| Author | Thread |
|
|
09/22/2011 10:44:29 AM · #26 |
| As someone mentioned, there's a lens adapter for the 1 cameras, so you don't really need all new lenses. |
|
|
|
09/22/2011 11:32:40 AM · #27 |
Originally posted by Louis:
As someone mentioned, there's a lens adapter for the 1 cameras, so you don't really need all new lenses. |
Yep, but... using a big ol' F-mount lens on those little buggers is about as convenient as hanging an MF lens on a standard DSLR. It would be more like mounting the camera to the lens, LOL.
One idea that might have legs would be to create a tilt/shift F-mount adapter. Since the 1 series only uses 14% of the image circle of an F-mount lens, there would be plenty of room to tilt and/or shift :-)
|
|
|
|
09/22/2011 01:51:27 PM · #28 |
Originally posted by ubique:
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by ubique:
What about this one? I'm impressed but I'm technically naive. I'd love to have your opinion Fritz. |
I haven't looked much at the NEX system, but from what I'm reading it's pretty well thought of. If I were considering it, the very first thing I'd check is what memory format it uses. Does it only support the Sony Memory Stick format? If so, that would be tough to swallow.
The other thing I'd look closely at is what lenses are supported. Like the Nikon 1, it seems that most of them are sssllllooowww. I guess that's because the target market wouldn't know a fast lens if it bit 'em, but it sure puts a crimp in the usefulness of such a camera. IMO, of course. |
Thank you. I appreciate your thoughts on this. The basic kit lens is indeed very slow (18-55 f3.5-5.6). But Sony says the body can be had instead with Carl Zeiss 24mm f1.8, which would be my first choice. It might even be my only choice though, in which case a fast fixed lens compact with a large sensor might be even better. |
My take on the NEX system
the good:
Lower noise at higher ISOs
Focus peaking - EXTREMELY cool feature for LCD focusing using legacy lenses
the bad
horrible native lens selection, both quality and quantity, although the Zeiss prime is a step in the right direction
Large lenses due to the APS size sensor
bad ergonomics (just look at the pics of it with various lenses)
No EVF
No hot shoe
There are some good sites out there if you want to get into the weeds of these systems
//www.mirrorlessrumors.com - lots of news about the Nikon system and the NEX system
//www.43rumors.com - mostly for the Olympus/Panasonic m4/3 crowd, but they do report on other systems
//www.mu-43.com - Strictly m4/3 but great forum threads showing images from various camera and lens combinations, particularly legacy lens.
Cheers
|
|
|
|
09/22/2011 01:58:38 PM · #29 |
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
........ the only lens worth a damn in my book is the 10 2.8, which should really be more like 1.8 given that sensor size.
...... |
How is it that sensor size has a bearing on the lens' speed? |
|
|
|
09/22/2011 02:12:42 PM · #30 |
Originally posted by senor_kasper:
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
........ the only lens worth a damn in my book is the 10 2.8, which should really be more like 1.8 given that sensor size.
...... |
How is it that sensor size has a bearing on the lens' speed? |
It doesn't from an exposure standpoint, but it does from a DOF standpoint. I think the above post has it backwards or I don't get what is being said.
for m4/3, the effective focal length is 2x that of a full frame sensor, ie - 50mm on m/43=100mm on FF.
The DOF is effectively doubled as well. Shooting a 50mm lens at 2.8 has the same DOF as a 100mm at 5.6.
This is why you see a big push for very fast primes in the m4/3 world. Shallow DOF can be quite a challenge. I've had comments on images noting how "everything" is in focus when shooting at f5.6, like this one
It can come in handy when deep DOF is warranted. You have to go extra long on the focal length to get a shallow DOF or bokeh effect, like here
This was shot at 150mm (300mm equiv) |
|
|
|
09/22/2011 02:13:14 PM · #31 |
Originally posted by senor_kasper:
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
........ the only lens worth a damn in my book is the 10 2.8, which should really be more like 1.8 given that sensor size.
...... |
How is it that sensor size has a bearing on the lens' speed? |
The smaller the sensor, the smaller the image circle the lens needs to throw. The smaller the image circle, the easier it is to build a faster lens and keep the size reasonable.
So the comment was meant to imply that, given the small size of the sensor, it should have been relatively easy for them to come to the table with a 10mm f/1.8 lens. Particularly given that with no mirror, the lens register distance can be made pretty small.
|
|
|
|
09/22/2011 02:37:03 PM · #32 |
Originally posted by kirbic:
Originally posted by senor_kasper:
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
........ the only lens worth a damn in my book is the 10 2.8, which should really be more like 1.8 given that sensor size.
...... |
How is it that sensor size has a bearing on the lens' speed? |
The smaller the sensor, the smaller the image circle the lens needs to throw. The smaller the image circle, the easier it is to build a faster lens and keep the size reasonable.
So the comment was meant to imply that, given the small size of the sensor, it should have been relatively easy for them to come to the table with a 10mm f/1.8 lens. Particularly given that with no mirror, the lens register distance can be made pretty small. |
I see, you are saying that he said 'it should be' but actually meant 'It could have been'. However, for any given lens to sensor distance changing the sensor size will not alter the maximun lens speed, which is the ratio focal distance/active diameter of front element, right? |
|
|
|
09/22/2011 09:16:00 PM · #33 |
Originally posted by senor_kasper:
Originally posted by spiritualspatula:
........ the only lens worth a damn in my book is the 10 2.8, which should really be more like 1.8 given that sensor size.
...... |
How is it that sensor size has a bearing on the lens' speed? |
Less difficulty in manufacturing a lens with a smaller surface to project upon (sensor). Plus you need it for subject isolation using DoF.
ETA: Doh! Should've read the rest of the responses....
Message edited by author 2011-09-22 21:16:48. |
|
|
|
09/23/2011 01:21:46 AM · #34 |
Resolution and chromatic aberration control have to be better with a smaller sensor in order to shoot the same scene at the same level of detail as with a full frame sensor. The image projected on the sensor is smaller, so quality of the image has to be higher if the images are to approach being as good as images from a larger system when they are viewed at the same size. Most fast lenses get somewhat soft when shooting wide open, so maybe that has something to do with why they went with 2.8 and up.
|
|
|
|
09/23/2011 09:34:16 AM · #35 |
|
|
|
09/23/2011 10:28:35 AM · #36 |
Yes, good indeed. I pretty much agree with him in fact.
|
|
|
|
09/23/2011 11:27:25 AM · #37 |
Another review with more information than is really needed to learn how this thing works.
Gordon Laing is really smart about cameras. I have spoke with him about it and puts me to shame with knowledge. |
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2025 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 07/30/2025 09:16:47 AM EDT.
