05-23-2013, 07:51 PM
All I want was to point out it's pointless to compare CX against FX. As it is (or was) pointless to compare desktop PCs against laptops. I'm with you2, I don't see the reason why somebody would buy a CX camera and the last reason I could imagine is to compete FX.
It was always expensive to get small things smaller. I just tried to take the perspective of a CX owner and ask what are the alternatives? I can't imagine to make portraits with this small bodies, but maybe somebody does? And what could he/she use as a lens? There's really not much of a choice. Sigma 30/1.4, 35/1.4 or Nikon 35/1.4, all with the necessary adapter and most weighing a bit more than the 32/1.2 and filling more photobag volume.
If I try to do the math backwards, I end up with a 32/0.6 being equivalent to 86/1.4. Price? Size? Weight? And all for this tiny sensor? My apologies to everybody who felt insulted or confronted with sarcasm by my post. If the whole system can be criticized by people who probably don't buy it anyway, then what is the point of that critic? Is it so much better than my criticizing the critics? I don't know, but I better shut up. After all, that post was really useless, sorry.
It was just the same thing as the 18-35/1.8 of Sigma debate. Comparing it to it's equivalent on FX - nothing to get excited about. Trying to find other zoom-lenses in DX range offering that speed - hmmmm, really not exciting? And given the price of their fantastic 35/1.4, will this fast wide-angle zoom be more costly than the 17-55/2.8 of Nikon, old but pricey?
Now, looking at FX. A Zeiss 55/1.4 at equivalent costs of a dozen 50/1.4 by Nikon? Being over ten times better? I don't believe so. Being the best you can get? If you like to focus manually all the time, then probably yes. Even in the same class it can be hard to compare. But comparing different classes and not taking into math formulas there are reasons for going small and lightweight and other reasons for not doing so - is the conclusion not a bit very predictable?
It was always expensive to get small things smaller. I just tried to take the perspective of a CX owner and ask what are the alternatives? I can't imagine to make portraits with this small bodies, but maybe somebody does? And what could he/she use as a lens? There's really not much of a choice. Sigma 30/1.4, 35/1.4 or Nikon 35/1.4, all with the necessary adapter and most weighing a bit more than the 32/1.2 and filling more photobag volume.
If I try to do the math backwards, I end up with a 32/0.6 being equivalent to 86/1.4. Price? Size? Weight? And all for this tiny sensor? My apologies to everybody who felt insulted or confronted with sarcasm by my post. If the whole system can be criticized by people who probably don't buy it anyway, then what is the point of that critic? Is it so much better than my criticizing the critics? I don't know, but I better shut up. After all, that post was really useless, sorry.
It was just the same thing as the 18-35/1.8 of Sigma debate. Comparing it to it's equivalent on FX - nothing to get excited about. Trying to find other zoom-lenses in DX range offering that speed - hmmmm, really not exciting? And given the price of their fantastic 35/1.4, will this fast wide-angle zoom be more costly than the 17-55/2.8 of Nikon, old but pricey?
Now, looking at FX. A Zeiss 55/1.4 at equivalent costs of a dozen 50/1.4 by Nikon? Being over ten times better? I don't believe so. Being the best you can get? If you like to focus manually all the time, then probably yes. Even in the same class it can be hard to compare. But comparing different classes and not taking into math formulas there are reasons for going small and lightweight and other reasons for not doing so - is the conclusion not a bit very predictable?