The comprehension goes first, then the action follows.There is a general opinion that Foveon sensor is too good to any SA lenses except 120-300mm, my experiences with SA lenses to my SD9 were the same, not tried them the second time I switched to Zeiss lens and it was like opening a new horizon to me.Remember Sigma is the giant of lens production, and makes profit from it before conquered Foveon, why didn't Sigma do suitable SA lens for SD Foveon is very common question on Sigma forums and I think now it's time to do it.For most of people SA mount is different from EF mount, but for few people they are the same . .
The whole SD1 saga seems more like a costly, poorly thought-out vanity excursion, unless they needed to show off the sensor somehow before popping it into the point and shoots. I think many Nikon shooters miss the Fujifilm DSLRs because they offered an entirely different look than the corresponding Nikon body and this would have been the wiser route methinks, even if they would have had the engineering costs and license payments to the big guys.
j.liam wrote:
Had they licensed the EOS and F mounts, and sold it for ~$2k it would have been a viable option for a second crop frame body.
Investing in a second set of lenses is a non-starter.
Some crafty people are converting Sigma DSLRs for Canon mount. And the EF mount lenses to SA mount.
However, it's a pity that the notion of a third party DSLR hasn't really taken hold since the Kodak disaster. The Fujifilm ones in Nikon F mount seemed fairly interesting but hardly more than a blip on the radar.
Here is a show of SD1 and they remind about SD9 too ( first SD equiped Foveon sensor) .
&feature=related
Seem that SD1 has no rival in close range and in near future.
IMHO it's not the idea of two systems that is problematic here. It's which systems are involved. There are very few SA users so the re-sale value of these lenses is likely to be very low. Therefore, if you are not 100% convinced that this system is for you then it's a risky financial endeavor.
Yakim Peled wrote:
IMHO it's not the idea of two systems that is problematic here. It's which systems are involved. There are very few SA users so the re-sale value of these lenses is likely to be very low. Therefore, if you are not 100% convinced that this system is for you then it's a risky financial endeavor.
Happy shooting,
Yakim.
Yakim, I understand the 'risk' as you're referring, but you're looking at it the wrong way. I've gotten all of my SA mount lenses used, along with the second SD-14 body. So it's all been about as cheap as I can get it.
Grant808 wrote:
Glad I waited for this Sigma body...and some critics *never* change!
Realize that the sizable price decrease occurred only after the death of the CEO and once his son took over. Sigma was its own worst enemy. If you're embarking on competing with the big guys, do a 'Sony' and start with deep pockets and an established lens mount (ready set of users with legacy lenses). While Fujifilm's foray into DSLR's was brief, it was notable and offered something different without straying too far. If anything, they weren't bold enough optimizing the user experience and updating the sensors.
Yakim Peled wrote:
IMHO it's not the idea of two systems that is problematic here. It's which systems are involved. There are very few SA users so the re-sale value of these lenses is likely to be very low. Therefore, if you are not 100% convinced that this system is for you then it's a risky financial endeavor.
Exactly; not like buying into a Canon system and swapping out if you're unhappy while preserving most of the capital invested. Good luck finding another buyer for the SD1.
Grant808 wrote:
Yakim, I understand the 'risk' as you're referring, but you're looking at it the wrong way. I've gotten all of my SA mount lenses used, along with the second SD-14 body. So it's all been about as cheap as I can get it.
That's great but I wonder what will happen when you try to sell them.
Used price in is usually similar to the used price out, no? Well, unless I'm the *last* guy on the planet that shoots with it! It's not like my 500/4IS where I'd expect to make something on the sale
Grant808 wrote:
Used price in is usually similar to the used price out, no? Well, unless I'm the *last* guy on the planet that shoots with it! It's not like my 500/4IS where I'd expect to make something on the sale
Too bad this isn't a full size sensor ... but I guess it makes sense given the volume of crop glass that they make.
How compatible is the SA mount for using EF mount glass (both @ 44mm)?
I've only got a few EF mount lenses, but given that one is the 24L TS-E II ... it would be nice if they could play together (nicer if it were FF). Longer registration alts shouldn't be a problem.
RustyBug wrote:
How compatible is the SA mount for using EF mount glass (both @ 44mm)?
I've only got a few EF mount lenses, but given that one is the 24L TS-E II ... it would be nice if they could play together (nicer if it were FF). Longer registration alts shouldn't be a problem.
Well mechanically they aren't compatible at all.
Electrically it turns out they are identical. Sigma reverse engineered the EOS protocol many moons ago to sell EF lenses and when they came out with their own mount they just used the same protocol.
So if you do a Google search you'll find examples of people both converting SA lenses to EF, and EF lenses to SA, and SA bodies to EF as well. Usually I think people use an extension tube or tele-converter as the cheapest source of the necessary mount to use for conversion.
.
