Nx 50-150 is it really F4.2

ttbek wrote:

No one should be agonizing over anything. Whether or not one feels the lens is misdescribed depends on what information you think is being conveyed by f/2.8. A fair number of people think it means something it doesn't and may be disappointed. It may be that he shouldn't be worrying, but he is/was. In my opinion the best way to allay those fears is to show the guts of the issue so that he can gain confidence from knowledge of exactly what is going on and know why people are saying what they are instead of being in the middle of a he said she said and not knowing whom to believe. That's just my opinion though and you have every right to yours, it certainly can be less of a burden for some people to just pick a side and believe it without necessarily understanding (2.8 or 4.2).

It's not really picking a side is it. f2.8 is f2.8, always has be and hopefully always will and the equivalence boys will always try to complicate things. It it makes the OP any happier I have just bought a, wait for it, shock horror, an Olympus 1S with a 1/1.7" sensor and a fixed f2.8 lens which is probably f squillion in the equivalence world and practically unusable. I bought it because I rather miss my Samsung EX2f which despite the maths performed rather well though the lens was faster at the short end although that was all there was. The Olly does a good job despite its equally minute sensor and at a fraction now of the 1" costs which struggle with packing the lens needed in to the tiny form factor.

Sony are in to full frame probably because it is called that and users can drop down to the smaller format forums and talk about our crop sensors. Would Sony have bothered if it was called aps-k or such like?

Note also that the other favoured size is the nifty neither here nor there 1" size which sounds just right and enables a good lift of the margins.

How much has all this ideal sensor size guff really got to do with photography.