Why the lack of pancake primes for NEX

[maple]

NEX 7 seems to be on track to become a great camera, for its rangefinder like body design with a very good EVF built in. But there’s a distinctive lack of pancake lenses to complement it, which more than halves the appeal of the system. And it makes many wonder why. Now it seems to me that NEX is meant to be the core assembly of a modularized system to accommodate as many legacy lenses as possible. As such, its sensor is not “optimized” for the E mount but the “regular” DSLR lenses.

Personally, I’d rather have a version NEX 7 featuring off-setting micro lens, like that of Leica M9 and Fuji X100, that’s optimized for E mount lenses, and complement it with a number of high quality compact/pancake primes of that mount.

--
Maple

 

[Mark_McD]

Would you pay Leica prices for an e-mount lens?

--
-mark

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mark_mcd/

 

[maple]

Perhaps, if no choice.

But has it to be so expensive? Pentax pancakes, for example, are quite reasonable in price.
--
Maple

 

[John Bean (UK)]

But has it to be so expensive? Pentax pancakes, for example, are quite reasonable in price.

Pentax lenses are for an SLR. It's easy to make pancake lenses for SLRs.

--
John Bean [GMT+1 aka BST]

 

[straylightrun]

http://www.photozone.de/pentax/534-samsung30f2

But has it to be so expensive? Pentax pancakes, for example, are quite reasonable in price.

Pentax lenses are for an SLR. It's easy to make pancake lenses for SLRs.

--
John Bean [GMT+1 aka BST]

 

[Phaelix]

Personally, I’d rather have a version NEX 7 featuring off-setting micro lens, like that of Leica M9 and Fuji X100, that’s optimized for E mount lenses, and complement it with a number of high quality compact/pancake primes of that mount.

Interesting idea. I think the key difficulty is volume. The NEX-7 is a little bit of a gamble by any camera company's standard- development costs are high for high end cameras, and in the mirrorless market there has probably never been a camera at this level. To increase development, stock-keeping and marketing costs by creating a NEX-7i (or whatever) would be hard to make a business case for.

Consider the other cameras you mentioned. The X100 obviously only has the one lens to serve, so an offset microlens array is a no-brainer, and likely to be highly effective. The M9 has a large stable of existing lenses, a majority of which project an image with highly incident light rays, and nobody who has spent money on a Leica M9 will be using much 3rd-party glass, so again they have a strong reason to develop an offset microlens array.

If you then look at the NEX system, Sony as a whole had only one stable of lenses when NEX development began- A Mount, which they planned to adapt for use on NEX cameras. Although some non-telecentric lenses would be used on the camera via adapter, the vast majority of prospective customers would only ever adapt DSLR lenses, either from their Alpha or another brand, to ease adoption.

Presented with a choice to optimise the sensor for telecentric light, pleasing DSLR lens adapters, or non-telecentric light, pleasing rangefinder lens adapters, I think Sony made the only rational decision if they wanted to gain success in the broader market.

Of course, none of that makes it any less disappointing for people who had their heart set on NEX pancake lenses, but to talk as if this pancake lens thing should be a snap is unproductive at best.

 

[blue_skies]

NEX 7 seems to be on track to become a great camera, for its rangefinder like body design with a very good EVF built in. But there’s a distinctive lack of pancake lenses to complement it, which more than halves the appeal of the system. And it makes many wonder why. Now it seems to me that NEX is meant to be the core assembly of a modularized system to accommodate as many legacy lenses as possible. As such, its sensor is not “optimized” for the E mount but the “regular” DSLR lenses.

Personally, I’d rather have a version NEX 7 featuring off-setting micro lens, like that of Leica M9 and Fuji X100, that’s optimized for E mount lenses, and complement it with a number of high quality compact/pancake primes of that mount.

--
Maple

Interesting idea - changing the micro-mirror matrix to offet mirrors for mirrorless could be done as a seperate step. It would increase the cost, but only marginally. Also, adding the in-camera software (like Leica and X100, heck even S90/S95 have) is another big project - it will take time.

I am with you, IQ first, smallness is good enough as is.

A few fast compact primes would help a lot, imo.

Per my other post - we should not get hangup on 'pancake' - the NEX is a diminuitive APS-C system, as is.

Give the NEX a fatter body - like MFT, X100, & Leica have, then all lenses become 'pancakes'.

• oh, but then the adapters wouldn't work anymore.

On second thought - the body is just fine, I can live with 'compact' lenses, rather than 'pancake' lenses.

 

[Davidgilmour]

Give the NEX a fatter body

That one already exists, it's called the A55 ;-)

 

[John Bean (UK)]

http://www.photozone.de/pentax/534-samsung30f2

I'm not sure what your point is. This is not a Pentax lens.

--
John Bean [GMT+1 aka BST]

 

[Jon Rty]

It's a fast pancake for a APS-C mirrorless camera. And it's not the only one they make.

There's a 16mm



a 20mm



and a 30mm



There's really no reason why Sony and Zeiss shouldn't be able to do what Samsung has done. As it stands, if the NX200 and NX20 turn out to be competent cameras Samsung has a hell of a line-up.

http://www.photozone.de/pentax/534-samsung30f2

I'm not sure what your point is. This is not a Pentax lens.

--
John Bean [GMT+1 aka BST]

 

[John Bean (UK)]

It's a fast pancake for a APS-C mirrorless camera. And it's not the only one they make.

I know that, but the comment I responded to used Pentax as an example, which is why I was puzzled to be "corrected" by being shown Samsung.

However, all still isn't clear-cut, since Samasung uses a longer registration distance and has a much thicker body than the NEX. The diminutive size and short registration of the NEX body would make the exact same lenses significantly larger on the NEX.

--
John Bean [GMT+1 aka BST]

 

[straylightrun]

As it stands, if the NX200 and NX20 turn out to be competent cameras Samsung has a hell of a line-up.

I agree. I remember seeing a roadmap that Samsung was going to release 3 tiers of bodies. The NXxxx, NXxx and a new flagship enthusiast/premium body. Hopefully the premium body will be very similar to the NEX-7.

 

[jerome_munich]

The 16mm f/2.8 is as pancake as can be.

 

[Jon Rty]

The difference in flange distance is 7.5mm. That would mean that the lenses would be closer to 30mm instead of 20mm, something I'd still call a pancake. As the NEX bodies are thinner the whole package would be about the same size, but the NEX would have the advantage of having a more substantial lens barrel.

You could even adapt the NX lenses to the E-mount, but given that they're purely electronic there wouldn't be much you'd get out of that.

I know that, but the comment I responded to used Pentax as an example, which is why I was puzzled to be "corrected" by being shown Samsung.

However, all still isn't clear-cut, since Samasung uses a longer registration distance and has a much thicker body than the NEX. The diminutive size and short registration of the NEX body would make the exact same lenses significantly larger on the NEX.

--
John Bean [GMT+1 aka BST]

 

[Knallberto]

Some people believe a camera without pancake is no camera. Buy a HelloKittyCam - pancake built-in.

"A car without wheels is a go-cart!"

 

[maple]

Of course, none of that makes it any less disappointing for people who had their heart set on NEX pancake lenses, but to talk as if this pancake lens thing should be a snap is unproductive at best.

Well, I just stated my preference, and you read a bit too much into my simple post. The modularization concept of NEX is a brilliant idea, and indeed who could blame Sony if they were somewhat "obsessed" with it?

But to me, the mirrorless NEX should be first and foremost about DSLR IQ in a compact package. The market segment one size up is very well served by the SLT line already, which, by the way, is also quite bit smaller than regular DSLR.

My mind had been set on NEX 7, and I was hopeful that Sony will follow up with a few compact / pancake lenses. Then on seeing the zeis 24mm/F1.8, I began to suspect that actually the NEX is not optimized for its own mount of shorter flange distance. Thus my post to share my observation. Now I keep my mind open for other options, thanks to your lengthy explanation on Sony's rationality.

--
Maple

 

[maple]

Yes, of course it is. I should have been more precise and said "lack of pancake primes other than the 16mm."
--
Maple

 

[maple]

Some people believe a camera without pancake is no camera. Buy a HelloKittyCam - pancake built-in.

You are probably right.

"A car without wheels is a go-cart!"

--
Maple

 

[pako]

Perhaps, if no choice.

But has it to be so expensive? Pentax pancakes, for example, are quite reasonable in price.
--

witch Pentax?
the new Q system?
The Pentax SMCP-DA 21mm f/3.2 AL is a 650$ lens
The Pentax SMCP-DA 40mm f/2.8 ED is a 500$ lens
The Pentax SMCP-DA 70mm f/2.4 ED is a 700$ lens
I'm happy those prices are reasonable fr your pocket...

--
Pako Dominguez
-----------------------
http://www.phototeka.net

 

[Mark_McD]

Perhaps, if no choice.

But has it to be so expensive? Pentax pancakes, for example, are quite reasonable in price.
--
Maple

A lot of Leica lenses are expensive and retain speed due to having expensive materials.

Bare in mind, you're comparing something that's "affordably priced" to something that is considered among the most expensive lenses (where-by they've had issues sourcing materials for their rare-elements).

I think it's not quite comparing apples to apples. As it stands, Sony has the SEL18200 which is one of the better zooms available (for any system) and yet what do you think is one of the most common complaints about e-mount? The cost of the SEL18200.
That doesn't exactly scream "make more expensive glass!"

--
-mark

http://www.flickr.com/photos/mark_mcd/