Why no f2.0 for Nikon?

[MT]

Why has Nikon not made ANY prosumer stuff with f2.0? Can't be that hard as Canon/Casio, Olympus, Leica/Panasonic, Sony have all made digicams with f2.0 or faster lens. The Sony has a 5X zoom that is also class leading in resolution in the F707 so it is possible.

The lack of F2.0 is the only thing holding me back from some Nikon cameras, especially the 5000 as I shoot almost exclusively no flash in low light. Ah, if only...

Curious why.

MT

Previous owner of the Nikon 950, and finding that f2.0 really makes a difference in low light.

 

[phlewt]

Compare the size of the 5700 and 4500 with the Sony 707. The f2.0 capability requires more glass than f2.8. Nikon has apparently targeted those who prefer a smaller camera over a faster lens.

Why has Nikon not made ANY prosumer stuff with f2.0? Can't be that
hard as Canon/Casio, Olympus, Leica/Panasonic, Sony have all made
digicams with f2.0 or faster lens. The Sony has a 5X zoom that is
also class leading in resolution in the F707 so it is possible.

The lack of F2.0 is the only thing holding me back from some Nikon
cameras, especially the 5000 as I shoot almost exclusively no flash
in low light. Ah, if only...

Curious why.

MT
Previous owner of the Nikon 950, and finding that f2.0 really makes
a difference in low light.

 

[Jim M.]

Why has Nikon not made ANY prosumer stuff with f2.0? Can't be that
hard as Canon/Casio, Olympus, Leica/Panasonic, Sony have all made
digicams with f2.0 or faster lens. The Sony has a 5X zoom that is
also class leading in resolution in the F707 so it is possible.

The lack of F2.0 is the only thing holding me back from some Nikon
cameras, especially the 5000 as I shoot almost exclusively no flash
in low light. Ah, if only...

Curious why.

MT
Previous owner of the Nikon 950, and finding that f2.0 really makes
a difference in low light.

The 2.0 does require more glass then the 2.8 but at the actual focal lengths of these lenses it's not all that much more depending on the design. Look at the OLY 3040 and 4040 with their 1.8 lenses and small package.

--
Jim M.
Oly 340R & Nikon 995 & TC-E2
http://www.pbase.com/jimm

 

[Ching-Kuang Shene]

Why has Nikon not made ANY prosumer stuff with f2.0? Can't be that
hard as Canon/Casio, Olympus, Leica/Panasonic, Sony have all made
digicams with f2.0 or faster lens. The Sony has a 5X zoom that is
also class leading in resolution in the F707 so it is possible.

To have a f2.0, the front glass must be large enough to permit more light entering the lens tube. Since the 5000 is designed (IMHO) to use 9xx's converters that have a quite small rear element (i.e., 28mm!), the front element cannot be larger. Otherwise, the image projected from the converter can only cover a portion of the on-camera lens and vignetting occurs.

Compatibility has been a big issue in many areas (e.g., cameras, lenses, and computers). Manufacturers wish to keep their user bases and are usually hesitate to come up with a completely new design. Just think about the development process from MS-DOS, to Windows 1/2/3.x, to Windows 95, NT, Windows 98/2000/XP. In terms of system stability, Windows XP is still inferior to Unix (e.g., Linux). Is Microsoft incapable of creating a system as stable as Unix? I don't think so. We keep asking for compatibility, which means Microsoft must support many legacy software and hardware, which, in turn, causes the designer not being able to do their best.

If Nikon is going to release a new digicam that might render most of the converters not usable, many of us will start to complain and may refuse to buy it. That is a dilema a manufacture and consumers must face. To me, Windows is still an old 60 Ford with a flashy looking outfit. But, I am not sure if I will buy Bill Gates' next generation reliable system that is incompatible with the current software. Money is still the major issue.

CK
http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam

 

[Robert Niesen]

This doesn't really seem to explain the 5700 though. I don't think it will accept any of the teleconverter lenses used on the 9xx series CoolPixes. I believe it has two all new lenses available for it -- a 1.5x teleconverter lens and a wide angle lens. The lens on it does seem bigger than on other CoolPixes, so maybe it's primarily a cost issue in producing an f2.0 lens for it.

Regards,

Robert

Why has Nikon not made ANY prosumer stuff with f2.0? Can't be that
hard as Canon/Casio, Olympus, Leica/Panasonic, Sony have all made
digicams with f2.0 or faster lens. The Sony has a 5X zoom that is
also class leading in resolution in the F707 so it is possible.

To have a f2.0, the front glass must be large enough to permit more
light entering the lens tube. Since the 5000 is designed (IMHO) to
use 9xx's converters that have a quite small rear element (i.e.,
28mm!), the front element cannot be larger. Otherwise, the image
projected from the converter can only cover a portion of the
on-camera lens and vignetting occurs.

Compatibility has been a big issue in many areas (e.g., cameras,
lenses, and computers). Manufacturers wish to keep their user
bases and are usually hesitate to come up with a completely new
design. Just think about the development process from MS-DOS, to
Windows 1/2/3.x, to Windows 95, NT, Windows 98/2000/XP. In terms
of system stability, Windows XP is still inferior to Unix (e.g.,
Linux). Is Microsoft incapable of creating a system as stable as
Unix? I don't think so. We keep asking for compatibility, which
means Microsoft must support many legacy software and hardware,
which, in turn, causes the designer not being able to do their best.

If Nikon is going to release a new digicam that might render most
of the converters not usable, many of us will start to complain and
may refuse to buy it. That is a dilema a manufacture and consumers
must face. To me, Windows is still an old 60 Ford with a flashy
looking outfit. But, I am not sure if I will buy Bill Gates' next
generation reliable system that is incompatible with the current
software. Money is still the major issue.

CK
http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam

 

[John Lai]

I can't say that the TC-E2 & TC-E3 is fully compatible with the CP 5000 (vignetting or no full optical zoom range). The WC-E68 is not sure to work with the CP 5700, as a new wide converter (WC-E80) has been designed for it. Nor will the TC-E2 or TC-E3 probably work correctly with the CP 5700. A new (x1.5) teleconverter has been designed for it. In other words, I don't see much backwards compatibility you are mentioning.

With this aperture limitation, I still don't understand why the Coolpix lenses are not as sharp as the Carl Zeiss lens of the F707. My unanswered question is: Nikon cannot manufacture a lens as sharp as the CZ of the F707 or does NOT WANT to?

Best Regards
John

Why has Nikon not made ANY prosumer stuff with f2.0? Can't be that
hard as Canon/Casio, Olympus, Leica/Panasonic, Sony have all made
digicams with f2.0 or faster lens. The Sony has a 5X zoom that is
also class leading in resolution in the F707 so it is possible.

To have a f2.0, the front glass must be large enough to permit more
light entering the lens tube. Since the 5000 is designed (IMHO) to
use 9xx's converters that have a quite small rear element (i.e.,
28mm!), the front element cannot be larger. Otherwise, the image
projected from the converter can only cover a portion of the
on-camera lens and vignetting occurs.

Compatibility has been a big issue in many areas (e.g., cameras,
lenses, and computers). Manufacturers wish to keep their user
bases and are usually hesitate to come up with a completely new
design. Just think about the development process from MS-DOS, to
Windows 1/2/3.x, to Windows 95, NT, Windows 98/2000/XP. In terms
of system stability, Windows XP is still inferior to Unix (e.g.,
Linux). Is Microsoft incapable of creating a system as stable as
Unix? I don't think so. We keep asking for compatibility, which
means Microsoft must support many legacy software and hardware,
which, in turn, causes the designer not being able to do their best.

If Nikon is going to release a new digicam that might render most
of the converters not usable, many of us will start to complain and
may refuse to buy it. That is a dilema a manufacture and consumers
must face. To me, Windows is still an old 60 Ford with a flashy
looking outfit. But, I am not sure if I will buy Bill Gates' next
generation reliable system that is incompatible with the current
software. Money is still the major issue.

CK
http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam

 

[Ching-Kuang Shene]

This doesn't really seem to explain the 5700 though. I don't think
it will accept any of the teleconverter lenses used on the 9xx
series CoolPixes. I believe it has two all new lenses available
for it -- a 1.5x teleconverter lens and a wide angle lens. The
lens on it does seem bigger than on other CoolPixes, so maybe it's
primarily a cost issue in producing an f2.0 lens for it.

You have answered the question! In my previous post, I only mentioned the max aperture and compatibility. The 5700 has a 8X zoom that has more lens elements each of which absobs and/or reflects a portion of the incoming light. As a result, the maximum lens opening must be larger to permit more light. Larger max aperture and more lens elements mean higher cost and higher complexity. IMHO, there still is a compatibility element in the 5700 (e.g., form factor). The current size of 5000/5700 may not give Nikon designers much space to maneuver. Moreover, it is difficult to correct all aberations for a 8X and f2.0 lens even with ED glass and aspheric lens elements. You can compare the size of a f2.8 80-200 lens with the size of a f4.0 80-200 lens to see the difference.

But, cost is also part of the compatibility equation. In this case, it is compatible with the price range of the Coolpix series. Isn't it? In my mind, I was expecting the 5700 to have 28-200 or 24-120 with max aperture 2.0 or 2.8 with a size comparable with Minolta D7i or slightly larger. It seems to me that Nikon chose to make 5700 compatible with 5000 size-wise.

CK
http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam

 

[Ching-Kuang Shene]

I can't say that the TC-E2 & TC-E3 is fully compatible with the CP
5000 (vignetting or no full optical zoom range). The WC-E68 is not
sure to work with the CP 5700, as a new wide converter (WC-E80) has
been designed for it. Nor will the TC-E2 or TC-E3 probably work
correctly with the CP 5700. A new (x1.5) teleconverter has been
designed for it. In other words, I don't see much backwards
compatibility you are mentioning.

The compatibility issue in my previous post DOES NOT factor in the 5700. However, I believe thatsize and price are also part of the compatibility equation.

With this aperture limitation, I still don't understand why the
Coolpix lenses are not as sharp as the Carl Zeiss lens of the F707.
My unanswered question is: Nikon cannot manufacture a lens as sharp
as the CZ of the F707 or does NOT WANT to?

IMHO, Nikon did not want to do it rather than incapable of doing it. Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Olympus and Pentax have manufactured many lenses that are as good as Zeiss lenses. To the bset of my knowledge (in optical engineering), the size of the 5000 and 5700 lenses add too many contraints for the designers to come up with a good lens. Keep in mind that larger aperture does not necessarily imply good quality. Larger aperture plus good quality require so many conditions and factors to be done well.

CK
http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam

 

[kalaha]

I think Carl Zeiss is the answer of your question. German lenses are still better Japanese lenses. And Japanese cameras are much much cheaper than German cameras. Well Sony did really good job by affiliating Carl Zeiss. They make cheap cameras with better lenses. This is it. Look at F707 samples. No need to talk anymore, pictures talk enough. I saw some CP5700 pictures and maybe it is because of it is new camera and there are not a lot of samples on the net but I can't compare those pictures with F707's pictures.

With this aperture limitation, I still don't understand why the
Coolpix lenses are not as sharp as the Carl Zeiss lens of the F707.
My unanswered question is: Nikon cannot manufacture a lens as sharp
as the CZ of the F707 or does NOT WANT to?

Best Regards
John

Why has Nikon not made ANY prosumer stuff with f2.0? Can't be that
hard as Canon/Casio, Olympus, Leica/Panasonic, Sony have all made
digicams with f2.0 or faster lens. The Sony has a 5X zoom that is
also class leading in resolution in the F707 so it is possible.

To have a f2.0, the front glass must be large enough to permit more
light entering the lens tube. Since the 5000 is designed (IMHO) to
use 9xx's converters that have a quite small rear element (i.e.,
28mm!), the front element cannot be larger. Otherwise, the image
projected from the converter can only cover a portion of the
on-camera lens and vignetting occurs.

Compatibility has been a big issue in many areas (e.g., cameras,
lenses, and computers). Manufacturers wish to keep their user
bases and are usually hesitate to come up with a completely new
design. Just think about the development process from MS-DOS, to
Windows 1/2/3.x, to Windows 95, NT, Windows 98/2000/XP. In terms
of system stability, Windows XP is still inferior to Unix (e.g.,
Linux). Is Microsoft incapable of creating a system as stable as
Unix? I don't think so. We keep asking for compatibility, which
means Microsoft must support many legacy software and hardware,
which, in turn, causes the designer not being able to do their best.

If Nikon is going to release a new digicam that might render most
of the converters not usable, many of us will start to complain and
may refuse to buy it. That is a dilema a manufacture and consumers
must face. To me, Windows is still an old 60 Ford with a flashy
looking outfit. But, I am not sure if I will buy Bill Gates' next
generation reliable system that is incompatible with the current
software. Money is still the major issue.

CK
http://www.cs.mtu.edu/~shene/DigiCam

--

 

[lownoise]

There are not that many traditional 35mm compact cameras with a zoom and fast lenses, either. With fixed lenses, one is lucky to get f2,8 with a camera like the Olympus mju2. I guess that digital SLR bodies will become affordable in 2004. That's when low light digital photography will get interesting, as one could use fast SLR lenses.