Michael writes:
"The Foveon chip is a fascinating bit of technology, but has regrettably not lived up to its promise. Thus far only Sigma has stepped up the plate, and it is well known that Foveon has been shopping the chip to every other camera maker for the past couple of years."
If this is true, why aren't they perfecting the chip and making it work? The technology behind it is clearly worth anyone’s serious try.
I know Sony is going with four colors, and Fuji is going with honeycombs with an extra "eye", so they are probably not interested. But why not Pentax, Olympus, even Nikon?
There must be more at stake than just technology, like politics, economics, and which company is "sleeping" with whom, as there are many cooperative efforts, like between Fuji and Nikon, Hasselblad and Fuji, Kodak and many others, Zeiss with Sony and Kyocera/Contax, Schneider with Kodak and Samsung, Leica with Panasonic, etc.
Thus, there may be agreements in place that prevent these companies from embracing Foveon.
One thing is clear tough: when comparing images from pbase taken with 6MP DSLR's, the Sigma SD10 does come out as delivering better images.
I have been shooting 35mm, 6x6, 6x7, 6x9, 6x12 and 6x17 for many years, and have used some of the best lenses (Schneider, Rodenstock, Zeiss, and Fujinon).
Nevertheless, I am impressed by some of the stuff I see coming from the Sigma SD10. It really is sharper than the Rebel; way sharper!
When it comes to lenses: Sigma is making new lenses, which will surpass the cheaper ones they made in the past. Does the average shooter really need the entire lens line that Nikon and Canon offer? Is the Olympus E1 a bad camera because there are only a few lenses? It is not a bad camera because of lenses, but because the 3/4 hip sinmpyl doesn't live up to the hype.
Did Contax make a bad digital SLR? In a way no, it was the chip's fault. I hope they will try again. They could make a killer camera.
You have to be careful with your sarcasm, as to some it may come over as terribly arrogant and snobbish. This kind of attitude does not make for objectivity. I am looking at the SD10 purely objectively, and so far I like what I see, so it deserves more than a simple push off the table.
Good photos are taken by good photographers, by good eyes, and by knowing what you are doing. No camera is perfect and no camera can do it all. In this day and age, we expect too many miracles from digital cameras.
Like someone wrote on another forum: suddenly, everyone judges digital cameras by their macro and night shooting abilities. We never used such criteria before, and it seems a bit silly, when many even never engage in that kind of shooting. A Leica M7 is a great camera, but can it do macros? The Contax G1/G2 is a great camera, but can it shoot sports? Wildlife? So, let’s keep things in their proper perspective.