07-14-2018, 11:32 PM

Again, reading well is no crime:

"Unfortunately, they mix Nikon 1 in with DSLRs, and don’t call out DX versus FX" So, forget about to conclude the numbers of high MP bodies by decreasing sales numbers.

And it's only Nikon. That's an entirely different subject - people partly are turning their backs at Nikon because they stick too long on DSLRs. Sony's numbers and trends will look a bit different.

It's also very clear that Sigma and Tamron are eating a nice chunk of the lens cake which would otherwise be taken by the sales of genuine lenses. So you can mourn the demise of DSLR or regret the flood of smartphone images or misjudge the significance of this lens as "not needed". Who cares?

Sigma? This is not the only lens in their portfolio which might be a dream lens, only just not for sales numbers. Apparently they make enough money with other lenses to not care too much about sales success. That's what Sigma stated on several occasions: with some lenses they just want to show it can be done. Maybe as a first - today this is one method to stay in consumer's memories, in forum talks, in rumours mills. They^re doing pretty well given the size of their company.

Nikon? Brought out their 105/1.4 first - and where I live the price diff is not 600$, just half of it. And their next big bokeh monster, the 200/2 VR II, costs 3 Nikon 105/1.4...

99% of Earth population? Then still 7.47 millions ARE interested? Or how did you come up with this number? And if only 0.1 % of them buy this lens, 7500 units could be sold. Maybe you need to step out of your own world?

Or in other words: Sigma's sales numbers can't be our problem.

"Unfortunately, they mix Nikon 1 in with DSLRs, and don’t call out DX versus FX" So, forget about to conclude the numbers of high MP bodies by decreasing sales numbers.

And it's only Nikon. That's an entirely different subject - people partly are turning their backs at Nikon because they stick too long on DSLRs. Sony's numbers and trends will look a bit different.

It's also very clear that Sigma and Tamron are eating a nice chunk of the lens cake which would otherwise be taken by the sales of genuine lenses. So you can mourn the demise of DSLR or regret the flood of smartphone images or misjudge the significance of this lens as "not needed". Who cares?

Sigma? This is not the only lens in their portfolio which might be a dream lens, only just not for sales numbers. Apparently they make enough money with other lenses to not care too much about sales success. That's what Sigma stated on several occasions: with some lenses they just want to show it can be done. Maybe as a first - today this is one method to stay in consumer's memories, in forum talks, in rumours mills. They^re doing pretty well given the size of their company.

Nikon? Brought out their 105/1.4 first - and where I live the price diff is not 600$, just half of it. And their next big bokeh monster, the 200/2 VR II, costs 3 Nikon 105/1.4...

99% of Earth population? Then still 7.47 millions ARE interested? Or how did you come up with this number? And if only 0.1 % of them buy this lens, 7500 units could be sold. Maybe you need to step out of your own world?

Or in other words: Sigma's sales numbers can't be our problem.