 |
jonas ar
Lives in
Denmark
Joined on
Apr 1, 2008
|
   |
|
Connect with dpreview
|
SeeRoy: Wotta lotta twaddle here - the usual endless piffle about FL/Aperture equivalence. I don't use a Nikon 1 system (I own FX and M4/3) however I did buy, and have used, a V1 system for a woman friend as an alternative to her Canon DSLR. And I wouldn't be likely to buy this overpriced lens even if I was a CX system user.
I agree that the existing cameras fall well short of what they might easily have been; many people might have been prepared to overlook the limitations imposed by the choice of sensor size had the ergonomics been better. However I feel it's likely that, given the rapid development in sensor technology, before too long we'll see a Nikon CX range that meets the requirements of many of its current critics.
There's a lot wrong with my OMD too but it doesn't stop me finding it a much more enjoyable experience than an FX body with a 2.8 zoom attached.
Edited for typo.
Because they understand that noise per area is independent of pixel size at these pixel dimensions.
Klipsen: I hope it means someone will start manufacturing rear mounted wideangle converters - apparently a Kodak patent that never resulted in any actual product.
It would enable the use of full frame lenses on APS-C cameras with no crop factor. In fact, with the proper converter, it would be possible to use full frame lenses on, say, the Nikon 1 series or other small sensor formats.
Contrary to teleconverters, it would actually gain one or more f-stops, light being concentrated over a smaller area.
I believe the patent covers focal reducers in systems with a mirror in the light path. Iow, I suppose such converters could be build for mirrorless systems without violating the patent? Seems like such an obvious idea.
The description without typos (I hope ): Two men setting up a fence using a manual fence post driver.