Comments on: MX Lenses http://nikonrumors.com/2008/09/15/mx-lenses.aspx where there’s smoke there’s fire Fri, 19 Mar 2010 09:50:44 -0400 hourly 1 By: [NR] admin http://nikonrumors.com/2008/09/15/mx-lenses.aspx/comment-page-1#comment-12976 [NR] admin Sun, 21 Dec 2008 02:28:48 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/09/15/mx-lenses.aspx#comment-12976 Where did you get your info - email me if you want to stay anonymous. Thanks! Where did you get your info – email me if you want to stay anonymous. Thanks!

]]> By: ricardo http://nikonrumors.com/2008/09/15/mx-lenses.aspx/comment-page-1#comment-12918 ricardo Sat, 20 Dec 2008 13:10:26 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/09/15/mx-lenses.aspx#comment-12918 Nikon is coming op with a larger format then 24x36 it will be nearly or the same sensor as for the Leica S2 , 30x45. Some nikkor lenses like 180mm and the classic 80-200 zoom can cover that format, of course new lenses will be avaible. Signs that something will happen in the MF market is that Hasselblad is droping their prices. (9995 euro for a complet HIII-31, 12595 for HIII-39). Also Canon and Pentax are maybe working on a 30x45 sensor. Nikon is coming op with a larger format then 24×36 it will be nearly or the same sensor as for the Leica S2 , 30×45. Some nikkor lenses like 180mm and the classic 80-200 zoom can cover that format, of course new lenses will be avaible.
Signs that something will happen in the MF market is that Hasselblad is droping their prices. (9995 euro for a complet HIII-31, 12595 for HIII-39).

Also Canon and Pentax are maybe working on a 30×45 sensor.

]]> By: fotomik http://nikonrumors.com/2008/09/15/mx-lenses.aspx/comment-page-1#comment-1925 fotomik Wed, 17 Sep 2008 17:39:43 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/09/15/mx-lenses.aspx#comment-1925 <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08091801mamiya_ZDb_digital_back.asp" rel="nofollow">http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08091801mamiya_ZDb_digital_back.asp</a><br />Mamiya has got a 2x FX-sensor, with 22mp.<br />Could it be the same sensor? This one comes from Dalsa.<br />ISO 50-400 only. http://www.dpreview.com/news/0809/08091801mamiya_ZDb_digital_back.asp
Mamiya has got a 2x FX-sensor, with 22mp.
Could it be the same sensor? This one comes from Dalsa.
ISO 50-400 only.

]]> By: Bernard http://nikonrumors.com/2008/09/15/mx-lenses.aspx/comment-page-1#comment-1924 Bernard Wed, 17 Sep 2008 16:14:18 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/09/15/mx-lenses.aspx#comment-1924 This makes a lot of sense, I feel good vibes for this.<br /><br />I'll be first in line to get one if this turns out to be true.<br /><br />Cheers,<br />Bernard This makes a lot of sense, I feel good vibes for this.

I’ll be first in line to get one if this turns out to be true.

Cheers,
Bernard

]]> By: Jovan http://nikonrumors.com/2008/09/15/mx-lenses.aspx/comment-page-1#comment-1923 Jovan Tue, 16 Sep 2008 20:43:46 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/09/15/mx-lenses.aspx#comment-1923 Well, Nikon hasn't branded any lenses FX -- just bodies. (Someone correct me, if that's wrong.) <br /><br />So, maybe it's just an indicator to label the non-DX lenses as compatible with both DX and FX bodies. Newbies might be confused thinking that they 'need' to buy DX lenses for their DX bodies. -- ...not sure MX branded lenses would really help though :) Well, Nikon hasn’t branded any lenses FX — just bodies. (Someone correct me, if that’s wrong.)

So, maybe it’s just an indicator to label the non-DX lenses as compatible with both DX and FX bodies. Newbies might be confused thinking that they ‘need’ to buy DX lenses for their DX bodies. — …not sure MX branded lenses would really help though :)

]]> By: alex http://nikonrumors.com/2008/09/15/mx-lenses.aspx/comment-page-1#comment-1922 alex Tue, 16 Sep 2008 19:51:08 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/09/15/mx-lenses.aspx#comment-1922 "And according to Hogan" - brainwashing “And according to Hogan” – brainwashing

]]> By: bendead http://nikonrumors.com/2008/09/15/mx-lenses.aspx/comment-page-1#comment-1921 bendead Tue, 16 Sep 2008 17:56:11 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/09/15/mx-lenses.aspx#comment-1921 Hi, I just have a question... <br /><br />Would it be possible to use on this future Mx sensor, the all range of FF Nikon lenses ?<br /><br />Like the crop you have, when you use a DX lens on a D3. Hi, I just have a question…

Would it be possible to use on this future Mx sensor, the all range of FF Nikon lenses ?

Like the crop you have, when you use a DX lens on a D3.

]]> By: sf_shooter http://nikonrumors.com/2008/09/15/mx-lenses.aspx/comment-page-1#comment-1920 sf_shooter Tue, 16 Sep 2008 09:17:06 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/09/15/mx-lenses.aspx#comment-1920 Hopefully, it's a medium format. It just makes sense. That market is there for the taking for a company like Nikon or Canon. With DSLR sales growth eventually slowing, a market they're not in is an area where they can go in and quickly grow. I think if they move in and do it right, they will be far away the leader in 3 years. Hasselblad and Mamiya will end up being the Olympus and Pentax of the medium format world. Hopefully, it’s a medium format. It just makes sense. That market is there for the taking for a company like Nikon or Canon. With DSLR sales growth eventually slowing, a market they’re not in is an area where they can go in and quickly grow. I think if they move in and do it right, they will be far away the leader in 3 years. Hasselblad and Mamiya will end up being the Olympus and Pentax of the medium format world.

]]> By: Ernst http://nikonrumors.com/2008/09/15/mx-lenses.aspx/comment-page-1#comment-1919 Ernst Tue, 16 Sep 2008 08:55:37 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/09/15/mx-lenses.aspx#comment-1919 "FX" already covers "FX" and "DX." If "MX" just means "multi-format," how is that different than "FX?" “FX” already covers “FX” and “DX.” If “MX” just means “multi-format,” how is that different than “FX?”

]]> By: Ernst http://nikonrumors.com/2008/09/15/mx-lenses.aspx/comment-page-1#comment-1918 Ernst Tue, 16 Sep 2008 08:51:56 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/09/15/mx-lenses.aspx#comment-1918 > If the mythical MX-sensor is twice <br />> the size of FX (36x48mm), that would<br />> still mean 24mp, and I simply don't<br />> believe the high ISO performance is <br />> the same as an FX 12mp chip.<br /><br />Why not? Same photosites w/ proportionally more readouts: same ISO performance. It's essentially an FX sensor next to another FX sensor. What makes you believe that having another FX sensor next door would make your image quality plummet? > If the mythical MX-sensor is twice
> the size of FX (36×48mm), that would
> still mean 24mp, and I simply don’t
> believe the high ISO performance is
> the same as an FX 12mp chip.

Why not? Same photosites w/ proportionally more readouts: same ISO performance. It’s essentially an FX sensor next to another FX sensor. What makes you believe that having another FX sensor next door would make your image quality plummet?

]]> By: Ernst http://nikonrumors.com/2008/09/15/mx-lenses.aspx/comment-page-1#comment-1917 Ernst Tue, 16 Sep 2008 08:48:22 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/09/15/mx-lenses.aspx#comment-1917 I think he meant that he "wrote down" (i.e. transcribed onto a notepad) the text he read on the side of the boxes. I think he meant that he “wrote down” (i.e. transcribed onto a notepad) the text he read on the side of the boxes.

]]> By: Blog Admin http://nikonrumors.com/2008/09/15/mx-lenses.aspx/comment-page-1#comment-1916 Blog Admin Tue, 16 Sep 2008 08:39:54 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/09/15/mx-lenses.aspx#comment-1916 I agree with you. I also have hard time believing this, but since we are talking about rumors here, this is one. This guy could be working in the Chinese factory that produce the boxes (<span><a href="http://nikonrumors.com/2008/06/17/nikon-d700.aspx" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">remember the D700 leak</a></span>). I repeatedly asked him for more information but did not get any. I agree with you. I also have hard time believing this, but since we are talking about rumors here, this is one. This guy could be working in the Chinese factory that produce the boxes (remember the D700 leak). I repeatedly asked him for more information but did not get any.

]]> By: ZoetMB http://nikonrumors.com/2008/09/15/mx-lenses.aspx/comment-page-1#comment-1915 ZoetMB Tue, 16 Sep 2008 08:34:26 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/09/15/mx-lenses.aspx#comment-1915 What does "So I did write all the boxes" mean? Is this guy claiming that he did the copy for all the boxes? His English sounds German. Why would a guy who can't write be doing packaging copy?<br /><br />I'm having a lot of trouble believing this and even if I did believe that Nikon was coming out with a larger format MX camera, I don't see how they could release six lenses at once. That's how many lenses Nikon is able to develop in a year. And according to Hogan, it takes Nikon three years from conception to manufacturing. What does “So I did write all the boxes” mean? Is this guy claiming that he did the copy for all the boxes? His English sounds German. Why would a guy who can’t write be doing packaging copy?

I’m having a lot of trouble believing this and even if I did believe that Nikon was coming out with a larger format MX camera, I don’t see how they could release six lenses at once. That’s how many lenses Nikon is able to develop in a year. And according to Hogan, it takes Nikon three years from conception to manufacturing.

]]> By: Blog Admin http://nikonrumors.com/2008/09/15/mx-lenses.aspx/comment-page-1#comment-1914 Blog Admin Tue, 16 Sep 2008 05:43:03 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/09/15/mx-lenses.aspx#comment-1914 MX may just mean <span><a href="http://nikonrumors.com/2008/09/07/mx-may-just-mean-multi-format.aspx" target="_blank" rel="nofollow">MultiFormat</a></span>. MX may just mean MultiFormat.

]]> By: Jovan http://nikonrumors.com/2008/09/15/mx-lenses.aspx/comment-page-1#comment-1913 Jovan Tue, 16 Sep 2008 05:31:45 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/09/15/mx-lenses.aspx#comment-1913 Are we certain MX is yet another format -- and medium format at that?<br /><br />I remember an old post about moving parts, but they said the project was abandoned, right? But is it possible that these lenses have some sort of switch that alters the focal point, making them 'true' on both FX and DX sensors?<br /><br />The fact that they are all G lenses gives credence to the idea that it's a wholesale update of Nikon's prime lineup. If it were to coincide with getting out of the film business altogether, the old-school lenses could be discontinued as well.<br /><br />Given the R&D costs, can they sustain the development of DX, FX and yet another format MX??<br /><br />Still, some of the apertures are strange. Are we certain MX is yet another format — and medium format at that?

I remember an old post about moving parts, but they said the project was abandoned, right? But is it possible that these lenses have some sort of switch that alters the focal point, making them ‘true’ on both FX and DX sensors?

The fact that they are all G lenses gives credence to the idea that it’s a wholesale update of Nikon’s prime lineup. If it were to coincide with getting out of the film business altogether, the old-school lenses could be discontinued as well.

Given the R&D costs, can they sustain the development of DX, FX and yet another format MX??

Still, some of the apertures are strange.

]]> By: fotomik http://nikonrumors.com/2008/09/15/mx-lenses.aspx/comment-page-1#comment-1912 fotomik Tue, 16 Sep 2008 03:40:03 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/09/15/mx-lenses.aspx#comment-1912 But what if the new T&S lenses already cover the new format?<br /><br />I'm not liking the converted focal lenghts, no matter what the medium is. Well, ofcourse on 35mm they sound nice...<br /><br />And still, a 135mm f2.0? For ANY MF-system? Sounds a bit too fast.<br />And that zoom is reallyreally fast, like, never seen before fast, for anything over 35mm. Hasselblad has 60-120 f:4.8, and the 50-110mm f:3.5-4.5 and those are BIG beasts. So no, I'm not buying this. Not for now at least. <br />Mind you, a 36x36mm sensor would be a dream come true for me. But what if the new T&S lenses already cover the new format?

I’m not liking the converted focal lenghts, no matter what the medium is. Well, ofcourse on 35mm they sound nice…

And still, a 135mm f2.0? For ANY MF-system? Sounds a bit too fast.
And that zoom is reallyreally fast, like, never seen before fast, for anything over 35mm. Hasselblad has 60-120 f:4.8, and the 50-110mm f:3.5-4.5 and those are BIG beasts. So no, I’m not buying this. Not for now at least.
Mind you, a 36×36mm sensor would be a dream come true for me.

]]> By: Chris V http://nikonrumors.com/2008/09/15/mx-lenses.aspx/comment-page-1#comment-1911 Chris V Tue, 16 Sep 2008 03:06:54 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/09/15/mx-lenses.aspx#comment-1911 Well, since I was bored and having dinner, I did some calculations (mind you I'm pretty rubbish at maths, so feel free to correct me!).<br />IF the MX is 56x56mm, then the 24mm would be the equivalent to a 35mm 15mm lens. Isn't that outrageously wide for MF? Sounds implausible. So, IF it is 56x56 the 'equivalent' 35mm focal equiv.lengths would be 15.6mm, 29.3mm, 55mm, 87,7mm, 130mm and 42-117mm. Sounds like a decent line up, I just don't believe a 24mm for 6x6... AFAIK the widest for 6x45 or 6x6 is around 40mm. There is a 30mm but that is a Russian fisheye.<br /><br />However, if it is the also rumored/suggested/invented/wishfully though of 36x36mm format, the lineup becomes (24x36 equiv.) 22mm, 41mm, 80mm, 125mm, 185mm and 60-105mm. Again a decent line up but why 41 and not 50-ish? The 60-105 could be useful in studio portrait/fashion shoots, but personally I'd rather use primes for that...<br />So, neither one fully makes sense to me so far. <br />And for a studio cam you'd expect at least one T&S for product shots (but that may not be a priority) Well, since I was bored and having dinner, I did some calculations (mind you I’m pretty rubbish at maths, so feel free to correct me!).
IF the MX is 56×56mm, then the 24mm would be the equivalent to a 35mm 15mm lens. Isn’t that outrageously wide for MF? Sounds implausible. So, IF it is 56×56 the ‘equivalent’ 35mm focal equiv.lengths would be 15.6mm, 29.3mm, 55mm, 87,7mm, 130mm and 42-117mm. Sounds like a decent line up, I just don’t believe a 24mm for 6×6… AFAIK the widest for 6×45 or 6×6 is around 40mm. There is a 30mm but that is a Russian fisheye.

However, if it is the also rumored/suggested/invented/wishfully though of 36×36mm format, the lineup becomes (24×36 equiv.) 22mm, 41mm, 80mm, 125mm, 185mm and 60-105mm. Again a decent line up but why 41 and not 50-ish? The 60-105 could be useful in studio portrait/fashion shoots, but personally I’d rather use primes for that…
So, neither one fully makes sense to me so far.
And for a studio cam you’d expect at least one T&S for product shots (but that may not be a priority)

]]> By: an0n http://nikonrumors.com/2008/09/15/mx-lenses.aspx/comment-page-1#comment-1910 an0n Tue, 16 Sep 2008 02:08:24 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/09/15/mx-lenses.aspx#comment-1910 Main question is whether they are F-mount Main question is whether they are F-mount

]]> By: Chris V http://nikonrumors.com/2008/09/15/mx-lenses.aspx/comment-page-1#comment-1909 Chris V Tue, 16 Sep 2008 02:06:26 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/09/15/mx-lenses.aspx#comment-1909 Hm, well spotted, but if this IS a studio cam, maybe it is better off without VR? Has anyone ever put VR in a medium format lens? A lot more glass to move.. Hm, well spotted, but if this IS a studio cam, maybe it is better off without VR? Has anyone ever put VR in a medium format lens? A lot more glass to move..

]]> By: fotomik http://nikonrumors.com/2008/09/15/mx-lenses.aspx/comment-page-1#comment-1908 fotomik Tue, 16 Sep 2008 01:31:11 +0000 http://nikonrumors.com/http:/nikonrumors.com/2008/09/15/mx-lenses.aspx#comment-1908 Oh come on. Doesn't all the tech behind all the MF (or LF) sensors come from two or three (Dalsa, Phillips, Kodak and what else?) suppliers? I'm pretty sure that they have quite a lot of experience with making the sensors. <br />If the mythical MX-sensor is twice the size of FX (36x48mm), that would still mean 24mp, and I simply don't believe the high ISO performance is the same as an FX 12mp chip.<br />Now, I'll be the first to admit that there are all kinds of things going on inside the sensors that I don't have the slightest clue about, but in my eye, it seems that Nikon doesn't have the knowhow, or the manufacturing capability of Canon or Sony (with their 20+mp FX-sized sensors). Let alone the big boys with their 50+mp sensors... <br />I love Nikon, I've used them since the beginning of my photographic life, but come on. <br />Nikon doesn't even manufacture their own sensors. Unlike others... Thinking that somehow Nikon has come up with a Holy Grail-type of larger format sensor that is capable of shooting at even ISO 1600 is, to my mind nothing short self-delusional. Oh come on. Doesn’t all the tech behind all the MF (or LF) sensors come from two or three (Dalsa, Phillips, Kodak and what else?) suppliers? I’m pretty sure that they have quite a lot of experience with making the sensors.
If the mythical MX-sensor is twice the size of FX (36×48mm), that would still mean 24mp, and I simply don’t believe the high ISO performance is the same as an FX 12mp chip.
Now, I’ll be the first to admit that there are all kinds of things going on inside the sensors that I don’t have the slightest clue about, but in my eye, it seems that Nikon doesn’t have the knowhow, or the manufacturing capability of Canon or Sony (with their 20+mp FX-sized sensors). Let alone the big boys with their 50+mp sensors…
I love Nikon, I’ve used them since the beginning of my photographic life, but come on.
Nikon doesn’t even manufacture their own sensors. Unlike others… Thinking that somehow Nikon has come up with a Holy Grail-type of larger format sensor that is capable of shooting at even ISO 1600 is, to my mind nothing short self-delusional.

]]>