Joined: Apr 2010
On the pricing, it is still only on pre-order isn't it? The street price will likely fall back after a bit of time, although probably not enough to make up any major differences.
<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
Joined: Apr 2010
Yes, it's not available yet. Deliveries will start in June, according to Nikon's initial press release.
Joined: Feb 2013
All I want was to point out it's pointless to compare CX against FX. As it is (or was) pointless to compare desktop PCs against laptops. I'm with you2, I don't see the reason why somebody would buy a CX camera and the last reason I could imagine is to compete FX.
It was always expensive to get small things smaller. I just tried to take the perspective of a CX owner and ask what are the alternatives? I can't imagine to make portraits with this small bodies, but maybe somebody does? And what could he/she use as a lens? There's really not much of a choice. Sigma 30/1.4, 35/1.4 or Nikon 35/1.4, all with the necessary adapter and most weighing a bit more than the 32/1.2 and filling more photobag volume.
If I try to do the math backwards, I end up with a 32/0.6 being equivalent to 86/1.4. Price? Size? Weight? And all for this tiny sensor? My apologies to everybody who felt insulted or confronted with sarcasm by my post. If the whole system can be criticized by people who probably don't buy it anyway, then what is the point of that critic? Is it so much better than my criticizing the critics? I don't know, but I better shut up. After all, that post was really useless, sorry.
It was just the same thing as the 18-35/1.8 of Sigma debate. Comparing it to it's equivalent on FX - nothing to get excited about. Trying to find other zoom-lenses in DX range offering that speed - hmmmm, really not exciting? And given the price of their fantastic 35/1.4, will this fast wide-angle zoom be more costly than the 17-55/2.8 of Nikon, old but pricey?
Now, looking at FX. A Zeiss 55/1.4 at equivalent costs of a dozen 50/1.4 by Nikon? Being over ten times better? I don't believe so. Being the best you can get? If you like to focus manually all the time, then probably yes. Even in the same class it can be hard to compare. But comparing different classes and not taking into math formulas there are reasons for going small and lightweight and other reasons for not doing so - is the conclusion not a bit very predictable?
New in this forum, but I must say that my personal favourite lens is the 32/1.2 when I use my V1 (I'd love if it replacement, one time in the future, get's VR)I! And on my D600 I tend to use my Sigma 35/1.4. Also a highly impressive lens!
These two lenses have the same quality feel, and are excellent performers both, but I wouldn't ever get the idea to use the 35 on the V1! I have used the 50/1.4G, and the 85/1.8G on my V1, as there are no equivalent CX lenses.
I did have the nice 35/1.8 DX lens, when I did DX on my Nikon's, but there is a sea of difference between the 35, and the 32. First of all, due to the restrictions of the adapter, the AF isn't nearly as versatile with the 35 attached, and the 32 is definitely sharper!
Superb lens for macro, the 32 is, if you add a closeup lens, say a fitting 250D (Canon's close-up lenses beats Raynox's easily).
Anyway, seems you guys here don't understand that a fast quality lens, made out of metal, with autofocus, AND manual focus, is by default a complex, thus expensive, item! A fast lens need to have a big front lens element, no matter how big the sensor is — the rear elements of a lens are decided by the size of the sensor, though.
The Nikon 1 range of cameras, with their small sensors (about a 7th of FX sensor in size), can indeed compete with FX cameras, under the right circumstances. As these sensors, till now made by Aptina, are quite noisy to start with, they work best at low ISO, and that means good light.
So slow lenses are not useful, nor are lenses you must step down a lot to get any sharpness at all. The 70-300CX is very good at its long end, even fully open, a very unusual character.
I owned the famed 80-400 VR II and I couldn't find it being sharper than the 70-300CX, anywhere between 80-300. The 70-300CX is a superb lens, lens weighing a fraction of the 80-400 VR II, and costing less than half of what the 80-400, even at its present, rebated, price.