Hugo808: No lens hood? Shame on you Nikon, you don't want to be cutting cheap corners like that and expecting us to be happy about paying £40 for an optional one. Not when the lens is this pricey anyway!
Like every other modern Nikkor I've ever seen, it comes with a hood: http://imaging.nikon.com/lineup/lens/zoom/normalzoom/af-s_dx_16-80mmf_28-4e_ed_vr/spec.htm
An HB-75 in this case.
mcshan: Looks great! I would prefer the classic 35mm but this will still be quite a camera to shoot with. Good for Leica.
Well, no. It will look exactly the same as a 35mm shot assuming both photos are taken from the same distance to the subject. If you don't believe me, grab your wide angle capable zoom (or two primes) and try it for yourself.
J A C S: 28mm seems as an odd choice of a FL. Other than that, it seems to be a great fixed lens camera with IS for those with extra cash.
Does this photo taken with an 18.5mm lens look like it was shot with an ultra-wide angle lens?http://i2.wp.com/www.stevehuffphoto.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/20121201-_DSC4901-f1.8.jpg
You don't seem to understand equivalence. Cropping to a 35mm field of view gives you f/2.1 equivalent DOF and reduces MP to ~15. Because you are standing at the same place as you otherwise would for a 'real' 35mm focal length photo, DOF and perspective distortion are exactly the same as the 35mm f/2.1 shot. You may or may not have less MP on your subject depending on which sensor is behind that 35mm lens.
It is a 35mm f/2.1 (equivalent) camera with 15MP resolution, too. Just crop (1.25X to be exact).
And the Leica will still be ahead on equivalent aperture at f/2.1 (f/1.7 x 1.25) vs. f/3 equivalent for the Fuji.
A crop to 35mm from 28mm is a 1.25X crop. That will leave ~15MP from a 24MP sensor.
Nikon, Sigma, and Ricoh all seemed to agree that 28mm makes sense for a fixed focal length camera.
deep7: This could be a good lens. I wonder what the equivalence nerds would make of it? Looking forward to seeing reviews.
Bgmonroe, probably the most important piece of equivalence is that it allows one to compare light gathering capabilites across formats. Total light is the determiner of depth of field and plays a huge part in determining how much noise is in an image. Field of view is an important part as well, of course.
veroman: Until one actually owns a Leica digital, one is really in no position to judge its worth or its capabilities. It's so very easy to denigrate the brand based on price alone and even easier to conclude that other cameras are just as good at a fraction of the price. One poster here says, "Is it better built? Probably." Probably? There's no probably about it. The precision that goes into the design and manufacture of Leica products is unequalled. You need only hold one in your hands and give it one click. Look at the seams, i.e. where a latch door meets the body. The seam is practically invisible. Most of you will own 10 or 15 different cameras by the time a single Leica needs servicing, if it does at all.
'Most of you will own 10 or 15 different cameras by the time a single Leica needs servicing, if it does at all.'
Maybe, maybe not: http://www.dpreview.com/articles/8752612172/leica-m9-users-report-sensor-corrosion-issue
Sorry, couldn't resist. I find Leica's quite fascinating and would welcome some time shooting with one, especially the Monochrom.
Deardorff: 5 inches for macro work. What is the magnification factor? Close isn't necessarily 'macro'.
Think about it, on a 24x36mm sensor at 1:1, what is the size of an object that is 18mm across? Is it 18mm or some other value? On a 12x18mm sensor at 1:1, what is the size of that 18mm wide object? Is it 18mm or some other value?
I didn't say that the number of pixels was relevant to the magnification specification. I noted that a 1:1 image is still 1:1 after cropping, but that the pixels will be decreased. Higher pixel density sensors (like a 16mp m4/3 sensor vs. a 16mp full frame sensor) will put more megapixels on a 12x18mm object than the lower pixel density sensor.
Yes, cropping is irrelevant to magnification. 1:1 is still 1:1 no matter how much you crop. Cropping just changes the effective size of the sensor. Just like using a m4/3 sensor is simply cropping from a full frame sensor, only with a m4/3 sensor, you can't ever get back to the full frame size.
1:1 on full frame is still 1:1 on m4/3 or any smaller or larger format. Crop to 1/4 of the frame of a full frame 1:1 image and you'll have a 18 x 12mm image (practically the same square mm's as m4/3). The difference will be how many pixels you put on the subject.
ccclai: Equivalent to F2.8 in full frame?
As Mike99999 points out above, with full frame you just shoot at two stops higher ISO and get roughly the same noise as m4/3s due to the fact that the same 'total light' is being captured. 4X the light on a sensor 1/4 of the size evens things out between the two sensors. Again, the difference with full frame is that you get AF and a cheaper lens.
IBIS is something that could give the m4/3 camera an advantage if the scene was static. No arguing there.
ozturet, the Nikon covers a sensor that is four times larger than a m4/3 lens so it can be up to two stops slower and still capture as much or more light than a m4/3 lens. At f/0.95, this new Voightlander lens is just under two stops faster than the Nikon. Picking a nit really, but the lack of AF and higher price are still real cons.
Yup, pretty much equivalent to the new Nikon 20mm f/1.8, just at $450 more for a slightly slower and likely worse performing lens with no AF. These Voightlander lenses have their uses I'm sure, but competing with full frame is not what they are good at.
HowaboutRAW: Which Fuji body?
Would be interesting to see the differences between XTrans and Bayer.
I never denied a diameter difference. However, given that on both cameras the lens does not extend past the limits of the body, the diameter of the lens has little effect on the overall size of the camera. The length of the lens does change the size and this Fuji is within 2mm of the length of both Nikon's and Canon's 50/1.4 lenses.
If you are going to use terms like 'light gathering' you should use them correctly. 'Light gathered' is dependent on f-stop and sensor size. Without specifying a sensor size, all you know is the light density and that is a meaningless property for comparing lenses.
As far as the Fuji being better than Nikon's 'best', comparing the two lenses at Photozone I'd have to disagree. Even at the same f-stop, the Nikon appears to out-resolve the Fuji by a decent margin though the Nikon is being used on a higher MP sensor (24 vs. 16). However, at equivalent apertures, the Fuji lags really far behind.
Nikon 50mm f/1.4 AF-S G - Dimensions (DxL) Approx. 2.9 x 2.1" (7.37 x 5.33 cm)
Fuji 35mm f/1.4 XF R - Dimensions (DxL) Approx. 2.56 x 2.16" (65 x 54.9 mm)
Fuji is ever so slightly longer but smaller in diameter.
Yes, 52mm f/2.1 in DOF/light gathering. Bested by the lowly $200 Nikon 50mm f/1.8 AF-S G even. I'm sure it's a great lens for a Fuji camera but if I am comparing systems, full frame simply offers better value when it comes to fast lenses.
Considering that it is the equivalent of a full frame 52/2.1, one would hope that it is smaller than a full frame 50/1.4. However, the Fuji is only smaller in diameter than the current Canon and Nikon 50/1.4 but a little longer than both. It is larger in every dimension that the screw drive Nikon 50/1.4 AF-D.
joejack951: Not that I am a professional who plans on entering or anything, but I love how my Nikon D3s isn't good enough for this contest but a Samsung Galaxy S5 phone is.
Any camera can yield great results in the right hands at the right place. That doesn't excuse them from placing an arbitrary limit on the most foolish of all camera specs on which they could place one. Do they really think a 30"x20" print (or larger) from an S5 will look better than one from a D3s, D700, A7s, 5DC, etc.?
Not that I am a professional who plans on entering or anything, but I love how my Nikon D3s isn't good enough for this contest but a Samsung Galaxy S5 phone is.