05-19-2013, 10:02 AM
May I suggest we keep this discussion "calm"? There's no need to get down to the personal level.
Now, regarding equivalent lenses, BC has a point. As you say yourself, his math is correct.
And the problem is not BC's logic or math, it's the sheer amount of people and users, who are simply not aware of those basic facts and relations. Just take a look at the discussions following Nikon's announcement of the 32/1.2, lot's of people out there who consider this to be a full equivalent of a 85/1.2 lens. Who rush out to by a sports car, just to recognize the've been sold a lorry instead (or vice versa, if you prefer, depending if you expected higher payload or speed).
In adddition, I can't really follow your argument about respect. Nikon chose the small sensor route early in the development of the 1 system, probably well aware of the limitations this would have in terms of DOF potential (and consumer acceptance in the prosumer segment). For their somewhat desperate attempt to offer a "fast" portrait lens, which doesn't even come close to comparable FX (85/1.8) or DX (50/1.8) alternatives, but still costs several times as much, I think they simply have to face and stand all the criticism this approach deserves.
-- Markus
Now, regarding equivalent lenses, BC has a point. As you say yourself, his math is correct.
And the problem is not BC's logic or math, it's the sheer amount of people and users, who are simply not aware of those basic facts and relations. Just take a look at the discussions following Nikon's announcement of the 32/1.2, lot's of people out there who consider this to be a full equivalent of a 85/1.2 lens. Who rush out to by a sports car, just to recognize the've been sold a lorry instead (or vice versa, if you prefer, depending if you expected higher payload or speed).
In adddition, I can't really follow your argument about respect. Nikon chose the small sensor route early in the development of the 1 system, probably well aware of the limitations this would have in terms of DOF potential (and consumer acceptance in the prosumer segment). For their somewhat desperate attempt to offer a "fast" portrait lens, which doesn't even come close to comparable FX (85/1.8) or DX (50/1.8) alternatives, but still costs several times as much, I think they simply have to face and stand all the criticism this approach deserves.
-- Markus
Editor
opticallimits.com
opticallimits.com