User Tag List

Thanks useful information Thanks useful information:  0
Results 1 to 6 of 6

Thread: What's it worth to you?

  1. #1
    Ausphotography Regular swifty's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 May 2007
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,382
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)

    What's it worth to you?

    Just a simple hypothetical for the start of the week
    What would the following cameras be worth to you?

    36MP full frame camera with a 28mm f1.8 lens
    21MP APS-H camera with a 36mm equiv f1.8 lens
    16MP APS-C camera with a 42mm equiv f1.8 lens
    9MP m43 camera with a 56mm equiv f1.8 lens
    and a 5MP Nikon CX camera with a 75mm equiv f1.8 lens.

    Not trying to be deceptive or anything. If you didn't notice, all the above are actually the same camera/lens. I've just done the maths to see what you get with a crop to some standard sensor sizes.
    This will be essentially what you get if u paired a D800 with a 28mm f1.8G lens.
    As a interchangeable lens DSLR design, a D800 with a 28mm f1.8 lens is considerably bigger than it can be. With a bit of extrapolation one can imagine a hypothetical full frame compact with fixed 28mm f1.8 lens a little bigger than a RX1.

    Now the above hypothetical camera will beat most full frames at around 28mm, beat an X100 (which is at 35mm equiv), beat a Sony NEX with Sigma 30/2.8, almost match a m43 with a PanaLeica 25mm f1.4, and beat any Nikon 1 camera with any lens near the portrait focal length (cos Nikon CX's lens selection is currently severely anaemic), although mp drops to 5mp but still useful for holiday snaps which is what Nikon CX is essentially aimed at.

    Obviously this camera has limited appeal to the tele shooter.
    But it could replace a whole system such as m43 depending on your shooting needs.
    It also raises another question. As IQ improves, does cropping (digital zoom) make an acceptable optical zoom replacement. That's Nokia's strategy in their Pureview 808 smartphone. I'm starting to think its not such a bad idea.
    Nikon FX

  2. #2
    Ausphotography Regular
    Threadstarter
    swifty's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 May 2007
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,382
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Very old thread I know and no reaction the last time but somewhat more relevant today.

    We now have two cameras which approach my hypothetical.
    The newly announced RX1R II and the still hard to get Leica Q.
    The first has the pixels for cropping flexibility but doesn't quite go wide enough.
    The second goes wider but doesn't quite have the pixels for cropping flexibility.

    Again, when you consider the acceptability of today's pixel level quality, cropping becomes a more viable option when considering a versatile 'all in one' at the shorter focal lengths if you can accept the overall quality from a smaller sensor area.

    So let me update it for 2015 and the projected pixel density using a current Nikon eg. D7200.

    A full frame with 28mm FOV @ f1.8 with 54MP
    An APS-H with 36mm FOV @ f1.8 with 32MP
    An APS-C with 42mm FOV @f1.8 with 24MP
    A larger than m43 with 50mm FOV @ f1.8 with 17MP

    This doesn't even have to be mirrorless nor fixed lens. Any DSLR with high MPs paired with a fast wide can potentially replace a series of small primes on smaller formats.

  3. #3
    A royal pain in the bum! arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    7,852
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by swifty View Post
    Very old thread I know and no reaction the last time but somewhat more relevant today.
    I may have missed the original thread!

    ..
    The newly announced RX1R II ....
    In terms of what it's worth ... definitely not Sony's asking price!(US$3300)
    Nikon D800E, D300, D70s
    {Nikon} -> 50/1.2 : 500/8(CPU'd) : 105/2.8VR Micro : 180/2.8ais : 105mm f/1.8ais : 24mm/2ais
    {Sigma}; ->10-20/4-5.6 : 50/1.4 : 12-24/4.5-5.6II : 150-600mm|S
    {Tamron}; -> 17-50/2.8 : 28-75/2.8 : 70-200/2.8 : 300/2.8 SP MF : 24-70/2.8VC


  4. #4
    Still in the Circle of Confusion Cage's Avatar
    Join Date
    25 May 2010
    Location
    Hunter Valley
    Posts
    4,804
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    I have your original pairing, the D800 and the 28mm f1.8G. The 28mm is a great bit of kit and is always in my bag for astro/night shots.

    And I'm not parting with either one any time soon.
    Cheers
    Kev

    D800 & GAS

  5. #5
    Ausphotography Regular
    Threadstarter
    swifty's Avatar
    Join Date
    18 May 2007
    Location
    Singapore
    Posts
    1,382
    Mentioned
    1 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by arthurking83 View Post
    In terms of what it's worth ... definitely not Sony's asking price!(US$3300)
    How about an A7R II with a FE 28mm f2
    Or D810 with a 28mm f1.8G
    The main thing you gain with RX1R II is the size I guess.
    But I guess my point is with enough pixels, a FF with a single lens can replace many smaller format primes.

  6. #6
    A royal pain in the bum! arthurking83's Avatar
    Join Date
    04 Jun 2006
    Location
    the worst house, in the best street
    Posts
    7,852
    Mentioned
    2 Post(s)
    Tagged
    0 Thread(s)
    Quote Originally Posted by swifty View Post
    ....
    But I guess my point is with enough pixels, a FF with a single lens can replace many smaller format primes.
    I've always held this belief myself too if the need ever arises.

    As for the size of the R1xII .. I still think it could have been smaller, and therefore truly pocketable.

    For design of the little Sony, I'd have preferred to see the body thickness about 50% more than what they created, and maybe just a tad larger in width too.
    so. if the body was 100mm wide and 40mm thick, I'd prefer say 120-150mm wide and 60mm thick.
    BUT! to compensate for the extra size of the body, I'd have made the lens retractable, even if that meant a 35mm f/2.8 instead of 35/2 lens.

    The reason I say this is that I still have my 50 year old Rollei 35 which is a truly pocketable full frame camera .. none of this pseudo pocketability of the current age
    It used to work a treat, but time has taken it's toll now and it's seen better days. But with today's modern technology(ie. miniturisation) I can't see why they can't make a modern fullframe digital version of this old classic. Maybe then I'll be interested in a pocket camera of some description.
    For a sense of comparison, the Rollei is 100mm wide, 70mm tall and 50mm thick with the lens in(which becomes about 60mm when the lens is extended outwards) But the size of the extending lens isn't important or significant. The important consideration is that when the lens is retracted, the camera is really pocketable(just a small rectangle shaped package .. about the size of a std pack of cigarettes or wallet or something.
    And remember this thing has to take a roll of 35mm film and extend it laterally where it spools up on the other side of the body, with all the mechanical gears and levers and sucklike that require it's inner workings.
    Last edited by arthurking83; 15-10-2015 at 5:17pm.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •