Sigma CEO: If we stopped making cameras, my father will return as a Zombie and kill me

October 12, 2016 by Udi Tirosh 6 Comments

Everybody wants to know what Sigma plans for the future. Ever since they launched the ART line, the company has been getting nothing but praise.

While there is a huge focus on Sigma’s lenses, the company’s camera line does not “suffer” from the same success. I mean Sigma’s lenses are a viable option when looking for a camera, but I don’t really think photographers are considering them seriously when deciding on a new body. So here is the million dollar question, why are Sigma making cameras in the first place?

Lensvid interview with Mr. Kazuto Yamaki – Sigma’s CEO and son on the founder, sheds some light on this. In a moment of open-heartedness the CEO confesses that making cameras was his dad’s vision for the company. If he stopped making them:

my dad will return from the grave as a zombie and try to kill me

That said, there are some more earthly reasons for Sigma to make camera bodies. Mr. Kazuto Yamaki tells Lensvid that the main reason is helping the company to make better lenses. The fact that Sigma has deep in-house knowledge on all the optical path up to the sensor (which is sigma made and not bought from Sony), give them an edge over other third party lens makers. (Hit 6:40 for the zombie part, and 5:00 for the general camera discussion)

[A Talk With Sigma’s CEO | Lensvid]

About Udi Tirosh

Udi Tirosh is the Founder and Editor in Chief of DIYPhotography, he is also a photographer, a relentless entrepreneur, a prolific inventor and a dad, not necessarily in that order

« How to use vanishing point perspective in Photoshop to add graphics to a surface

Sigma pulling off from Sony lenses, letter suggests »

Phill Holland

sir, I’d like to invest money in your company.
Phill Holland

sir, I’d like to invest money in your company.
Phill Holland

sir, I’d like to invest money in your company.
Eric

…wouldn’t that be interesting if Sigma started making ART series Mirrorless bodies…
Eleonora Gambola

Sounds legit.
Dex Lane

(I just posted this in Petapixel.)
This question could only have been asked by someone who hasn’t seriously
experienced Sigma cameras and their files. The cameras, as well as the
files, have limitations, some of which are daunting to most
photographers, and that would render the cameras not usable for them.
Yet for those of us who have other systems (mine is Fuji), for all the
other photography, the Sigmas are without peer (unless you want to shell
out 10k- and even then, some would prefer the “Sigma look”). For years
I shot the exterior of Denver’s oldest Fire House (1800s); first with a
Canon, then with a Fuji X-T1. The Fuji files are great, but I wanted
something more, and couldn’t afford medium format. Rust, corrosion,
bird droppings, paint splatter- all had detail and texture that were not
quite there in my beloved Fuji files. After devouring Sean Reed’s
(free) essay on the Sigmas, I got a DP2 Merrill on ebay, for less than I
would have paid for the lens alone. Forget Luminous Landscape’s Sigma
comparison to Fuji. Love the site, but not the best comparison.
Interior shots of the Fire House, lit only by a few windows and a small
open door, are gobsmackingly amazing. Behind the discolored glass front
of an old electric meter, from a distance of yards, the small lettering
on the dial is tack-sharp. Tack-sharp. The colors are to die for. The
very subtle gradations of staining on the glass are rendered far more
accurately than with the Fuji. Printed on 16″ paper the files have a
feeling of depth and realism that are unique to Sigma. If Sigma cameras
performed like the average DSLR, and the files could be processed in
Lightroom, there’d be no other cameras but Sigma. Because of the
limitations seemingly inherent to the Foveon technology, I’m not holding
my breath. But I am out there getting photographs that are making
other people catch theirs. Sigma knows this, and that’s why they still
keep making cameras.