Yep, that was also what I was thinking.
Still quite neat though. 5cm long, 235g.
Yes, the length and weight and neat. I just do not like the blown up width of the Nikkor 1 series lenses much, they could have been quite a bit more compact still. but yes, for a Nikkor 1 lens it is neat.
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.
My problem is I don't understand where the 1 system fits int he eco system. micro 4/3 is pretty small; though I suppose the 1 system could make longer light weight fast tele lenses (fast here refers to impact on shutter speed not dof) but beyond that i'm not sure the 1 system has anything to offer over micro 4/3; it is expensive; the sensor is pretty small (with all the limitations of a small sensor) and as for camera size people are already suggesting that the smaller micro 4/3 bodies are reaching the point of diminishing returns (usability vs size).
So I guess the question I have is does the 1 system have the eco system to optimize its advantage at the tele-end. I see no point in a 32/1.2 other than support the a full system. Given that the 32/1.2 is near the top of the list (from a market perspective - or at least nikon feels it is) then I think the 1 system is the wrong system - you might as well as use 4/3.
Anyways I know it is a bit off topic
Hm. While 32mm f/1.2 lens does look interesting (from the engineering point of view), it does come a bit short in regards of competition. I’ve just checked for packages with similar ratio of compactness / dof, and came out with the following:
Comparing Nikon J1 with 32mm f/1.2 against Panasonic GF3 (or Olympus E-PM1) with Olympus 45mm f/1.8, the latter is much cheaper (€1,100 vs €500), a bit lighter (500g vs 380g) and offers nearly identical dof (86mm f/3.2 vs 90mm f/3.6 equiv), being just ¼ of a stop slower. Although my calculations might be a bit off, as DOFmaster website says that both packages have identical dof (23cm) at 3m distance.
On the other hand, Nikon 1 has a niche to fill – previously the only affordable camera to offer hi-speed video was Casio Exilim series (and it wasn’t without drawbacks). Now, if only Nikon was to offer uncompressed video output from it…