Foveon to rock the DSLR world again, with 16.8MP sensor.

"Georgette Preddy" wrote in message
om...

The Sigma SA mount is the single best thing about Sigma DSLRs. By
incorporating their own mount, Sigma, the world's largest lens maker,
gets an implied contract from their DSLR body buyers to buy all their
lenses from them too. This is what allows Sigma to sell the $5K-$10K
SD10 at around $1200.

Ah, the best thing about the Sigma is not the "quality" of what it produces,
but its lens mount. I see.

5 to 10 K? You are not of this world sg10.3. Stick to what you know best,
yellow children and your ****e so-called moon images.

"Alan D-W" wrote in message
...

"Georgette Preddy" wrote in message
om...

The Sigma SA mount is the single best thing about Sigma DSLRs. By
incorporating their own mount, Sigma, the world's largest lens maker,
gets an implied contract from their DSLR body buyers to buy all their
lenses from them too. This is what allows Sigma to sell the $5K-$10K
SD10 at around $1200.

Ah, the best thing about the Sigma is not the "quality" of what it
produces,
but its lens mount. I see.

All we need is an adaptor from the SA mount to the EOS or Nikon mount. Then
we can violate the contract and not have to buy poor lenses. BTW, Sigma is
not the largest lens manufacturer, even Sigma doesn't claim this. Canon is
first, Nikon is second, Sigma is third. Sigma is the largest independent
manufacturer of lenses.

In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Steven M. Scharf wrote:
"Sander Vesik" wrote in message
...

Really, the *main* stupid thing Sigma did was the development of the
'Sigma' mount. They should simply have picked one of Nikon / Canon /
Pentax.

Not so easy. These manufacturers are under no obligation to share the
technical details of their lens mounts with Sigma.

Sigma already makes lens for those mounts.


Look at all the problems Sigma lenses have with compatibility with other
manufacturer's cameras. Can you imagine if Sigma bodies had to be compatible
with Canon or Nikon or Pentax lenses? Well. we'll soon see if the Sigma
manufactured, Kodak DCS14/c works with all the Canon lenses.


yes but how much of that is real insurmountable incompat vs tradeoffs in making
all the same lens for 5 different mounts?

--
Sander

+++ Out of cheese error +++

"Sander Vesik" wrote in message
...
In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Steven M. Scharf
wrote:
"Sander Vesik" wrote in message
...

Really, the *main* stupid thing Sigma did was the development of the
'Sigma' mount. They should simply have picked one of Nikon / Canon /
Pentax.

Not so easy. These manufacturers are under no obligation to share the
technical details of their lens mounts with Sigma.

Sigma already makes lens for those mounts.

Yes, but they reverse-engineer the camera to lens protocol. They often have
problems when a new Canon body comes out because the new body uses features
that were not present in the older Canon bodies that Sigma used during the
reverse engineering process. Genuine Canon lenses, even older ones, will,
except in extremely rare instances, be compatible with newer Canon bodies.
Sigma will, if possible (and for a fee), re-chip their lenses to be
compatible with Canon bodies--this isn't always possible.

Canon may have been willing to license Sigma to make lenses that fit the
Canon mount, but licensing them to do it doesn't mean that they tell them
how to do it. Unlikely that Canon will license their lens mount for a
non-pro camera. They probably licensed Kodak because Canon expect to sell
lenses, which are more profitable than bodies. And since the DCS14/c is
ostensibly a pro camera, Canon isn't worried about lost lens sales to Sigma,
since Sigma doesn't make pro lenses.

"Steven M. Scharf" wrote in message
hlink.net...
"Sander Vesik" wrote in message
...
In rec.photo.equipment.35mm Steven M. Scharf

wrote:
"Sander Vesik" wrote in message
...

Really, the *main* stupid thing Sigma did was the development
of the
'Sigma' mount. They should simply have picked one of Nikon /
Canon /
Pentax.

Not so easy. These manufacturers are under no obligation to
share the
technical details of their lens mounts with Sigma.

Sigma already makes lens for those mounts.

Yes, but they reverse-engineer the camera to lens protocol. They
often have
problems when a new Canon body comes out because the new body uses
features
that were not present in the older Canon bodies that Sigma used
during the
reverse engineering process. Genuine Canon lenses, even older ones,
will,
except in extremely rare instances, be compatible with newer Canon
bodies.
Sigma will, if possible (and for a fee), re-chip their lenses to be
compatible with Canon bodies--this isn't always possible.

Canon may have been willing to license Sigma to make lenses that fit
the
Canon mount, but licensing them to do it doesn't mean that they tell
them
how to do it. Unlikely that Canon will license their lens mount for
a
non-pro camera. They probably licensed Kodak because Canon expect to
sell
lenses, which are more profitable than bodies. And since the DCS14/c
is
ostensibly a pro camera, Canon isn't worried about lost lens sales
to Sigma,
since Sigma doesn't make pro lenses.

....yet pros do use Sigma lenses as David has already pointed out to
you. You continue to make statements that are blatantly false. You
made a statement earlier regarding "blind allegience" to Sigma on the
part of some - including me. I'm still waiting for you to cite proof
of that statement regading me. Let me save you some time and tell you
to forget about it because I don't have blind allegience to Sigma as
you have stated. You, however have a blind hatred towards Sigma.

"Steven M. Scharf" wrote in message
news:BgoDc.14813
Yes, but they reverse-engineer the camera to lens protocol. They often
have
problems when a new Canon body comes out because the new body uses
features
that were not present in the older Canon bodies that Sigma used during the
reverse engineering process. Genuine Canon lenses, even older ones, will,
except in extremely rare instances, be compatible with newer Canon bodies.
Sigma will, if possible (and for a fee), re-chip their lenses to be
compatible with Canon bodies--this isn't always possible.

Canon may have been willing to license Sigma to make lenses that fit the
Canon mount, but licensing them to do it doesn't mean that they tell them
how to do it. Unlikely that Canon will license their lens mount for a
non-pro camera. They probably licensed Kodak because Canon expect to sell
lenses, which are more profitable than bodies. And since the DCS14/c is
ostensibly a pro camera, Canon isn't worried about lost lens sales to
Sigma,
since Sigma doesn't make pro lenses.


Well, I just tried my 4 year old Sigma 17-35 f2.8-4 on my buddy's new 1D
mkII (I hate him) and it worked just fine. Maybe Sigma has overcome the
compatibility problems, or the EX series does better.

--
Skip Middleton
http://www.shadowcatcherimagery.com

Georgette Preddy wrote:
The Sigma SA mount is the single best thing about Sigma DSLRs.

Because you don't have to worry about accidentally attaching one of
those lenses to your good camera.

--
Ray Fischer

"Skip M" wrote in message
newsxrDc.601$876.411@fed1read07...

Well, I just tried my 4 year old Sigma 17-35 f2.8-4 on my buddy's new 1D
mkII (I hate him) and it worked just fine. Maybe Sigma has overcome the
compatibility problems, or the EX series does better.

It's not every lens that has the problem. Four years old is relatively new.
I'd worry more about ten year old lenses.

"Giorgio Preddio" wrote in message
om...

The compatibility problems only occur if the Canon camera body is
newer than the Sigma lens. Even then, Sigma will rechip any lens, but
I fail to see why anyone would want to use Sigma lenses on a crappy
Canon body. The Kodak is a piece of crap. It may use the Sigma body
housing, but it is lacking the most critical gem of the Sigma SD*
series....the Foveon X3 sensor advantage.

Wow, how enormously clever and erudite you are. I so wish I was an
important professor of photography and master photographer of hard core
pornography and filth.

If you ever used an SD9 or SD10 then you would realize what a
ludicrous statement you've made.


Why? His statement works for me.

Doesn't work for me.