TTJ: Panasonic and Olympus both use contrast based AF, like most point and shoot cameras, but it is very fast. Panny is working on adding phase detect AF for the next generation, likely coming in the rumored GF-Pro camera (NEX-7 competitor).
(Nikon V1 and J1- Mirrorless Camera Discussion)
(218 posts) (47 voices)-
Posted 1 year ago #
-
Here's a discussion for the also-curious. I almost stopped reading when i saw they didn't invert the image in their first figure, but then I saw they intentionally left that out (obviously, it's best to confuse people on the basics of image formation so you can simplify an explanation of an esoteric feature...).
http://www.dpreview.com/news/1008/10080505fujifilmpd.asp
There are some tradeoffs that fuji downplays but if sensor tech marches on, maybe they can do this masking across more of the sensor for a specialized action-type camera with very fast AF at a sacrifice of a stop of light.
Posted 1 year ago # -
jonnyapple said:
Here's a discussion for the also-curious. I almost stopped reading when i saw they didn't invert the image in their first figure, but then I saw they intentionally left that out (obviously, it's best to confuse people on the basics of image formation so you can simplify an explanation of an esoteric feature...).http://www.dpreview.com/news/1008/10080505fujifilmpd.asp
There are some tradeoffs that fuji downplays but if sensor tech marches on, maybe they can do this masking across more of the sensor for a specialized action-type camera with very fast AF at a sacrifice of a stop of light.
So how come we haven't heard any great reviews about those Fuji cameras?
Posted 1 year ago # -
I don't know why the majority of people are so quick to dismiss this camera. I can get if someone is just not interested but to label it as a fail right off the bat is a little too quick especially since the camera hasn't been unveiled yet. I think there is great potential for this camera. Whether Nikon is able to play it and market it correctly remains to be seen. One thing that's important to remember here is that this camera is most likely not targeted at your general DSLR users... at least not directly.
I consider myself to be an enthusiast photographer. I'm mostly into landscapes, night photography and abstracts. I currently only have a Nikon D7000 but I've owned several Canon and Fuji P&S's in the past until they were either stolen or broken beyond repair. While I absolutely love the level of control and the degree of creativity I get with my DSLR I truly miss the portability of a P&S especially for those spur of the moment family and friends photos. Even when portability of my DSLR was not an issue there has been times when I was not allowed to bring my DSLR or take photos with it just because it looked too "professional."
I've contemplated getting one of the Canon S or G series cameras for a while now but I've been putting off that decision (which I'm glad I did). I've also considered one of the other mirrorless cameras in the market now but to me they never seemed compact enough. I mean if I'm gonna carry one of those with me then I might as well take my D7000 instead. To me the Nikon mirrorless with it's 2.7 crop and interchangeable lenses fits nicely in between. Theoretically, it should be better than a P&S in terms of IQ and smaller than a m4/3. The added ability of it taking my other Nikkor lenses is a nice bonus too (I realize the size advantage would be lost but that's why it's just a bonus). It certainly wouldn't replace my D7000 and I wouldn't call it my second camera either, but I would call it my side camera. It would be my go to camera for the times when I can't or don't want to bring my D7000. These are usually the times when I'm just trying to snap photos without much attention to minute details. So the lenses are not f/2.0? So what? When I want to shoot f/2.0 I will bring by DSLR. Do I hope they will bring faster lenses? Of course. Is it a deal breaker if they don't? Absolutely not.
Now having said all of this, I probably wouldn't be the first to line up to buy that camera when it's released. It's just too early to decide something like this now. Ask me again when the camera is officially announced and then ask me one more time when the camera has been out for a few months. Nikon has definitely got my interest though.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I wish I could say I had the income to afford a second camera that can also accept lenses.
I really can't do that, and I'd rather have a fast compact like the Canon S100 than to spring for an interchangeable lens camera.
I'm not sure why Nikon has gone for a complex system when they can't seem to get their Coolpixes, their "meat and potatoes", their volume sales right.
What I mean to say is that a safe business decision would have been to eek as much sales out of established brands- Coolpix, before you go doing some weird crap like an odd crop camera.
I haven't dismissed the possible performance of the V1 or J1, I just find it frustrating that Nikon can't make or want to make products that their consumers want when the demand is so blatantly obvious.
Posted 1 year ago # -
The thing is, if the price suggested is right ( around $1300 for the kit) general consumers (Coolpix buyers) are not going to be buying either one of these ILC cameras. They must be targeted at photography enthusiast at that price.
Posted 1 year ago # -
NSX, yeah I'm with you there. I wish Nikon did a better job with their Coolpix line. Although I really don't know how much fault lies on marketing and how much is on the lineup itself. However, as everyone here knows, no one makes better DSLR's than they do ;) So does that mean that Nikon can't successfully produce and market another brand of cameras? I guess time will tell.
PB, you bring up a nice point regarding the price but if you're referring to the Nikkei report, it's already been speculated that Nikon had dismissed it.
http://nikonrumors.com/2011/09/08/nikon-mirrorless-camera-price-estimation.aspx/
I can't imagine that Nikon would price their mirrorless around $900-$1300 mark. For one thing it's too close a price point to their D7000. Nikon would be shooting itself in the foot. For another, they would need to price it less less or about the same as the other mirrorless cameras already in the market. Afterall, if what we've been hearing is true, the Nikon mirrorless is definitely targeted at mass market (colors in black, white and power rangers).
Posted 1 year ago # -
iris chrome said:
NSX, yeah I'm with you there. I wish Nikon did a better job with their Coolpix line. Although I really don't know how much fault lies on marketing and how much is on the lineup itself. However, as everyone here knows, no one makes better DSLR's than they do ;) So does that mean that Nikon can't successfully produce and market another brand of cameras? I guess time will tell.PB, you bring up a nice point regarding the price but if you're referring to the Nikkei report, it's already been speculated that Nikon had dismissed it.
http://nikonrumors.com/2011/09/08/nikon-mirrorless-camera-price-estimation.aspx/
I can't imagine that Nikon would price their mirrorless around $900-$1300 mark. For one thing it's too close a price point to their D7000. Nikon would be shooting itself in the foot. For another, they would need to price it less less or about the same as the other mirrorless cameras already in the market. Afterall, if what we've been hearing is true, the Nikon mirrorless is definitely targeted at mass market (colors in black, white and power rangers).
I'm not saying that their line will fail, I'm just saying I probably won't even consider it unless it's significantly cheaper. I'd look at the Fuji X10 first if this thing was almost $1200.
For $1200, I'd gladly pay the weight penalty and grab a D7000 body. I already have 4 lenses at home I could use it with. But then I'd definitely need a new camera bag, because my current one absolutely does not fit my entire kit. But hey, that's a great excuse for a new bag right? :D
Posted 1 year ago # -
All of the ILCs have the major issue of price being just as much as a low-end DSLR. They just have the trade off of being slightly smaller and loosing some image quality.
I'm really at a loss who would want one (at least for rational reasons)- Maybe for a Travel system it might be decent.
The P7100 basically has the same features except the interchangeable lenses. The F-stops (DOF-bokeh and slowness) are no different than the p7100, the X10 and any other advanced compact. Even a F1.8 it will have the bokeh of a f/5.6 lens. IQ might be slightly better but still not at a DSLR. Basically I see it as a Advanced compact (P7100,G12,X10,LX5) that is larger with more Cr@p to carry. Attaching anything more than a 50mm AFS G&D lens will make it almost too long for anything really useful. A 12mm almost becomes a 35mm equiv.
I think at this price point, most enthusiast photogs want something at this size with a equivalent 15, 24/28, 35, 40/50, 80/90, with f/2 or better with a couple of standard zooms. Say $2800 for all 5 primes, 2 zooms lenses with the body and flash. Basically a Contax G1/G2 system.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Hi,
I can come up with a couple of things that can make me buy it or any camera.
For the last 50 years, I've had an essential accessory that I have nearly always carried everywhere I went, either for work which could be exhausting, or play which could also be exhausting. A lot of times I would have liked to slipped a camera into my pocket (and still would).
Of course, now everyone has 'pretty good' cell phone cameras, or at least in the minds of a lot of users, 'good enough' camera phones, so what Nikon offers needs to have some else, and frankly for me, that is going to have to be really, really good IQ.
With the sensor size and minimum f-stop released, I'm not sure it's going to be a fit for me.
It easy to be critical when you don't know what's being released (and don't have the specifications) and don't really know what the market for the product is (it might have a target different than what I think it is). I don't think it's me.
But if asked the question: It'd be great to have a lightweight, interchangeable lens, multiple lens, professional rig as a choice, but that isn't the question, and it isn't the choice.
My best,
Mike
Posted 1 year ago # -
I think what people are missing in this whole discussion isnt the camera, but the glass potential. Yes, the camera loses some image quality from a camera perspective of a low end DSLR. No argument. But from what ive read they have the potential of making really good glass cheaper because it can be made smaller. Whether Nikon goes down this road is the key I think in whether its a success or not.
Posted 1 year ago # -
mirtos said:
I think what people are missing in this whole discussion isnt the camera, but the glass potential. ... But from what ive read they have the potential of making really good glass cheaper because it can be made smaller. Whether Nikon goes down this road is the key I think in whether its a success or not.They (in large part) squandered that opportunity with DX. I'm not holding my breath here.
Really the only exciting developments in affordable lens technology we have seen in the last 20 years has been the rise of glued aspherical elements and the introduction of software correction for lens distortions.
People would have sold their children in the 1980's for the inexpensive asphericals we take for granted today.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Drab, I'm not really sure why you feel that Nikon had squandered the DX opportunity. Nikon currently has 14 unique DX lenses (16 minus 2 updated versions) in their lineup while Canon only has 9 EF-S (Canon's term for DX) lenses in their lineup.
http://www.nikonusa.com/Nikon-Products/Camera-Lenses/All-Lenses/index.page
http://usa.canon.com/cusa/consumer/products/cameras/ef_lens_lineupIn the entirety of their lineup, Canon has only produced one prime lens which is the 60mm macro (to Canon's credit, I've heard it's a very good lens). Nikon on the other hand made the awesome 10.5mm fisheye, the 35mm f/1.8, the 85mm micro and their latest, the 40mm micro. Nikon not only has more DX lenses in their arsenal but also a more interesting and varied selection and they continue to produce more DX lenses where Canon's latest releases have only consisted of updates of old ones. You really can't expect Nikon to produce half of their lenses as DX. After all DX still shares the same F mount with FX. Now CX is a different mount altogether and I think Nikon knows that the success of their new line will depend on lens variety and size. I think the new CX mount will be fully supported by Nikon. Although don't expect the same level of support as they do their DX and FX lines, else you will be disappointed.
In the whole scheme of things, I think there are basically two or maybe three deciding factors whether the CX cameras will be a win or a miss when it's launched. The first, which has been already mentioned a few times before, is the price. I really can't see the CX as a pro camera. In fact I think that the whole idea of a professional mirrorless camera is an oxymoron. For a CX to have a higher price point than the starter DSLR's would render the camera unsellable in my opinion. The main competition for the CX should be the other mirrorless and the advanced P&S so it should be strategically priced at their level. (This is also probably one of the reasons why Nikon decided to go with the new 2.7 crop sensor; they don't want CX to directly compete with their existing DSLR line).
The other point is the total size of the camera plus lens package. This should be the camera's strongest selling point but if the total size is just as cumbersome as the existing mirrorless cameras then there really is no point of the camera.
One other less important but potentially decisive factor is the new and unique feature that's still being kept secret by Nikon. It might just be dust in the wind (to borrow the name of the olden song) or it could prove to be the edge that Nikon needs to win this new race.
Posted 1 year ago # -
iris chrome said:
Drab, I'm not really sure why you feel that Nikon had squandered the DX opportunity.Because I was responding to the line "making really good glass cheaper" and outside the 17-55 f/2.8 and 12-24 (one out of date) Nikon hasn't really made any pro-quality glass for a DX "cheaper" price.
I hear you, and you have a valid point, that they have done more than Canon, but I consider that faint praise. Regardless, I don't consider this an issue of "right vs wrong" but rather opinion.
Posted 1 year ago # -
I am definitely with iris chrome.
Taking my gears whole day (a gripped d700 + the 2.8 zooms) are killing my back. They are time I would love a decent compact camera with decent IQ that I can leave in my pocket or wife's purse. I am really interested on the V1/J1 for vacations or family/friends time. Not that I will definitely buy it, but rumor is just that, rumor. I am looking forward for the announcement for the actual spec to find out if this is for me.
Posted 1 year ago # -
The only way I would consider these new Nikon mirrorless cameras if they were rangefinder type like the Fuji X100. Not interested in another "mirrorless SLR" design...
Posted 1 year ago # -
Will a new mirror-less system be a hit or a miss for Nikon? That depends on two things only - Will it sell well and will they make a lot of money.
Will a new mirror-less system be a hit or miss for you? That may depend on a lot of things - Do I need it? - is the price right for what I get? - Do I want it? - Can I afford it? And so on.
What is good for Nikon may not be good for you. What you want may not be what Nikon decides to make and sell.
If Nikon can sell a ton of mirror-less cameras for a price higher than a good DSLR - then all the more power to Nikon.
The fact is that other camera makers are making a lot of money on mirror-less systems. And these systems often cost the same or more than a good DSLR. I don't see why Nikon should not try to get some of that business.
Will I buy one? Well that depends on several things......
All the best.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Drab said:
Because I was responding to the line "making really good glass cheaper" and outside the 17-55 f/2.8 and 12-24 (one out of date) Nikon hasn't really made any pro-quality glass for a DX "cheaper" price.I hear you, and you have a valid point, that they have done more than Canon, but I consider that faint praise. Regardless, I don't consider this an issue of "right vs wrong" but rather opinion.
Thing is, if you wanted pro glass, you could easily get pro glass just by going straight to FX. It won't be cheap, but it'll be pro. I don't think you could make metal, pro lenses that'll be cheap. Something's got to give- if the 35mm 1.8 was metal, it'd cost over $400 easily.
What is really missing are the wide DX primes or an update of the 17-55, like you said. I wouldn't mind if the 17-55 2.8 update wasn't metal, it's too heavy to begin with. If the build was similar to the 35mm 1.8- 2.8 through the range, rubber rear gasket, metal mount, semi-weather sealed for around $600, and no rotating front element, I'd be very happy.
Throw in a 24mm 1.8 or a 18mm 2.0 DX primes, and I'd be really surprised.
But with Nikon going mirrorless in a few weeks, I doubt it. Although there is hope for DX, especially with them announcing the 40mm macro, they're still committed to some extent to DX.
Posted 1 year ago # -
iris chrome said:
I'm not really sure why you feel that Nikon had squandered the DX opportunity.I agree with Drab - the list of lenses that is out there gives us an idea of where they are heading. I do believe the F-stop (speed of glass) determines the type of system. Zero or almost zero fast glass as with DX specific lenses, denotes a general consumer type of camera and system. The description of Pro glass in this case really does mean speed and not the build and extreme sealing what NSXType-R described. The larger aperture (& larger sensor effects many of the same things)= faster AF, better AF accuracy, smoother, more out of focus Bokeh, wide angle bokeh, better separation of subject from background, less compression of an image, and the list goes on. Many want to make unique images which is more difficult with small sensors and small apertures.
mirtos said:
I think what people are missing in this whole discussion isnt the camera, but the glass potential.All of this class has the "potential" but affordable is pipe dream. What people want is cheap fast glass - what people don't want to hear it that it doesn't exist. M.Zuiko 12mm(24equiv) f2.0 $799.99. M.Zuiko 45mm(90equiv) f1.8 $399.99. Sony Carl Zeiss® 24mm(35equiv) f/1.8 Lens $999.99. This is why I think my X100 with a 35equiv f/2 is very affordable.
I think what JY said is who this system may appeal to. A good travel system but at this price point the IQ has to equal a DX sensor or the m4/3 at a minimum and offer something more than any compact or super zoom camera.
Posted 1 year ago # -
@Tao, I'm not sure what you mean by zero fast glass but I agree with you in that a lens' f-stop is a good (and a major) indication of it's "pro" status. However it's not everything. There is lens performance, sharpness, color accuracy and IQ all of which are usually dictated by the type and quality of lens elements used and all of which as important as the lens' f-stop. Other factors like metal mount and body, weather sealing, IF, VR and all that other good stuff are probably there but to a much lesser extent.
To me DX, by implied definition, is not a pro system. If I want to go pro I would probably buy either a D700 or a film Nikon. Why would a pro photographer or someone who's contemplating going pro buy into a DX lens system? Even if they're shooting with something like a D300s, I can't imagine them buying DX glass if they ever consider going FX. And before someone mentions the BD3 era (Before D3), just know that Nikon has never stopped manufacturing 35mm film cameras.
I don't want to get too much off track from the original topic here so I'll just say that CX shouldn't really be viewed as a system that needs to surpass FX or DX either in terms of camera specs or optics. If you're a pro that only shoots pro and never wants/needs to shoot anything less then that's fine. On the other hand if you don't mind shooting with something that's "inferior" every once in a while, then I think CX fits that niche very nicely.
Btw, has anyone seen the new Pentax Q? What do you think? Anyone here had first hand experience with it? If so what was the image quality like and how did the camera feel?.... To me the price point is a big turnoff especially when the sensor is only 1/2.3". I hope that's just the MSRP though and street price would be more on par with my expectations.
Posted 1 year ago # -
TaoTeJared said:
I agree with Drab - the list of lenses that is out there gives us an idea of where they are heading. I do believe the F-stop (speed of glass) determines the type of system. Zero or almost zero fast glass as with DX specific lenses, denotes a general consumer type of camera and system. The description of Pro glass in this case really does mean speed and not the build and extreme sealing what NSXType-R described. The larger aperture (& larger sensor effects many of the same things)= faster AF, better AF accuracy, smoother, more out of focus Bokeh, wide angle bokeh, better separation of subject from background, less compression of an image, and the list goes on. Many want to make unique images which is more difficult with small sensors and small apertures.All of this class has the "potential" but affordable is pipe dream. What people want is cheap fast glass - what people don't want to hear it that it doesn't exist. M.Zuiko 12mm(24equiv) f2.0 $799.99. M.Zuiko 45mm(90equiv) f1.8 $399.99. Sony Carl Zeiss® 24mm(35equiv) f/1.8 Lens $999.99. This is why I think my X100 with a 35equiv f/2 is very affordable.
I think what JY said is who this system may appeal to. A good travel system but at this price point the IQ has to equal a DX sensor or the m4/3 at a minimum and offer something more than any compact or super zoom camera.
Extreme weather sealing isn't what I wanted, I'd like something built better than the 18-55 but is fast glass. I've successfully used the 18-135 in light rain, but for the most part I kept it at the 18mm range, left the hood on it and wiped it whenever I zoomed back to 18mm. I'd like it not to zoom when extended, something like a 70-200 but not the same price. Keep the plastic- metal lenses are expensive and really darn heavy.
iris chrome said:
@Tao, I'm not sure what you mean by zero fast glass but I agree with you in that a lens' f-stop is a good (and a major) indication of it's "pro" status. However it's not everything. There is lens performance, sharpness, color accuracy and IQ all of which are usually dictated by the type and quality of lens elements used and all of which as important as the lens' f-stop. Other factors like metal mount and body, weather sealing, IF, VR and all that other good stuff are probably there but to a much lesser extent.To me DX, by implied definition, is not a pro system. If I want to go pro I would probably buy either a D700 or a film Nikon. Why would a pro photographer or someone who's contemplating going pro buy into a DX lens system? Even if they're shooting with something like a D300s, I can't imagine them buying DX glass if they ever consider going FX. And before someone mentions the BD3 era (Before D3), just know that Nikon has never stopped manufacturing 35mm film cameras.
I don't want to get too much off track from the original topic here so I'll just say that CX shouldn't really be viewed as a system that needs to surpass FX or DX either in terms of camera specs or optics. If you're a pro that only shoots pro and never wants/needs to shoot anything less then that's fine. On the other hand if you don't mind shooting with something that's "inferior" every once in a while, then I think CX fits that niche very nicely.
Btw, has anyone seen the new Pentax Q? What do you think? Anyone here had first hand experience with it? If so what was the image quality like and how did the camera feel?.... To me the price point is a big turnoff especially when the sensor is only 1/2.3". I hope that's just the MSRP though and street price would be more on par with my expectations.
I think what he meant was that he'd specifically want a smaller more flexibly system from Nikon that isn't using a sensor smaller than DX. In addition, I, along with other members, feel like Nikon hasn't fully fleshed out and used Nikon's DX sensor to its fullest potential, such as launch smaller lenses, wide DX primes, or fast small glass at an appropriate price.
Especially when Nikon is committing to a new system we probably would never see that happen.
Adorama's review of the Pentax Q is favorable. But I don't think it's good for bokeh effect. M4/3 has only okay depth of field, going into very small sensors doesn't seem like a great idea.
Although the Q looks seriously small, what's the point when the Canon S100 does almost everything the Q does without the added complexity of extra lenses? If I am traveling and trying to keep light, why would I want to fumble with lenses anyway?
I feel like advanced compacts have gotten advanced enough that a low end ILC camera, something with a sensor smaller than M4/3 would be unnecessary, especially when Nikon hasn't been able to figure out the right thing to do with Coolpix yet.
Posted 1 year ago # -
Hi all,
FWIW, I remember similar conversation about the 35mm format, and my mentors told me that there was a similar conversation about roll film.
One doesn't have to skim the threads too far to those who feel that film or medium format is king here, too, amongst the DX or FX digital folks. :-)
My point was that "if" the IQ in the mirror-less format was good enough, I would be interested. I think that's a big if. The entire Coolpix line is rather unremarkable - at least to me.
I'm willing to be convinced.
My best,
Mike
Posted 1 year ago # -
iris chrome said:
@Tao, I'm not sure what you mean by zero fast glass but I agree with you in that a lens' f-stop is a good (and a major) indication of it's "pro" status.Fast glass - F2.8 or faster. Zero = nonexistent
I really don't think "pro" glass is a good description for sub f/2.8 Fast lenses. I wouldn't call a 50mm f/1.8 AFD "Pro" glass, but is fast and is very good for pros. I think that about many lenses.iris chrome said:"lens performance, sharpness, color accuracy and IQ all of which are usually dictated by the type and quality of lens elements used and all of which as important as the lens' f-stop."
Lens performance, sharpness, color accuracy and IQ are and have been excellent for years now. So I don't believe that is good measurement anymore as improvements are too minute at this point - unless it falls way short, which I haven't seen happen for a few years now.
F-stop is and always will be a major determining factor for many photographers.
NSXType-R said:
I think what he meant was that he'd specifically want a smaller more flexibly system from Nikon that isn't using a sensor smaller than DX. In addition, I, along with other members, feel like Nikon hasn't fully fleshed out and used Nikon's DX sensor to its fullest potential, such as launch smaller lenses, wide DX primes, or fast small glass at an appropriate price.Ding Ding Ding - give that man a pony. I couldn't have said it better - and obviously didn't ;)
I don't think any talk or comparison about "Pro" doesn't fit here or with this camera at all. I don't believe Nikon has taken advantage of cheaper fast glass for DX and with none announced for this system, it indicates their focus is on a snap-shooter camera and not one that will be able to accomplish a full range of image possibilities.
Pentax Q - I have heard from many they are calling it a digital Lomo and will probably have a cult following. My assumption is that this is what the Q will be. And I think if they run with it, they will have hit a home-run.
Posted 1 year ago # -
TaoTeJared- I'm glad I expressed what you wanted to express. :D
What do you feel about the 35mm 1.8? I feel that Nikon is at the very least committed to DX for a couple of years. There has to be a reason for it to exist, or else why would there be the 85mm and 40mm micro lenses? And considering that I'm in no mood to spend more money after getting the 105mm macro, I feel that I'm willing to shoot with what I have and I'm okay with waiting. Others may feel there is a better system for them out there, and I'm okay with that. But I'm a Nikon boy and I'd like to stay with that.
But I feel that I'd be ecstatic if Nikon decided to make either a 24 F/2 or a 18mm F/2.8. I love wide primes and that's the only real thing missing on DX.
The 50mm FOV from the 35mm 1.8 isn't what I want.
If Nikkor were to release a DX version of the 16-35 F4, maybe a 14-28 F/3.5 for around $500, for DX that might be a home run. 67mm filters, 35mm build quality, ass gasket, and fully sealed internal zoom lens.
A collapsible zoom lens, something like Olympus would be very well received too I would imagine.
If Nikon were more receptive to criticism on the DX and Coolpix end, they'd be one sweet company.
Sigh. I honestly believe we should pool our money and let me run the DX range of Nikkor cameras since I so eloquently expressed the DX shooter's needs. :D
Posted 1 year ago # -
I am starting to believe that DX will be around for many, many years. Seeing what the D7000 and my X100 can do, I am having a hard time seeing what an average consumer would need more than that. I personally like to see the 16-85 get a f2.8 but keep it a consumer build so it could be in the $600 range. There is little chance to get a sealed internal zoom lens south of $1,000. The manufacturing complexity seems to be too great. No one else (canon, oly, sony, even sigma) can do it so there is little chance Nikon can as well.
That said, what's the difference from the 12-24/10-24 and the 14-28? VR?
I've had the 35/1.8 for a couple of years and it has taken some good hits but it still feels not as solid as the 50 1.4afs. I would love a 24mm 1.8, 16/18 2.8, and maybe an 85 1.8 DX(and this new CX).
With CX, making faster glass should be much easier as the image circle that needs to covered is much smaller. In theory, that should make it cheaper to make lenses.
Posted 1 year ago #
Reply »
You must log in to post.
