Nikon FF Mirrorless

[Trek of Joy]

11 hours ago, jonpais said:

With all due respect, I fail to understand why anyone would want to ‘give the middle finger’ to Zeiss Otus.

Otus lenses retail for $4,000; Nikon will be selling its Noct for 50% more - a whopping $6,000!

Is that what you call ‘giving the middle finger’ to Otus?

Will you be buying one? Or perhaps a whole set?

But mostly I’m curious where the hostility for one of the oldest and most respected names in the business  comes from. 

Please, get off your high horse. Once again you've injected a subtext into something I've typed.

The price is speculation, it hasn't even been announced. If you "fail to understand" where this lens is aimed, that's a you issue, but its clearly a dagger aimed at the Otus line.

My purchasing decisions are irrelevant. I will rent one when it and the Z6 are available, but I have no used for large MF primes on a day-to-day basis, so its not likely I'll buy one.

Cheers

Chris

 

[webrunner5]

6 minutes ago, Trek of Joy said:

Please, get off your high horse. Once again you've injected a subtext into something I've typed.

The price is speculation, it hasn't even been announced. If you "fail to understand" where this lens is aimed, that's a you issue, but its clearly a dagger aimed at the Otus line.

My purchasing decisions are irrelevant. I will rent one when it and the Z6 are available, but I have no used for large MF primes on a day-to-day basis, so its not likely I'll buy one.

Cheers

Chris

 

I heard it is going to be more like 8000 bucks! Holy Smokes. 0.95 on a FF camera is well, well good luck. ?

[jonpais]

22 minutes ago, Trek of Joy said:

Please, get off your high horse. Once again you've injected a subtext into something I've typed.

The price is speculation, it hasn't even been announced. If you "fail to understand" where this lens is aimed, that's a you issue, but its clearly a dagger aimed at the Otus line.

 

I’m not introducing any subtext at all, my friend. I quoted you directly gleefully saying Nikon is ‘giving the middle finger’ to Otus. That’s a hostile attitude if ever I saw one, and I am merely wondering why you are so thrilled about a lens that none of us can afford to buy anyway. Even if it was just $4,000!

18 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

I heard it is going to be more like 8000 bucks! Holy Smokes. ?

It’s revolutionary, I’ll give it that!

Someone complained that we shouldn’t be discussing lenses and prices in these threads, but the Z6 and Z7 cameras are actually less important in many respects than the lenses themselves. Cameras come and go every few years, they will be improved upon. 

[webrunner5]

I will give them credit for having that Ring on the lens you can assign different parameters to. Nice touch. But I can see you screwing up something also with it LoL.

The old, for every action there is a reaction thingy.

[Django]

I saw in a video that the front F2 button is by default assigned to toggle the multi-purpose lens ring. Hopefully the top display will have an icon showing what it's currently assigned to or it could get confusing i agree. I also hope a linear manual focus mode will be implemented like in latest Fuji update.

The 58mm Noct.. yeah that's a statement piece, it's Nikon saying we can make as fast/good glass as Leica/Zeiss etc..

I'll admit the lens roadmap is a little weird.. No F1.4 lenses (only a 50mm F1.2). Kinda strange for a new large mount touted as a light beacon.

I think Nikon are being careful here not to overlap too much with their own current AF-S lens line-up that they probably intend on also cross- selling to Z users.

[nigelbb]

On 8/25/2018 at 2:28 PM, Mattias Burling said:

Sony and Panasonics financial reports dissagrees with you.

Plus, if you think about it for five minutes you will figure out that its comon sense. Or do you seriously think that the entire development of the Z-line cost $5 and will be covered by selling one camera? Of course not. You are not that stupid.

You know as well as I that they will need to sell alot of the Z bodys before it starts making them money.

And if its not making money its loosing money. But you knew that, only an idiot would think otherwise, and that is not you. The other guy however is more of a wild card at this point.

 

This is not unique to cameras but applies to any other product & is only true in a very limited way. R&D costs will be amortised over the lifetime of a product. Sales on older products bring in profits while newer product sales build up. It will all be accounted for in the business plan for the product whether it's a camera or a motor car or a TV.

[Mattias Burling]

28 minutes ago, nigelbb said:

This is not unique to cameras but applies to any other product & is only true in a very limited way. R&D costs will be amortised over the lifetime of a product. Sales on older products bring in profits while newer product sales build up. It will all be accounted for in the business plan for the product whether it's a camera or a motor car or a TV.

Correct.

[Dan Sherman]

15 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

I heard it is going to be more like 8000 bucks! Holy Smokes. 0.95 on a FF camera is well, well good luck. ?

Shallow dof is the crutch for all those with poor composition skills. 

 

[webrunner5]

15 minutes ago, Dan Sherman said:

Shallow dof is the crutch for all those with poor composition skills. 

 

I don't think I would go that far LoL. But I think a lot of that stuff is not in Vogue like it was back in the 40's, 50's films, crash zooms and all. A little bit of that gets pretty old pretty quick, at least to me, and it looks a bit copy cat also.

But it does set up who you are Hoping the audience accepts as you main point of Focus, pun there, and draws their attention to it. They sell fast lenses for more reasons than low light I can tell you that, and it is one of the main reason FF video cameras now are all the Rage.

[noone]

17 minutes ago, Dan Sherman said:

Shallow dof is the crutch for all those with poor composition skills. 

 

You don't HAVE to use them wide open.

Shallow depth of field has a place as much as anything.      Maybe if that is ALL you do it could be a crutch but it is something I love having even if not used all that much.      Don't forget even a 58 f0.95 lens will have infinite depth of field at a given distance (mind you with this lens it would be with a subject distance of around 120 metres with everything from about 60m to infinity in focus).

This will sell to collectors and the curious with money and there will be some who would want it at any cost (as long as it is as good as I expect it will be).

[Django]

As the name implies "Noct" sub-f1 primes are aimed at extreme low-light situations. Leica developped them during WW2 for night reconnaissance. Today they mostly sell to astro shooters, crop sensor users that are looking for shallow DoF, fast prime collectors etc..

[BTM_Pix]

In the interest of balance, its worth remembering that the people who've bought the Leica Noctilux-M f0.95 will be looking at the price of that Nikon one and thinking "Blimey, thats cheap".

 

 

[Dan Sherman]

2 hours ago, webrunner5 said:

I don't think I would go that far LoL. But I think a lot of that stuff is not in Vogue like it was back in the 40's, 50's films, crash zooms and all. A little bit of that gets pretty old pretty quick, at least to me, and it looks a bit copy cat also.

But it does set up who you are Hoping the audience accepts as you main point of Focus, pun there, and draws their attention to it. They sell fast lenses for more reasons than low light I can tell you that, and it is one of the main reason FF video cameras now are all the Rage.

 

2 hours ago, noone said:

You don't HAVE to use them wide open.

Shallow depth of field has a place as much as anything.      Maybe if that is ALL you do it could be a crutch but it is something I love having even if not used all that much.      Don't forget even a 58 f0.95 lens will have infinite depth of field at a given distance (mind you with this lens it would be with a subject distance of around 120 metres with everything from about 60m to infinity in focus).

This will sell to collectors and the curious with money and there will be some who would want it at any cost (as long as it is as good as I expect it will be).

Shallow DOF and wide apertures for sure have a place. What I meant was I have seen far to many instance of shallow DOF being the subject instead of being used to accentuate a subject. In other words people thinking shallow DOF makes everything better. Another example that comes to mind is all the superfluous focus pulls that started appearing after the GH5 was released.

A few years back I remember seeing some portraiture shots a guy had taken with an old Canon 50mm f/0.95 He was gushing all over the place about the bokeh, and got pissed when people pointed out the model wasn't completely in focus in most of the shots.


 

[jonpais]

2 hours ago, Dan Sherman said:

Another example that comes to mind is all the superfluous focus pulls that started appearing after the GH5 was released.

?

[Trek of Joy]

22 hours ago, jonpais said:

I’m not introducing any subtext at all, my friend. I quoted you directly gleefully saying Nikon is ‘giving the middle finger’ to Otus. That’s a hostile attitude if ever I saw one, and I am merely wondering why you are so thrilled about a lens that none of us can afford to buy anyway. Even if it was just $4,000!

I've shown no hostility toward anyone, its simply a figure of speech. I'm not going to continue some silly sophomoric debate about your incorrect interpretation of something I typed. If I wanted to show hostility, I would clearly state such, but I really don't care to bother. I've seen plenty of $4000 Otuses and more $10k+ long teles than I can count, so there's clearly a market for exotic glass at used car prices, even if its doesn't suite your needs or budget since Nikon isn't building gear just for you, its a unique addition to the system since current 0.95 FF glass is either not very good wide open or $12,000 in Leica land. I'm looking forward to tinkering with one.

The Noct aside, MTF curves look really good with the 35/50 primes. They should be exceptional lenses, despite "only" being f/1.8.

Cheers

Chris

 

 

[jonpais]

The high schooler ‘gave the middle finger’ to his math teacher. 

The kind gesture was met with a smile.

[jonpais]

On 7/23/2018 at 4:15 PM, Kisaha said:

If some of the patented lenses are true, Nikon will make extra sensitive lenses and iso performance their selling point.

Aren’t lenses supposed to behave like faster optics with the new Z mount? I thought I read this somewhere, but nobody seems to be talking about it.

[noone]

I think it is more that they can HAVE faster lenses with the Z mount and why they have not had many 1.2 or faster lenses to date with the F mount.

Something about it being easier to design wider lenses as well.

That said, I still think it funny that people are now saying it is an advantage to Nikon over other mounts to have a wider mount at 55mm and yet nobody has ever listed the F mount (44mm) as being a disadvantage compared to the E mount (46.1mm) and especially the Canon EF mount which at 54mm is only one mm less than the new Z mount.

[webrunner5]

49 minutes ago, noone said:

I think it is more that they can HAVE faster lenses with the Z mount and why they have not had many 1.2 or faster lenses to date with the F mount.

Something about it being easier to design wider lenses as well.

That said, I still think it funny that people are now saying it is an advantage to Nikon over other mounts to have a wider mount at 55mm and yet nobody has ever listed the F mount (44mm) as being a disadvantage compared to the E mount (46.1mm) and especially the Canon EF mount which at 54mm is only one mm less than the new Z mount.

Yeah, from Canon , 1987 "The new EF mount had the largest internal mount diameter (54mm) of all 35mm SLR cameras, allowing for larger aperture lenses". Gee where I have I just heard something along those same lines???

[IronFilm]

1 hour ago, noone said:

I think it is more that they can HAVE faster lenses with the Z mount and why they have not had many 1.2 or faster lenses to date with the F mount.

Something about it being easier to design wider lenses as well.

That said, I still think it funny that people are now saying it is an advantage to Nikon over other mounts to have a wider mount at 55mm and yet nobody has ever listed the F mount (44mm) as being a disadvantage compared to the E mount (46.1mm) and especially the Canon EF mount which at 54mm is only one mm less than the new Z mount.

I have often read how it was a disadvantage for Nikon. 

 

This is is why Nikon has zero f1.2 AF lenses!