$900 USD For The New 32mm ƒ1.2

Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
1,478
Location
Florida
I think Nikon should go for broke on the 1" system. The J series already has the F/3.5-5.6 zooms to cover the P&S upgraders, the V1 Series should have the fastes set of primes in the market, it will set 1 system apart

24mm F/1.2

35mm F/1.2

50mm F/1.2

85mm F/1.2

135mm F/1.8
 
Joined
Mar 4, 2005
Messages
15,119
Location
Los Angeles, USA
I think Nikon should go for broke on the 1" system. The J series already has the F/3.5-5.6 zooms to cover the P&S upgraders, the V1 Series should have the fastes set of primes in the market, it will set 1 system apart

24mm F/1.2

35mm F/1.2

50mm F/1.2

85mm F/1.2

135mm F/1.8
I don't think the 1 system is the problem, it's Nikon who can't make up their mind if the V series is for the P&S bridge crowd or a serious enthusiast camera. They need to go all out with a universal hot shoe, full CLS compatibility, articulate screen, weather-sealing and fast lenses all-around. I don't think Nikon gets it. Who cares if the 1 series eats into their DSLR line! It's better than current enthusiast and pros buying into other mirrorless cameras to supplement their current Nikon kits.
 
Joined
Jul 21, 2007
Messages
5,262
Location
NJ
I don't think the 1 system is the problem, it's Nikon who can't make up their mind if the V series is for the P&S bridge crowd or a serious enthusiast camera. They need to go all out with a universal hot shoe, full CLS compatibility, articulate screen, weather-sealing and fast lenses all-around. I don't think Nikon gets it.
I think that is exactly the problem. The more I use it, the more I see the tremendous potential for the system; once you've walked around with the FX equivalent of a 28-80mm lens and an 80-300mm lens in one cargo pocket, and flash and a prime in the other it's easy to understand why the "One" shooters like it.

Yes, the sensor is small and has a hard time competing with M43. Here's the solution: cut the number of megapixels down. Make it a 6MP camera. Now you have beefy pixels with low noise, and it seperates the CX line from DX/FX so less cannibalizing of the SLR line.
Nikon still seems to think that this needs to be positioned as a bridge between compact and SLR and then prices it above SLR which makes no sense to me. Position it as a tiny, high quality system camera and aggressively market it as such, and Nikon could have made this a pretty good success.

As for now, I just bet on the fire sales that happened to the rest of the CX line and will eventually pick up the 1.2 lens for $300 :smile:
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
3,123
Location
Santa Barbara, California, U.S.A.
I think that is exactly the problem. The more I use it, the more I see the tremendous potential for the system; once you've walked around with the FX equivalent of a 28-80mm lens and an 80-300mm lens in one cargo pocket, and flash and a prime in the other it's easy to understand why the "One" shooters like it.

Yes, the sensor is small and has a hard time competing with M43. Here's the solution: cut the number of megapixels down. Make it a 6MP camera. Now you have beefy pixels with low noise, and it seperates the CX line from DX/FX so less cannibalizing of the SLR line.
Nikon still seems to think that this needs to be positioned as a bridge between compact and SLR and then prices it above SLR which makes no sense to me. Position it as a tiny, high quality system camera and aggressively market it as such, and Nikon could have made this a pretty good success.

As for now, I just bet on the fire sales that happened to the rest of the CX line and will eventually pick up the 1.2 lens for $300 :smile:
I don't agree - I would not buy a 6 MP body for my purposes...

I like the potential of the 1 series for long tele shooting... It's awesome to take the V1 and a 70-300 VR and have an 810mm setup in a tiny package!!! The biggest flaw for me is that you can't use AF-C with the FT-1 adapter. Nikon - please fix that asap!!!

The 1 series sensor is fine for telephoto and landscape shooting, where having a lot of DOF is a plus. It's also great as a casual walkaround for sightseeing with just the kit lens, with the flash and perhaps a 2nd lens in the pocket... It will never be ideal as a portrait setup - even with a 1.2 lens you get limited subject isolation...

Cheers

Mike
 

JPS

Joined
May 7, 2005
Messages
9,261
Location
North-East of Brazil
.............The Oly 45 is a bargain at $399, and equivalent to 90mm f/3.6 on FX. The Nikon 32/1.2 is equivalent to 86mm f/3.2 on FX - that's pretty similar... And the Oly 45/1.8 is tack sharp at all apertures and has lovely bokeh - one of my favorite portrait lenses!
....errrr.... correct me, but I was certain than the APERTURE doesn't change when comparing lenses of different formats, so the 32mm f/1.2 for CX is equivalent to a 86mm f/1.2 in FX !!! ...and consequently the Oly 45mm f/1.8 is equivalent to a 90mm f/1.8 in FX format !!!

:rolleyes:
J-P.
 
Joined
Jul 21, 2007
Messages
5,262
Location
NJ
....errrr.... correct me, but I was certain than the APERTURE doesn't change when comparing lenses of different formats, so the 32mm f/1.2 for CX is equivalent to a 86mm f/1.2 in FX !!! ...and consequently the Oly 45mm f/1.8 is equivalent to a 90mm f/1.8 in FX format !!!

:rolleyes:
J-P.
Does 32/1.2 on CX get me the same bokeh as 85/1.4 on FX? Or does it give me something more comparable to 85/3.2 on FX?

For the purpose of shutterspeed the aperture doesn't change, for the purpose of blurring the background it does. Well more technically, the effect of the aperture changes.
But when then you say "so I'm right, aperture doesn't change at various sensor sizes" I will respond with "neither does focal length; only the effect (angle of view) changes" :smile:

Of course there is the observation that "translating" focal lengths from one sensor size to another is risky business and not as straight forward as it seems, and also depends on what you're looking at.
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
3,123
Location
Santa Barbara, California, U.S.A.
....errrr.... correct me, but I was certain than the APERTURE doesn't change when comparing lenses of different formats, so the 32mm f/1.2 for CX is equivalent to a 86mm f/1.2 in FX !!! ...and consequently the Oly 45mm f/1.8 is equivalent to a 90mm f/1.8 in FX format !!!

:rolleyes:
J-P.
Here's a good article on the subject of equivalence:

http://www.josephjamesphotography.com/equivalence/

Bottom line - just like you multiply the focal length by the crop factor to get equivalent FL on the larger sensor, you also multiply the aperture to get equivalent DOF on the larger sensor.

Cheers

Mike
 
Joined
Jun 29, 2009
Messages
1,478
Location
Florida
....errrr.... correct me, but I was certain than the APERTURE doesn't change when comparing lenses of different formats, so the 32mm f/1.2 for CX is equivalent to a 86mm f/1.2 in FX !!! ...and consequently the Oly 45mm f/1.8 is equivalent to a 90mm f/1.8 in FX format !!!

:rolleyes:
J-P.
Well the aperture and focal length do not change between formats, what changes is the crop factor > subject to lens distance which affects dof. In terms of exposure yes the 32mm F/1.2 will have the same exposure (ISO, shutter speed and F/stop) as an 85mm F/1.2, but the the DOF will be almost 4x greater and the subject isolation almost 3x smaller (pa of 27mm vs 71mm)
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
17,407
Location
Hong Kong
Aperture won't change, DOF table won't change. The blurring of background changes because of camera to subject distance. So the difference is in the focal distance if you want to maintain the same subject size on the images in different sensor sizes.
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
3,123
Location
Santa Barbara, California, U.S.A.
Aperture won't change, DOF table won't change. The blurring of background changes because of camera to subject distance. So the difference is in the focal distance if you want to maintain the same subject size on the images in different sensor sizes.
I don't believe that is correct... We are talking about equivalence at (approximately) same subject distance, same FOV, same DOF:

M4/3 with 25mm at f/1.4

FX with 50mm at f/2.8

If you use the FX lens at the same 1.4 aperture as the m4/3 lens, you will get less DOF. The DOF table is sensor dependent.

See the link I posted above - great article on equivalence.

Cheers

Mike
 
Joined
Apr 30, 2005
Messages
17,407
Location
Hong Kong
The article is talking about the same thing.

If you stand at a certain distance from the subject and use the same lens, same aperture on different sensors, the DOF is the same. The smaller sensor is just a cropped image of the bigger sensor. Now if you want to maintain the same subject size on the images, you have to move closer with the bigger sensor. And the change of distance affects the DOF.

That's what equivalence means.
 
Joined
Mar 23, 2008
Messages
3,123
Location
Santa Barbara, California, U.S.A.
The article is talking about the same thing.

If you stand at a certain distance from the subject and use the same lens, same aperture on different sensors, the DOF is the same. The smaller sensor is just a cropped image of the bigger sensor. Now if you want to maintain the same subject size on the images, you have to move closer with the bigger sensor. And the change of distance affects the DOF.

That's what equivalence means.
Yes, agreed - but here we are talking about different lenses on different sensors, with same subject distance, same FOV, and same DOF. We're just varying different parameters. But it's a more practical scenario for equivalence, because most folks want to know what lens they need on another sensor to achieve the same image:

32mm 1.2 on CX = 86mm 3.2 on FX = 43mm 1.6 on m4/3 at same subject distance.

Cheers

Mike
 

Thorsten

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jan 19, 2009
Messages
4,458
Location
San Jose, California
If you're using the same subject distance and same framing, then the DOF changes because of the different focal length needed on different sensors to achieve that framing (longer lens = less DOF). If, however, you use the same focal length on different sensors (i.e. 50mm on FX or DX), and still frame the same, then the DOF changes due to the different subject distance, as Phil stated (shorter distance = less DOF).

I think everybody is correct here.
 
Joined
Apr 22, 2012
Messages
78
Location
Lethbridge,Alberta,Canada
This little lens, although it looks incredible, may have to wait because of the price. I have been playing around with a FT-1 and 50G for a few days just to get the longing out of my system :)
 
Joined
Aug 15, 2011
Messages
862
Location
Austin
I love my V1, it's my carry-everywhere P+S. But buying a $900 lens for it would never cross my mind. I'll stay with the 18.5/1.8.
Agreed. I'm sorry, but $900 seems ridiculous. You can get a new grey market 85 1.4D for that price. Or a new D5200 and a 50mm 1.8G.
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom