There is no magical size/weight advantage

Started 7 months ago | Discussions thread
IVN
IVN
Senior MemberPosts: 1,588Gear list
Like?
Re: Magic is veeeery expansive ;)
In reply to razormac, 7 months ago

razormac wrote:

IVN wrote:

razormac wrote:

No offense intended, but this thread is confusing at best, and not true. I am no optics expert (just an engineer with a photography habit), but these kinds of posts rub me the wrong way to the point where I have to respond.

1) Yes there is a size advantage, and no it isn't magic, just simple physics, the physics of needed less glass (and mass) to cast a smaller light circle with the same light density falling on the sensor (photos/sq cm)

2) Rather than try to argue further the physics, I will give real world examples that prove my point

Nikon 1 32mm f1.2 (2.58x1.85in) vs Nikon DX 35mm f1.8 (2.8x2.1in) - the f1.2 lens is slightly smaller than its DX equivalent despite the ~ 1 stop advantage

Nikon 105mm f2.8 Macro (3.3x4.6in) vs Pana 35-100mm f2.8 (2.7x3.9in) again, advantage smaller format

Have to cut this short as I am being called to a meeting

Let's not pretend that you didn't understand my post, we both know that you did.

You can't compare two lenses which are basically not even in the same market segment. Of course, there is always a bit of "wiggle room", but in order to get past physics, you have to "bribe" it with a lot of $$, as we see with the 32mm f1.2. Could Nikon have made the 32mm f1.2 with those awesome IQ characteristics for less than $200? Absolutely not! Is a 32mm f1.8 with similar IQ to the 35/1.8 possible for less than $200? Of course!

So yeah, Nikon could probably make a significantly smaller 70-300 for N1, but would anyone be willing to pay $x000 for that?

The other example is no good either. Macro vs standard zoom is not a good idea.

I did understand your post. My statement regarding confusion was in regard to your stated intent to prevent beginners from being lead astray.

Regardless, it appears you either misunderstood or chose to ignore my post. You don't like my Macro Prime to Zoom comparison, why dont you post some real world examples of equal aperture and focal length lens where the N1 or M4/3 version is larger than the FX or even DX lens.

Well I did. You don't like my Sigma DX prime vs Nikon FX prime example? How about Fuji 35/1.4 vs Nikkor 50/1.8?

And if you shift to FOV, show me a 70-200 that is anywhere near the size of a 35-100.

Either you compare same actual aperture and same actual FL, or you compare equivalent aperture and equivalent FL. You can't mix those just to drive your point home.

The reason you can't compare 70-200 f2.8 to 35-100 "f2.8" is because the latter has f5.6 equivalent aperture. So either you compare a 70-200 f2.8 for (m)FT with a FX lens, or you compare 35-100 f1.4 with a 70-200 f2.8 FX. Which of the letter do you think would be larger?

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow