens. :)

>> From what little I've bothered to research about the SA mount uses the
>> same electronic comms as Canon EF, but don't quote what I've written as
>> the final word on this (I could *gasp* be wrong about this).
>
> it does.

I wonder why they never seem to have received a C&D letter from Canon
about that?

Surely the best "swap bits to make it work" in this case would be
exchanging the bayonet on a Canon EF lens with a Sigma SA mount.
At least then you'd have full automation.
Much better than irreversibly damaging a lens to fit a camera.

My gut instinct is that it would be wiser move to buy a Pentax dSLR to
use PK lenses with.
Heck, you could buy (at least) 10 Pentax bodies for the price of a Sigma
SD1), at full retail price.

Re: Reichman: Sigma's only hope, bundle it with their least bad lenses
 

dj_nme <dj_nme@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>On 25/05/2011 12:20 AM, nospam wrote:
>> In article<4ddb5f0b$0$15070$afc38c87@news.optusnet.co m.au>, dj_nme
>> <dj_nme@optusnet.com.au> wrote:
>>> From what little I've bothered to research about the SA mount uses the
>>> same electronic comms as Canon EF, but don't quote what I've written as
>>> the final word on this (I could *gasp* be wrong about this).
>>
>> it does.
>
>I wonder why they never seem to have received a C&D letter from Canon
>about that?


Maybe for the exact same reason that Sigma haven't received a C&D
letter from Canon for reverse engineering the interface for use in
Sigma's lens range for Canon EF mount?

Camera manufacturers would obviously prefer to sell their own branded
lenses to owners of their DSLRs. However, the availability of
inexpensive third party lenses from Sigma, Tamron, Tokina etc. helps
sell cameras to people who have limited funds - if only the more
expensive camera brand lenses were available, people would have less
money to spend on cameras.


>Surely the best "swap bits to make it work" in this case would be
>exchanging the bayonet on a Canon EF lens with a Sigma SA mount.
>At least then you'd have full automation.
>Much better than irreversibly damaging a lens to fit a camera.


You need to ask yourself whether going to such lengths would be
worthwhile. If the camera lives up to Sigma's claims for its
performance, there is still the issue of its extremely high cost.


>My gut instinct is that it would be wiser move to buy a Pentax dSLR to
>use PK lenses with.
>Heck, you could buy (at least) 10 Pentax bodies for the price of a Sigma
>SD1), at full retail price.


From a reseller's point of view, I would much rather sell ten Pentax
DSLRs than one Sigma SD-1. As a reseller of Sigma lenses and
accessories, we may come under pressure to stock the camera. If so,
experience with the Sony A900 and A850 suggests that we may well be
left with a very expensive paperweight. :-(

Re: Reichman: Sigma's only hope, bundle it with their least bad lenses
 

In article <3kjpt6pqhtd570qanhca2qkqu9tgleb1ok@4ax.com>, Bruce
<docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote:

> Maybe for the exact same reason that Sigma haven't received a C&D
> letter from Canon for reverse engineering the interface for use in
> Sigma's lens range for Canon EF mount?

Well, that's just how Sigma rolls. It's in line with their creative
math.

> Camera manufacturers would obviously prefer to sell their own branded
> lenses to owners of their DSLRs. However, the availability of
> inexpensive third party lenses from Sigma, Tamron, Tokina etc. helps
> sell cameras to people who have limited funds - if only the more
> expensive camera brand lenses were available, people would have less
> money to spend on cameras.

The sting of low quality remains long after the sweetness of low price
is forgotten.