Sigma SD1 review

[kwalsh]

Those are not cameras for a serious professional workflow, not because of the sensor because we end with zillion layers anyway in this industry, but for many other factors that makes those cameras almost unusable in commercial maybe with the exception of weddings etc...

Seems very ill suited to weddings.  Too slow an interface means missing shots.  Weird color response combined with the weird lighting in so many wedding settings is a recipe for disaster (not to mention no profile support).  Churning through a bazillion shots with very low profit margin means a speedy workflow which SPP decidedly is not!

Ken

[Ray]

Nope. The economics of sensor wafer fabrication are such that th viable price depends on a good yield, which can really on be achieved after some significant production. Moreover, who is going to tool-up on a specifialized build like this for a few hundred sensors? No one, unless they are charging a fortune for the chip. I am confident that this is not the business model.

- N.

If you are confident this is not the business model, then please explain what you think is the business model. One has to credit the business managers of Sigma Corporation having at least a modicum of nous.

I understand that National Semiconductors and Dongbu Electronics are involved in the manufacture of the Foveon sensor.

If it is true these companies have 'tooled-up' to produce large quantities of this Foveon sensor, then it makes no sense whatsoever to charge such a high price for the camera.

The only sensible explanation I can think of is that it is now realised that yields, at least for the forseeable future, for whatever reason, are going to be low.

The reason could be that the manufacture of some essential component of the camera or the sensor has been disrupted by the tsunami in Japan, or that this particular design of Foveon sensor, with it's significantly higher resolution than previous designs, really is very expensive to manufacture.

It could be the case that some time ago there was a board meeting at Sigma Corporation where it was suggested that the project would have to be cancelled or at least delayed for a significant time because of the scarcity of certain essential components which would inevitably result in very small production runs.

Perhaps some bright spark in the boardroom suggested that an alternative to cancelling or delaying the project could be to sell whatever few units that could be assembled, at a sufficiently high price that would ensure demand equalled supply.

Got it? 

[Sareesh Sudhakaran]

Or maybe Sigma wants to raise money by demonstrating they can deliver a premium product?

[kwalsh]

One has to credit the business managers of Sigma Corporation having at least a modicum of nous.

Why?  What evidence do you have for that?  The business world is full of incredibly awful ideas executed horribly by otherwise successful entities.  Even from companies that are incredibly successful in other seemingly closely related sectors.  Witness every Microsoft attempt at a smart phone.

The only sensible explanation I can think of is that it is now realised that yields, at least for the forseeable future, for whatever reason, are going to be low.

If that is the only "sensible explanation" you can think of you've obviously never worked with a marketing department regarding a consumer product.  An equally "sensible explanation" is that someone there thinks they can distinguish themselves in the market by artificially inflating the price.  This is in fact a valid and sometimes successful strategy, witness $250 designer T-shirts.  It ain't going to work here for reasons a number of analysts have pointed out, but it isn't like we'd be surprised by a stupid marketing idea from Sigma.

Perhaps some bright spark in the boardroom suggested that an alternative to cancelling or delaying the project could be to sell whatever few units that could be assembled, at a sufficiently high price that would ensure demand equalled supply.

Yep, could be.  But that is somewhat counter to how most people handle yield issues.  From the little that I heard the pricing was a surprise to people involved in the design and manufacture, which seemed to indicate it was a marketing move more than anything else.  But we are all on the outside and can only guess.  Regardless, it is a dead product at this price.

Ken

[douglasf13]

does "stunning" have any numbers or it is another "6 stops of DR" ?

It's a free program, so you can test it out yourself. I use LR3 for everyday stuff, but I export raws to RPP for printing. There is a big difference in detail.

[Ray]

Why?  What evidence do you have for that?  Ken

The existence of the company is the evidence. Designer shirts are in a different category. They are products designed for irrational people. They are not bought on the basis of technical reviews of the durability or strength of the fabric, or the utility of the garment for particular purposes.

A large company like Sigma Corporation competing in the market place with complex and highly technical products would soon cease to exist if its marketing department were run by nincompoops. It is reasonable to assume that they know what they are doing, in the absence of evidence to the contrary; that is evidence that makes it clear there is no problem with regard to production costs or availablity of critical parts.

[Ray]

Or maybe Sigma wants to raise money by demonstrating they can deliver a premium product?

They have got a premium product in at least one sense, which we've discussed before. The SD1 is the highest resolving cropped format sensor currently on the market.

If I were a keen bird and wildlife photographer, I might consider that an SD1 with Sima 800mm F5.6 is a better option than a Canon 7D or 60D with the same lens. Whether or not the extra detail and resolution is worth an additional $5,000 cannot be decided until we see properly controlled comparisons between the 18mp Canon and the 30mp SD1 using the same lens.

I personally would not be happy that the Sigma 800/F5.6 does not have image stabilisation. The new Canon 800/5.6 does. However, that lens is much more expensive than the Sigma. In fact, the combination of a Canon 7D with Canon 800/F5.6 IS lens would be more expensive than the Sigma 800/5.6 with SD1.

As I understand, the Foveon sensors appear to resolve beyond the Nyquist limit on test charts. That might be a good thing when photographing feathered birds. Such feathers might appear sharper as a result of artificial detail. Photography is all about appearance for most people.

[John Camp]

A large company like Sigma Corporation competing in the market place with complex and highly technical products would soon cease to exist if its marketing department were run by nincompoops. It is reasonable to assume that they know what they are doing, in the absence of evidence to the contrary; that is evidence that makes it clear there is no problem with regard to production costs or availablity of critical parts.

But the "evidence to the contrary" IS the SD1 pricing. You're saying that we should look at everything else (which we don't know much about) to determine whether the SD1 pricing is stupid. It's possible that their prices on everything else are brilliantly calculated; nevertheless, the pricing on the SD1 is dumb. It's so strange, in fact, I'll occasionally think I've come up with a justification. Then I think, "No, that can't be it..." I thought perhaps that they put the price so high to attract attention, planning then to lower the price, so everybody would jump on the newly repriced cameras as great bargains. But then...that'd do nothing but piss off all the early buyers, their most loyal customers. So, you know...no. Maybe they'll give the money back? No...

Major companies, as other people have said, screw up all the time. A couple of years ago, Microsoft killed what seemed to be one of the most innovative tablet/pad computers ever thought of...I think it might have been called the Courier, or something like that...because the market just wasn't ready for pads. We know how that worked out...for Apple.

JC

[Ray]

But the "evidence to the contrary" IS the SD1 pricing. You're saying that we should look at everything else (which we don't know much about) to determine whether the SD1 pricing is stupid. It's possible that their prices on everything else are brilliantly calculated; nevertheless, the pricing on the SD1 is dumb. It's so strange, in fact, I'll occasionally think I've come up with a justification. Then I think, "No, that can't be it..." I thought perhaps that they put the price so high to attract attention, planning then to lower the price, so everybody would jump on the newly repriced cameras as great bargains. But then...that'd do nothing but piss off all the early buyers, their most loyal customers. So, you know...no. Maybe they'll give the money back? No...

Major companies, as other people have said, screw up all the time. A couple of years ago, Microsoft killed what seemed to be one of the most innovative tablet/pad computers ever thought of...I think it might have been called the Courier, or something like that...because the market just wasn't ready for pads. We know how that worked out...for Apple.

JC

I've just given you a perfectly reasonable explanation. The Sigma Corporation has been faced with the choice of cancelling or delaying the release of their product due to unforseen circumstances, such as a shortage of critical components, or unforseen production expenses. Perhaps one supplier of a critical component, that had its factory destroyed in the Japanese tsunami, or simply went bankrupt, had already produced 1,000 units of that critical component.

Sigma is therefore only able to sell 1,000 cameras until such a time as a new supplier of such critical component can be found. They've therefore decided, out of the generosity of their heart, to make those few cameras available at a premium price, to those who are interested and who often spend $250 on a designer shirt without thinking twice.  

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Ray I'd suggest that this is a good point.

Best regards
Erik

As I understand, the Foveon sensors appear to resolve beyond the Nyquist limit on test charts. That might be a good thing when photographing feathered birds. Such feathers might appear sharper as a result of artificial detail. Photography is all about appearance for most people.

[Alan Goldhammer]

Why?  What evidence do you have for that?  The business world is full of incredibly awful ideas executed horribly by otherwise successful entities.  Even from companies that are incredibly successful in other seemingly closely related sectors.  Witness every Microsoft attempt at a smart phone.

Ken

You are wrong on this one.  We were in Europe for two weeks in early June and I got a Verizon loaner since my Droid Incredible only works in the US.  They gave me a HTC with the latest MSFT mobile operating system and it worked like a charm.  No dropped calls, e-mail, and Internet access; the interface was clean and straightforward.  I realize that there are a lot of AAPL-proselytizers on LuLa, but don't go making blanket statements that are untrue.

[michael]

I don't understand why people keep inventing reasons why the SD1 is priced the way it is.

In my article, Rationalizing The Irrational I wrote.. "There can be no doubt that a senior executive within the Sigma organization decided that they had a winner with the SD1's image quality and that it could therefore command a premium price.

It was not chip yield, manufacturing or supply issues, the earthquake, or any other seemingly plausible reason. It was just a misguided decision by one executive that flabbergasted the rest of the company. It was a really bad decision and I predict will one day become something of a business school case study. Call in the King Lear syndrome.

Michael

[kwalsh]

You are wrong on this one.  We were in Europe for two weeks in early June and I got a Verizon loaner since my Droid Incredible only works in the US.  They gave me a HTC with the latest MSFT mobile operating system and it worked like a charm.  No dropped calls, e-mail, and Internet access; the interface was clean and straightforward.  I realize that there are a lot of AAPL-proselytizers on LuLa, but don't go making blanket statements that are untrue.

I think you misunderstood what I was referring to.  Actual phones, not operating systems.  The HTC is not a Microsoft phone, it uses a Microsoft OS but is not made by Microsoft.  The KIN was a disaster and was an actual MS phone.  They also managed to kill the very successful SideKick line after acquiring Danger.

You are emphasizing my point exactly - Microsoft has a functional OS for phones that is competing in the marketplace.  Seems like they should be able to make their own phone and market it - and yet the KIN is probably the biggest technology failure in the market place in a long time.

That was what I was referring to, sorry if I wasn't clear enough.

Ken

[ndevlin]

If you are confident this is not the business model, then please explain what you think is the business model. One has to credit the business managers of Sigma Corporation having at least a modicum of nous.

In my line of work, the drawing of an inference unsupported any facts is an error of law. You presume there is a rationality at work here beyond someone at Sigma reading their own propaganda about the camera and deciding that, since it was obviously a medium-format quality camera it should be priced as such.

Everything publicly known in this case is consistent only with a catastrophically bad decision made in such a way, or by such individuals, that a reversal is not possible within the confines of Japanese business culture.

I'll be blunt: the SD1 is stillborn. If the price is not lower to +- $2200 within 6 months, it will be a complete business failure, and quite possibly the end of the line for the Foveon project for the foreseeable future.

- N.

[Ray]

I don't understand why people keep inventing reasons why the SD1 is priced the way it is.

Probably, Michael, because some of us find it difficult to believe that any senior executive in a major organisation, who is responsible for setting the recommended retail price of a complex piece of equipment, would not have a rational reason for any pricing decision made, such as reference to market research suggesting a significant number of potential buyers would be prepared to pay such a price.

Call me naive if you like  .

[fredjeang]

I don't understand why people keep inventing reasons why the SD1 is priced the way it is.

In my article, Rationalizing The Irrational I wrote.. "There can be no doubt that a senior executive within the Sigma organization decided that they had a winner with the SD1's image quality and that it could therefore command a premium price.

It was not chip yield, manufacturing or supply issues, the earthquake, or any other seemingly plausible reason. It was just a misguided decision by one executive that flabbergasted the rest of the company. It was a really bad decision and I predict will one day become something of a business school case study. Call in the King Lear syndrome.

Michael

Yes, I had the same info. It should have been at the highest level, not just any executive but on the head of the company. Sigma hasn't correct that much the situation neither gave press conference, apologyzed, fired nobody that we know like normaly would happen if "someone" would have done such a mistake. This, smells that the "executive" in question could be nothing less than the maximum responsable, the number 1.
I don't know it for sure and Michael will not talk (although in between lines we read), but it appears to me and others that this mistake takes its source on the very top. It's a "désir de grandeur" whim.

[Robert Roaldi]

Probably, Michael, because some of us find it difficult to believe that any senior executive in a major organisation, who is responsible for setting the recommended retail price of a complex piece of equipment, would not have a rational reason for any pricing decision made, such as reference to market research suggesting a significant number of potential buyers would be prepared to pay such a price.

Call me naive if you like  .

There are plenty of senior executives who make bad decisions for bizarre reasons. It may not necessarily be commonplace but it is definitely not rare. In my previous career in software development of 25 years duration, I saw it several times first hand. I don't know if you're naive but what shade of rose are those glasses you wear? 

[Ray]

There are plenty of senior executives who make bad decisions for bizarre reasons. It may not necessarily be commonplace but it is definitely not rare. In my previous career in software development of 25 years duration, I saw it several times first hand. I don't know if you're naive but what shade of rose are those glasses you wear? 

I can appreciate there are lots of bad decisions made in hindsight, by senior executives, politicians and each and every one of us. We're a bungling species.

What often happens is that a decision has to be made at a particular time despite the lack of full information. Because we can't always predict the future, it often turns out a particular decision was bad with the benefit of hindsight.

However, if you have examples of senior executives making decisions for bizarre reason, then describe a few. Perhaps such executives were drunk at the time, or in love, appointing their mistresses to senior positions.

A reason for a particular decision may sometimes seem bizarre because we're not in possession of the full circumstances affecting the decision.

For all I know, Sigma executives might have been ready to announce an agreed price of $2,000 (or less) for the SD1, when it was revealed through the grapevine, or company spies, that Canon is soon to unveil a 30mp cropped format camera with improved high ISO performance, improved video and a few other useful features which the SD1 doesn't have.

In other words, the SD1 would soon be dead in the water even at a $2,000 price. Perhaps a $7,000 price tag was designed to minimise the losses.

I'm just speculating of course.

[michael]

Ray - I have three words of advice on this topic... Remember Occam's Razor.

Michael

[Eric Myrvaagnes]

But it is rumored that Occam occasionally cut himself while shaving.