05-19-2013, 07:44 AM
Ah, Brightcolours, I see you still active in the people-confusing business and not realizing how wrong you are 
f/1.2 is f/1.2 in terms of speed with two different sensors and doesn't bother your particular DOF maths. In terms of speed it's useless to compare an FX sensor for that lens and also useless to compare prices of a fast CX-lens to a slow FX lens because there's no need to provide light for a 7.3 × bigger sensor. Because there is none in a CX as maybe somebody has told you...
It's the same error as comparing a sportscar and a lorry. Both with 500 horsepowers and four wheels. And then saying, well the sportscar should carry 50 × the weight to make it comparable to the lorry ^_^
And as for the price tag: Just take a 35/1.4 and the adaptor for Nikon 1 and see what to pay for. Or if the AF will be as fast as with that 32 thing.
Instead of shrinking a manufacturers performance by DOF maths game, why don't you take your maths and do better? Create a better lens, equivalent to an already good FX one. There is no point in equivalence when it comes to speed, only when it comes to DOF. Nobody seriously doubt a FX not to perform better because of much more information on the sensor.
Why do I get upset with your maths? There's absolutely nothing wrong with them, they are logically correct. It's just that a lorry is no sportscar. It's just that the tolerances for lens manufacturing do get very tiny when they shrink a lens. Some parameters/tolerances in this process are more critical than with larger lenses. And if a manufacturer takes the risk and produces fast lenses for a small group of customers willing to pay for a tool which lets the sensor's noise appear a little bit later - I think that effort deserves a bit more respect.
f/1.2 is f/1.2 in terms of speed with two different sensors and doesn't bother your particular DOF maths. In terms of speed it's useless to compare an FX sensor for that lens and also useless to compare prices of a fast CX-lens to a slow FX lens because there's no need to provide light for a 7.3 × bigger sensor. Because there is none in a CX as maybe somebody has told you...It's the same error as comparing a sportscar and a lorry. Both with 500 horsepowers and four wheels. And then saying, well the sportscar should carry 50 × the weight to make it comparable to the lorry ^_^
And as for the price tag: Just take a 35/1.4 and the adaptor for Nikon 1 and see what to pay for. Or if the AF will be as fast as with that 32 thing.
Instead of shrinking a manufacturers performance by DOF maths game, why don't you take your maths and do better? Create a better lens, equivalent to an already good FX one. There is no point in equivalence when it comes to speed, only when it comes to DOF. Nobody seriously doubt a FX not to perform better because of much more information on the sensor.
Why do I get upset with your maths? There's absolutely nothing wrong with them, they are logically correct. It's just that a lorry is no sportscar. It's just that the tolerances for lens manufacturing do get very tiny when they shrink a lens. Some parameters/tolerances in this process are more critical than with larger lenses. And if a manufacturer takes the risk and produces fast lenses for a small group of customers willing to pay for a tool which lets the sensor's noise appear a little bit later - I think that effort deserves a bit more respect.