The 50mm is Z 76x87mm (w/l), 415g
The classical 50mm f/1.8 AF-S is 53x72mm and 186g
This is a huge difference in all aspects, defeating, in my view, the prospect of a lighter alternative. Silent motor? Same design with internal adapter for smaller flange distance?
The difference for 35mm is there, but not as much:
The 35mm Z is 73x86mm, 370g
The 35mm f/1.8 AF-S is 72x72mm and 305g
I'd like comments, but, please, other brand trolls and anti-ML nikonians could stay away, this forum is for those interested in the Z system, not a place for haters.
--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/
Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)
I've been scratching my head too, but in the spirit of your opening thread, I'd say it was that modern photography is more demanding.
If you have cameras that can easily focus at the edges of the frame and photographers who are therefore putting their subjects there, then you need edge to edge sharpness. And that usually means bulk.
it probably doesnt help that it is easy to pixel peep compared to years ago.
Then there is the future. As the cameras that almost everyone carries and pays through the nose for (i e their phones) get more sophisticated, the middle ground of the market will get squeezed. The market for people like me who want a small fast prime will get squeezed.
The nose heavy mirrorless will dominate. We will just have to find ways to cope.
We are also seeing the pricing effects of a shrinking interchangeable camera market. These new hulk lenses are not cheap
But then again the world isnt looking for cheap cameras anymore, people seem well prepared to pay an eye watering ammount for their phone, and replace it every couple of years.
It is impossible not to mention other brands, and I hope you don't think this is trolling. Fuji and the MFT systems do offer small fast primes. Ok not as fast as Nikon Sony or Canon fast primes (for the same angle of view and depth of field).
There is a point at which one must ask oneself - and I am asking myself this- If I'm the kind of photographer that wants a 50 f2 on a mirrorless body and wants it small- then I have to look at an x-pro2 and 35 1.4 - can be had used and in almost pristine condition for about £1200.
If price isn't a factor, then a leica cl and 35 1.4 could be had for £4000, but that lense sticks a little too.
Yes yes the Nikon is a far better camera. I use fuji and Nikon and can say with confidence that even my newest and beloved X100f is a complete and utter PITA to use. But they are small and they are sharp and they are reasonably capable.
Anyways, these are all tools, if the best tool is the big tool then it is the big tool.
So the question is, is the best tool the tool I want as my walkaround camera?
