Fuji bails out of DSLRs completely?

"RichA" wrote in message
...
This, according to a guy who attended the PMA show in Toronto and
posted to the Fuji DSLR group on Dpreview. The remaining S5s will be
dumped off at $1000/ea. Interestingly, they decided not to release an
entry-level DSLR and instead released a smaller sensored superzoom at
a $700 price point.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=27707183

This is the equivalent of my neighbour's uncle's friend said that he
overheard in the lunchroom. I'll wait until Fuji actually makes an
announcement. Rich/RichA always has his thumb up the ass of the Industry.

On 2008-04-30, Dev/Null wrote:

"RichA" wrote in message
...
This, according to a guy who attended the PMA show in Toronto and
posted to the Fuji DSLR group on Dpreview. The remaining S5s will be
dumped off at $1000/ea. Interestingly, they decided not to release an
entry-level DSLR and instead released a smaller sensored superzoom at
a $700 price point.

http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/re...ssage=27707183

This is the equivalent of my neighbour's uncle's friend said that he
overheard in the lunchroom. I'll wait until Fuji actually makes an
announcement. Rich/RichA always has his thumb up the ass of the Industry.

But it coincidentally gels with Canadian pricing:

http://luminous-landscape.com/whatsnew/#221

--
savvo

In article
,
wrote:

The Sigma SD14 is selling for around $700 as well.

the sd14 is down to $549 now, which is approximately *one-third* of
what it originally sold for at its introduction last year, $1599.

In article
,
RichA wrote:

Considering its removable IR filter, it might be good for IR solely at
that price.

for roughly the same money, one can get a low end canon or nikon and
have it modded for infrared, and not be stuck with a slow camera that
takes only sigma lenses.

In article , nospam
wrote:

the sd14 is down to $549 now, which is approximately *one-third* of
what it originally sold for at its introduction last year, $1599.

It might be worth $5.49, but I wouldn't go any higher.

In article
,
wrote:

That was a big mistake on Sigma's part, not going with a Nikon or
Canon mount. They scared away a ton of potential customers, and they
incurred the cost of developing and manufacturing low-volume lenses
for their own proprietary mount.

there really wasn't a whole lot of development costs. a sigma mount
lens is essentially canon electronics with a pentax flange.

In article , nospam
wrote:

In article
,
wrote:

That was a big mistake on Sigma's part, not going with a Nikon or
Canon mount. They scared away a ton of potential customers, and they
incurred the cost of developing and manufacturing low-volume lenses
for their own proprietary mount.

No, the big mistake was their continued use of Foveon technology which
has been proven to be a poor performer.

wrote:

That was a big mistake on Sigma's part, not going with a Nikon or
Canon mount. They scared away a ton of potential customers, and they
incurred the cost of developing and manufacturing low-volume lenses
for their own proprietary mount.


The Sigma mount is a slightly modified Pentax K mount. I believe you
can fit K mount lenses to the camera, but they will not lock on as
Sigma chose to use a different locking system.

Obviously there is no electronic linkage between the lens and camera
as Sigma use a different interface to Pentax.

wrote:
On May 1, 6:45 pm, nospam wrote:
In article
,

RichA wrote:
Considering its removable IR filter, it might be good for IR solely at
that price.
for roughly the same money, one can get a low end canon or nikon and
have it modded for infrared, and not be stuck with a slow camera that
takes only sigma lenses.

Yes.

That was a big mistake on Sigma's part, not going with a Nikon or
Canon mount. They scared away a ton of potential customers, and they
incurred the cost of developing and manufacturing low-volume lenses
for their own proprietary mount.


It does seem really "DUMB", but there may be a big $$$ cost to selling a
camera
with a Canon or Nikon mounts. I did not say selling lens that fit a
Canon or Nikon mount.

Steve

In article , Steve Sherman
wrote:

It does seem really "DUMB", but there may be a big $$$ cost to selling a
camera
with a Canon or Nikon mounts. I did not say selling lens that fit a
Canon or Nikon mount.

Then they would have had to pay the Canon/Nikon royalty fee. Hell,
they're too cheap to pay licensing on their electronics.