DonParrot
Senior Member
Forget it.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
The new Nikon 70-200mm f2.8 is around 3100 euro
- Thread starter leendertcv
- Start date
Forgottenbutnotgone
Senior Member
- Messages
- 1,745
- Reaction score
- 2,742
Apparently you, since you took the time to comment.
Robert
Robert
Colin K. Work
Senior Member
Seems about right - the Nikon is almost exactly twice the mass of the Oly, most of which will be expensive glass.The m.Zuiko 40-150mm f2.8 is only 1400 euro
sportyaccordy
Forum Pro
bobn2
Forum Pro
You could fit it on an mFT camera with an easy to buy adapter. Since this lens has a fully electronic mount, it's a matter of time before someone brings out a full function adapter.
Could be quite useful, since there isn't a native lens for micro Four Thirds which gives a 6.2 degree angle of view with a 71.5mm aperture.
Jon555
Veteran Member
Seems about right - the Nikon is almost exactly twice the mass of the Oly, most of which will be expensive glass.The m.Zuiko 40-150mm f2.8 is only 1400 euro
N
NCV
Guest
bobn2
Forum Pro
I would guess the sniffing was mostly because they couldn't do it. Canon produced their own synthetic fluorite for optical use. Nikon presumably could do it (or buy it), since they use it in their stepper optics, but possibly hadn't got the price down enough for the general photographic market, or didn't have the production capacity.
Whatever, now they seem to be unable to produce a new lens without fluorite elements.
DonParrot
Senior Member
Seems about right - the Nikon is almost exactly twice the mass of the Oly, most of which will be expensive glass.The m.Zuiko 40-150mm f2.8 is only 1400 euro
Colin K. Work
Senior Member
bobn2
Forum Pro
Seems about right - the Nikon is almost exactly twice the mass of the Oly, most of which will be expensive glass.The m.Zuiko 40-150mm f2.8 is only 1400 euro
DonParrot
Senior Member
Really?Such as...?Apparently YOU are the one who doesn't understand that there are far more factors determining the IQ than just the maximum aperture of a lens. .Plus presumably has to reach about m43 lens levels of on-sensor resolution over 4x the area (assuming the approaching D810 follow-up will have at least 5Dsr pixel densities which is 90% of that of a 16MP m43 sensor).Seems about right - the Nikon is almost exactly twice the mass of the Oly, most of which will be expensive glass.The m.Zuiko 40-150mm f2.8 is only 1400 euro
--
Colin K. Work
www.ckwphoto.com
www.pixstel.com
Completely silly thread though, but that's the forum... still amazes me people say "f2.8 is f2.8", their cell-phones are probably faster than that, mine is f1.8, quite why I have m43 and FF cameras when the phone has it covered for light collection seems to be beyond some people...
Are you going to tell me that these cheapo 50 1.8 primes make for a good IQ?
--
I wish I was an OLYgarch
Last edited:
sportyaccordy
Forum Pro
How could it have been interesting? What new is there to be learned? The MFT lens is smaller, lighter and cheaper; the FF lens is heavier, bigger and more expensive, but has a much wider operating envelope. What big revelations were you hoping to find in this thread? You've been here long enough to know exactly how this was going down, and yet you still came in and did absolutely nothing to steer it in a better direction.......
I guess it's easier to complain than to do better or walk away
bobn2
Forum Pro
Porky89
Leading Member
No, nothing there explaining the physics behind your absurd claim that the noise in an image is related to the total light received by the sensor. In fact total light is not even mentioned at all, which would seem to directly contradict your claim.
In other words you are totally unable to come up with a single example of the scientific basis for your claim that image noise is dependent on the total light, falling on the sensor. And that is because it is not true.
Do you see how that works? There is no scientific basis for your claim that because a large sensor receives more total light than a small sensor the image noise is less and therefore your claim is nothing more than an often repeated fallacy.
QED
bobn2
Forum Pro
Oh, there really, really is.
It needs a bit of ability to understand the principles and work through it. You'll obviously need to go through this step by step. I gave you a start here:
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58532385
Off you go!
Last edited:
sportyaccordy
Forum Pro
Definitely. What's wrong with a cheapo 50 1.8 prime? The cheapo 25mm MFT primes are no better.Really?Such as...?Apparently YOU are the one who doesn't understand that there are far more factors determining the IQ than just the maximum aperture of a lens. .Plus presumably has to reach about m43 lens levels of on-sensor resolution over 4x the area (assuming the approaching D810 follow-up will have at least 5Dsr pixel densities which is 90% of that of a 16MP m43 sensor).Seems about right - the Nikon is almost exactly twice the mass of the Oly, most of which will be expensive glass.The m.Zuiko 40-150mm f2.8 is only 1400 euro
--
Colin K. Work
www.ckwphoto.com
www.pixstel.com
Completely silly thread though, but that's the forum... still amazes me people say "f2.8 is f2.8", their cell-phones are probably faster than that, mine is f1.8, quite why I have m43 and FF cameras when the phone has it covered for light collection seems to be beyond some people...
Are you going to tell me that these cheapo 50 1.8 primes make for a good IQ?
--
I wish I was an OLYgarch
Last edited:
N
NCV
Guest
I did as a matter of fact
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/58525742
These comparisons threads always go down the same stupid road unfortunately.
--
NIGEL'S RAMBLES
nigelvoak.blogspot.it
Colin K. Work
Senior Member
bobn2
Forum Pro
Seems about right - the Nikon is almost exactly twice the mass of the Oly, most of which will be expensive glass.The m.Zuiko 40-150mm f2.8 is only 1400 euro
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum