Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
More Nikon stuff not many care about
(09-04-2019, 12:48 PM)Brightcolours Wrote:
(09-04-2019, 12:47 PM)JJ_SO Wrote: First, "in the work" is something else than "you can order it right now" - the 500 PF E is a very good example that demand exceeds supply (1000 copies/month...).
Second, no one knows how good it will be, how much it will cost and how much lighter than Sigma's 3.4 kg cylinder. (that was already third and fourth).

I think, Nikon wants to win over the sports photographers who are hesitating because the internet knows how ohhh so bad Sigmas focusing. The 58/0.95 was also announced to be in the making, as well as the Z-line's battery grip. Nikon starts with vaporware, no?

It was just my answer to what SR might mean :-P

Well, you need to hammer the S and R a bit less humble... like SR which also could mean Sony Rival  Big Grin
Funny that Tamron used to have the longest lens names, but Nikon is seemingly determined to catch up. Smile
There's enough time to learn them for the sales guys...
Initially I thought the lens is plastic-fantastic, but DPR shows metal casing (magnesium alloy).
Aaah, now we are talking:

With some grains of salt, as it is rumors from an anonymous source (and might be wishful thinking...)


Nikkor Z 13mm f/1.8 S   Blush
Nikkor Z 85mm f/1.2 S  Blush
Nikkor Z 28-70mm f/2.8-3.5 S
Nikkor Z 24-120 f/4 S  Blush


Nikkor Z 105mm f/1.8 S  Blush
Nikkor Z 28mm f/1.8 S
Nikkor Z 65mm f/1.8 S (macro or what?)
Nikkor Z 35mm f/1.2 S  Blush
Nikkor Z 28-280mm f/2.8-5.6 S
Nikkor Z 100-300mm f/4 S  Blush

Some interesting stuff - now it only has to become reality...
That really does sound like wishful thinking, though not as wild as the stuff we often see in the comments sections... Smile
You mean the "give us cheap pancakes" people? Or the "gives us non-S lenses, a bit less high IQ" group? Going small = getting APS-C or µ 4/3, going cheap = take a smartphone instead. What's the point in going FF mirrorless, getting a pricey body to mount some lensbabies in front? FF will never be a compact system (except that Sigma movie brick looking like a lego). Anyway, there are some really sweet things on that list. Pretty much too good to become true, knowing Nikon...
Yes, FF could be a compact system if a manufacturer wanted it to be. With equivalent lenses a FF system could be made about the same size as an APS-C system.

Here are a few examples comparing Fuji X vs Sony FE:
  • Fuji 14 f2.8 vs Samyang 18 f2.8 : The Samyang features a wider FL (18mm vs 21) while being about the same size and 1 stop faster (in term of system equivalence)
  • Fuji 35 f1.4 vs Samyang 45 f1.8 : The Samyang is about the same size but faster (f1.8 vs f2.1 equiv)
  • Fuji 16 f2.8 vs Samyang 24 f2.8 : The Samyang is smaller while being 1 stop faster (in term of system equiv)
  • Fuji 16-55 f2.8 vs Sony FE 24-105 f4 : The Sony is 1cm longer and about the same weight as the Fuji while being slightly brighter (f2.7 equiv) and featuring a longer range (105mm vs 83mm).
It's just that FF manufacturers aims at producing the best possible optics at the cost of size, weight and price. However, they could offer slightly lower end lenses in a much smaller package as Samyang is doing.

I'm personally more and more interested in Sony FE because it's attracting a lot of 3rd party makers willing to fill this gap. Sony was smart in opening up their mount protocol to others.
I believe it is a big mistake on Nikon, Canon and Fuji's part to not open theirs up.

Flickr gallery
What's the point in making FF as compact as APS-C (most of the time) already is? I know you're much more knowledgeable in terms of the equvalencing game than I ever will care to be, but crop calculators aside, what IS the point in
  • buying a high res FF sensor and mounting "cheap" lenses in front of it? And by "cheap" I mean South of half the price for a f/2.8 than for it's f/1.4 version
  • giving up a big plus of a bigger sensor - if shalllow DoF does count as "plus" in the buyers book?
  • giving up another big plus like high ISO by slow lenses which cosume this advantage?
A friend of me with a nice collection of various Fuji bodies and a huge set of lenses recently became also member of the Sony user group. He didn't want to wait for the α7R IV and bought a III. Of course he said "I don't need 60 MP", I say so too but I don't believe any of us both. Big Grin

Smaller than a Z 7 and even an X-H1, but never as small as a µ 4/3 with a pancake. So why trying to squeeze compactness into something which was not made for being small?

Else than that, he bought 4 lenses. None of them Sony or Zeiss, but all very nice: A Laowa 100 mm 2:1 prime, an Apo-Lanthar 65 mm from Voigtländer and the two new Tamron zooms 17-28-75. Yes it's nice that Sony opened their mount - but they had to, while Nikon and Canon have a ton of legacy glass and their adapters.

The Laowa and Voigtländer being manual focus, the Laowa as usual without EXIF Data and spring diaphragm. Would be a pain to use on a DLSR...

Side note: Apparently the sensors of the α7R IV, GFX100 and X-T3 are children of the same wafer as their pixel width is identical.
You don't cut different size sensors from a wafer with just sensels, that is not the way it works. I suspect that you know that and were just on purpuse not very fastidious with your formulation (but can't be sure).

Forum Jump:

Users browsing this thread:
1 Guest(s)