Have we all been Gaslighted?

Nikon do have Compact Prime Lenses on their roadmap. They promise a 28mm and a 40mm on the current version of the map.
As I understand, they are not "S" lenses so they will probably be reasonably priced. I could fear that they will have plastic mounts like the 24-50mm.
Also they may be made in China like the 24-50mm, which would make it a deal breaker for me, but I know many don't care.
In any case the 24-50mm appear to provide great performance, so no reason not to think this will be the case with the compact primes as well.
 
mcfingon said:
Canon may be going against the trend with their recently-announced RF 50/1.8. I like the idea of that size, weight and price, but I've invested in Sony A7III gear at the moment. Maybe Sony will make something like this for the A7C?
Click to expand...
Probably not, 50mm is not a typical vlogger focal length, and there's already a Sony FE 50/1.8 that weighs only a mere 26 grams more than the Canon.
 
It seems like some manufacturers are starting to design lenses for the shorter flange distance of the mirrorless cameras. It seems like cost saving that many earlier mirrorless lenses are just SLR lenses with an adapter permanently attached. I wonder if that happened with the Nikon Z 50/1.8. The Sigma 45mm f2.8 for Sony is an amazing and compact lens that was designed for mirrorless, IMHO.
 
BWF said:
It seems like some manufacturers are starting to design lenses for the shorter flange distance of the mirrorless cameras. It seems like cost saving that many earlier mirrorless lenses are just SLR lenses with an adapter permanently attached. I wonder if that happened with the Nikon Z 50/1.8. The Sigma 45mm f2.8 for Sony is an amazing and compact lens that was designed for mirrorless, IMHO.
Click to expand...

No, the Z 50/f1.8 is very much a mirrorless design. It literally wouldn't have been possible with the F mount (very large rear element situated very close to the film plane).
 
Jamie Pillers said:
This is THE reason I’ve stuck with Fuji APS-C cameras.... I just can’t enjoy full-frame kits that force me into the world of giant lenses. I guess I got conditioned by the form factor of mu old Nikon bodies and manual focus Nikkors. And a bit later by the jewel-like Leica bodies and their tiny exquisite lenses.
Click to expand...

+1. I'd actually strongly prefer a FF sensor to an aps-c, but just cannot come around to the big gawky lens on the little digital body thing. Fuji gets it right, albeit at the expense of the FF sensor. Decent tradeoff.
 
APS-C is the new full frame and has been for years. Sales figures of APS dwarf the larger sensor.

Fujinon glass is also world-class...
 
I have hopes of getting a Z7 at some point, but haven't worried about lens size at all. I have a Mamiya RB 67,a Pentax 67 a Nikon F4, a Nikon D3, various LF cameras and lenses and so on. The Z7 seems modestly sized compared to these giants.

If I want to go light, there are the Olympus m-4/3 cameras and lenses, which seem like mostly empty space compared to the honkers listed above. In general, I choose the highest resolution equipment that I can comfortably carry.

Bottom line, there is more choice available today for image-makers than there ever has been in history. You want LF 8x10? Go for it. You want an autofocus spy cam? Go for it. You want 20 fps high-ISO digital with no grain? Go for it. In addition, there is a robust used market to help soak up any spare dollars/shekels you happen to find between the couch cushions.

So if someone wants to make 1000 gr. 22-element, highly corrected, autofocus, whiz-bang bazooka of a lens? Also: go for it. I am happy to have the choice available.
 
I know a few amateur photographers who are proud to show their big lenses, they think to be perceived as more "pro"...LOL

I'm in the opposite campe, small is nice...
...as it is nice to have options...this is why I love Leica and CosinaVotigalnder lenses (+1 for the LTM + adapter lenses desire)
 
splitimageview said:
APS-C is the new full frame and has been for years. Sales figures of APS dwarf the larger sensor.

Fujinon glass is also world-class...
Click to expand...

Robert,

It’s also possible to say that an iphone is the new full frame, and has been for years:)

And, if we’re just considering what people “need”, or are perfectly satisfied with, or will render images that the owner really likes, then everyone’s glass is pretty much world class at this point.
I’ve heard people saying that, as medium format digital has become more affordable, now it’s the new full frame.

There is something for every taste these days, and we’re spoiled for choice.
There are attributes to bigger lenses, really big lenses, that are not to be found in smaller lenses, and Nikon is hardly alone in providing those. The Leica SL lenses, Zeiss Otus lenses and most of the Zeiss Milvus lenses, fast Sony mirrorless lenses, Canon, etc. They are all pursuing optical perfection, wide apertures for “perfect bokeh”, faster AF speed, etc, yada, yada, yada.
We’ve had great, smaller lenses for years, lenses that people still love, such as the lenses Mandler designed. We’ve had those, and so the frontier still available to lens designers and camera manufacturers trying to answer the consumer question, “Okay, what else can you show me? What have you got that’s better?” About the only thing that’s better than what we already had are lenses which are better according to lens metrics, not necessarily better according to “does it render a photo in a way that pleases me?”

By way of an example for illustration, I have the 50/1.8 S lens and a Z7, and recently bought a 50/1.4 Summilux-M ASPH. If we are just considering lens metrics, the things you can quantify, such as center resolution, midfield and corner resolution, distortion, correction for every kind of chromatic aberration, bokeh whose quality doesn’t vary so much at different apertures and different distances, not to mention the AF, the Nikon eats the Summilux’s lunch. It’s technically a much better lens, for something like one seventh the cost. That’s what bigger gets you. I knew all that going in, but bought the Summilux, mostly because I actually like the effect on rendering produced by the Summilux’s “faults”. The reasons people have for loving Mandler designs are pretty much down to the effects produced by their optical shortcomings. Two of my personal favorite lenses are the 35 Sonnar on the Sony RX1, with its massive barrel distortion, which I much preferred to the 35 Summicron ASPH, which isn’t as flawed; Zeiss 28/2 “Hollywood”, same thing, and those are all pretty small lenses.

No matter what you want for your Nikon Z, or Leica SL, or Canon, or Sony, there are now lenses available which will give it to you. Some of them are big, some of them are small, but the small ones are definitely not “the same” as the big ones. The fact that that doesn’t matter to most of us is a good thing, since being happy with what you already have is a blessing.
 
My thoughts on this:

Basically, digital sensors have more stringent requirements for optics. Digital sensors (from what I understand) do not tolerate off-normal light rays well, while film does (film is transparent). What this means practically is that digital lenses end up having more elements and aspherical elements to meet all the standard performance metrics PLUS the additional requirement(s) for digital sensors. Since digital lenses have more elements, they require better coatings. Since digital lenses have more elements and aspherical elements, they require much greater computational power to design. We have all that stuff- aspherical manufacturing capabilities, computational power and algorithms to support it, coatings, etc. So we have really good lenses today. Really good many-element, heavy, expensive lenses. And of course these newer lenses are produced for film photography, too, but it is much more limited since there is not much of a market.

But if we use film do we notice the difference between today's lenses and yesterdays good lenses? I suspect you can in many circumstances. But is it enough to justify not using old lenses (especially "good" ones)? I suspect not. I like the character of many old lenses, and I am not a scientific photographer (generally- I have done some thermography). So a few defects that take an expert to point out do not really matter that much.

I enjoy using my film cameras and their unique lenses, and intend to continue. I also have a nice Fujifilm XT-2 digital and enjoy using it. I like technology, and in the Fujifilm XT-2 I have really good technology that does contribute to photography. On the other hand I am perfectly comfortable with a fully mechanical film camera also. I have an iPhone, and have taken some nice pictures wit hit, but to be frank, I just do not find it very satisfying.

A bit random, but this is where I am now. 5 years from now? Who knows? Maybe I will have my first holographic camera (doubt it).
 
For Nikon Z system, why not consider the 24-50/4, which is also relatively inexpensive? Sometimes it's okay to trade off some optical performance in favor of compactness. For Sony, the new 28-60 f/4-5.6 looks like just the ticket for me.
 
Lots of good comments on this topic. For me the answer has been a Leica Q - the original. Takes some time to get the composition and perspective skills to maximize the 28mm lens, but it's worth it. A simple to use, very intuitive camera with real controls on camera instead of in menu. Add to that the macro capability and it's a hard package to beat.

I also own the Z6 with kit lens, and was about to buy the 85mm, but as the original poster noted that's quite a large piece of glass. As capable and flexible as the Z camera is I still reach for the Q more often.
 
Godfrey said:
I dunno.

  • I was walking with the Hasselblad 907x yesterday, fitted with my nice old Summicron-R 90mm. The body is very small, the lens is meaty. The camera felt great in my hands and hung comfortably at my side while I walked.
  • I often wander about with the Panasonic GX9 fitted with an Olympus Body Cap Lens 15mm f/8 too. The body is a nice size, the lens is almost literally indistinguishable from a body cap. That works well too.
  • The other day, on an amusing notion, I stuffed both the GX9 fitted with Summilux-DG 25mm and the Leica CL fitted with Summilux 35 from 1972 into my bag and snapped a bunch of photos with both of them. Both fit my hands nicely and performed very well. The 'Lux-DG is small but for the huge lens hood, the 'Lux 35 is very small for so fast a lens but weighs more ... Both work great, two different cameras with fast normal lenses. Both a very classic shape and size.

50598493478_4aa4635881_b.jpg

  • My Light L16 is the most compact, easiest to carry 50 Mpixel camera with a 28 to 150mm zoom lens equivalent I know.

50141863536_da35431e5a_b.jpg

It all works. It just what you get used to using. :D

G
Click to expand...

I wouldn't mind a try at using the Light 16. Probably should learn more about it. Didn't Light license or sell it's technology to one of the phone makers?
 
Have we all been Gaslighted?

I bought a Light L16 last year. It's a great walk-around camera.

I hate taking pictures with a phone - I don't like the interface, the buttons or lack of them is too fiddly. The Light L16 is like a phone camera on steroids in some ways, but very easy to use. On-off button, massive shutter button, huge screen so you can see what you're doing. I leave mine on auto but it's easy to change settings (big screen helps again). Downside of the size is getting it into pockets; but without the cover it fits in a jacket or hoody pocket just about. It runs android so you can connect to the web; I'm sure I had an old version of the flickr app running on it at one point.

Picture quality - you do get artefacts from the merging of the different mini-cameras, but you can get amazing croppability. I use it as a point and shoot when a more traditional camera is less convenient. I wouldn't suggest it replaces those cameras though in any greater sense, for me it's niche is probably replacing the phone I hate (and fail) to take pictures with.
 
Beemermark said:
I've made this complaint on this forum before. With everyone rushing to built the fastest 24mm, 28mm, and 50mm lenses for Leica M which are simply gigantic, why can't someone make a modern lens like the 50 Elmar, 35mm Elmar or 28mm Summaron in LTM with an M adapter for that matter? 7Artisians pricing.
Click to expand...

thats a very good point
 
That is exactly why I love my RX1Rm2; the complete camera is just a mere 80 grams heavier than the Nikkor Z 50/f1.8 on its own.
Horrible interface, but a great Sonnar married to a very nice 42MP fullframe sensor; the best IQ in a very small, stealthy and non-intimidating package.
Yeah, the battery life is lousy, but they weigh next to nothing and carrying an extra in my pocket is no problem at all.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top