What's it worth to you?

[swifty]

Just a simple hypothetical for the start of the week:)
What would the following cameras be worth to you?

36MP full frame camera with a 28mm f1.8 lens
21MP APS-H camera with a 36mm equiv f1.8 lens
16MP APS-C camera with a 42mm equiv f1.8 lens
9MP m43 camera with a 56mm equiv f1.8 lens
and a 5MP Nikon CX camera with a 75mm equiv f1.8 lens.

Not trying to be deceptive or anything. If you didn't notice, all the above are actually the same camera/lens. I've just done the maths to see what you get with a crop to some standard sensor sizes.
This will be essentially what you get if u paired a D800 with a 28mm f1.8G lens.
As a interchangeable lens DSLR design, a D800 with a 28mm f1.8 lens is considerably bigger than it can be. With a bit of extrapolation one can imagine a hypothetical full frame compact with fixed 28mm f1.8 lens a little bigger than a RX1.

Now the above hypothetical camera will beat most full frames at around 28mm, beat an X100 (which is at 35mm equiv), beat a Sony NEX with Sigma 30/2.8, almost match a m43 with a PanaLeica 25mm f1.4, and beat any Nikon 1 camera with any lens near the portrait focal length (cos Nikon CX's lens selection is currently severely anaemic), although mp drops to 5mp but still useful for holiday snaps which is what Nikon CX is essentially aimed at.

Obviously this camera has limited appeal to the tele shooter.
But it could replace a whole system such as m43 depending on your shooting needs.
It also raises another question. As IQ improves, does cropping (digital zoom) make an acceptable optical zoom replacement. That's Nokia's strategy in their Pureview 808 smartphone. I'm starting to think its not such a bad idea.

[swifty]

Very old thread I know and no reaction the last time but somewhat more relevant today.

We now have two cameras which approach my hypothetical.
The newly announced RX1R II and the still hard to get Leica Q.
The first has the pixels for cropping flexibility but doesn't quite go wide enough.
The second goes wider but doesn't quite have the pixels for cropping flexibility.

Again, when you consider the acceptability of today's pixel level quality, cropping becomes a more viable option when considering a versatile 'all in one' at the shorter focal lengths if you can accept the overall quality from a smaller sensor area.

So let me update it for 2015 and the projected pixel density using a current Nikon eg. D7200.

A full frame with 28mm FOV @ f1.8 with 54MP
An APS-H with 36mm FOV @ f1.8 with 32MP
An APS-C with 42mm FOV @f1.8 with 24MP
A larger than m43 with 50mm FOV @ f1.8 with 17MP

This doesn't even have to be mirrorless nor fixed lens. Any DSLR with high MPs paired with a fast wide can potentially replace a series of small primes on smaller formats.

[arthurking83]

Very old thread I know and no reaction the last time but somewhat more relevant today.

I may have missed the original thread! ;)


..
The newly announced RX1R II ....

In terms of what it's worth ... definitely not Sony's asking price!(US$3300)

[Cage]

I have your original pairing, the D800 and the 28mm f1.8G. The 28mm is a great bit of kit and is always in my bag for astro/night shots.

And I'm not parting with either one any time soon.

[swifty]

In terms of what it's worth ... definitely not Sony's asking price!(US$3300)
How about an A7R II with a FE 28mm f2
Or D810 with a 28mm f1.8G
The main thing you gain with RX1R II is the size I guess.
But I guess my point is with enough pixels, a FF with a single lens can replace many smaller format primes.

[arthurking83]

....
But I guess my point is with enough pixels, a FF with a single lens can replace many smaller format primes.

I've always held this belief myself too if the need ever arises.

As for the size of the R1xII .. I still think it could have been smaller, and therefore truly pocketable.

For design of the little Sony, I'd have preferred to see the body thickness about 50% more than what they created, and maybe just a tad larger in width too.
so. if the body was 100mm wide and 40mm thick, I'd prefer say 120-150mm wide and 60mm thick.
BUT! to compensate for the extra size of the body, I'd have made the lens retractable, even if that meant a 35mm f/2.8 instead of 35/2 lens.

The reason I say this is that I still have my 50 year old Rollei 35 (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rollei_35) which is a truly pocketable full frame camera .. none of this pseudo pocketability of the current age :p
It used to work a treat, but time has taken it's toll now and it's seen better days. But with today's modern technology(ie. miniturisation) I can't see why they can't make a modern fullframe digital version of this old classic. Maybe then I'll be interested in a pocket camera of some description.
For a sense of comparison, the Rollei is 100mm wide, 70mm tall and 50mm thick with the lens in(which becomes about 60mm when the lens is extended outwards) But the size of the extending lens isn't important or significant. The important consideration is that when the lens is retracted, the camera is really pocketable(just a small rectangle shaped package .. about the size of a std pack of cigarettes or wallet or something.
And remember this thing has to take a roll of 35mm film and extend it laterally where it spools up on the other side of the body, with all the mechanical gears and levers and sucklike that require it's inner workings.

[swifty]

Reviving a very old thread but it looks like the idea behind my initial proposal might be coming to fruition in 2017.
Ok, so the D810 successor's not out yet but the rumours put it in the 46MP+ category.
Now Nikon's also released the 28/1.4E which looks to be superb and every bit the match for a high resolution camera.
So updating for 2017, we might get:

46MP FF @ 28mm f1.4
27MP APS-H @ 36mm f1.8 DOF FF equiv
20MP APS-C @ 42mm f2.1 DOF FF equiv
11.5MP m43 @ 56mm f2.8 DOF FF equiv

That's a lot of wide-normal FOV coverage whilst retaining good resolution even with cropping.
Bad news is the potential cost of such a setup LOL.

[arthurking83]

...
Bad news is the potential cost of such a setup LOL.

Almost certain to be over $7k in AUD terms.
Lens should be in the $2.5K region(more likely AU$2700 ... the D810 successor will be in the $4.5K+ region, more likely $4800-ish .. so I'd expect a combined of something like $7.5K

What I'm interested in now is the price of the old AF-D model 28mm f/1.4.
This used to be a seriously expensive lens, going for between $2.5K to $4K due to the limited numbers sold(and hence made) .. and desirability in the old days.
Historically speaking the newer lens is usually better all round, even if it's not quite as sharp in the centre.
So those that once paid over $2.5K for the 2.8/1.4 AF-D lens have just received a massive devaluation of their investments(for now).

Same thing happened to the 35/1.4 Ais lens a few years back. They used to easily reach >$1.5K for an old manual lens .. which was fair'nuff considering Nikon had nothing as fast in their lineup at the time prior to the 35/1.4 AF-S lens.
Old ratty 35/1.4's would sell for over $600AUD + shipping costs .. and for an old ratty most likely out of shape lens .. too risky to waste money on.
Fast forward barely a year later, and the lack of interest in the 35/1.4 Ais lens has seen pristine prices drop to well under $1K. But if that's still the price, you can get the much nicer Sigma 35/1.4 for just under $1K .. so the real sell price of a pristine 35/1.4 AIs is more likely to be closer to $600-ish now .. any more than that would surely be lunacy on the part of the buyer, and deluded optimism on the part of the seller!

[swifty]

Yea, my D700 might have to truck along for another year or two LOL and 12MP doesn't allow for a great amount of cropping.
But provided the performance is in line with the 105E, I'm in.
Looking at the MTF it comfortably beats the old 28/1.4D and approaches the Otus 28/1.4 although the Zeiss charts are showing 10, 20 and 40lp/mm vs Nikon's 10 and 30 plus the Zeiss charts are actual measured vs Nikon's theoretical.
But the Nikkor centre could actually be a touch sharper but the Otus looks to be better towards the edge, at least at f1.4.

[arthurking83]

.....
But the Nikkor centre could actually be a touch sharper but the Otus looks to be better towards the edge, at least at f1.4.

agree.
The Nikkor does seem to have negligible astigmatism even compared to the already excellent Otus.

I've seen the comment re the Zeiss 'measured' MTF graph before, and still am curious as to what this means exactly.
In the end I think Nikon's theoretical, vs Zeiss's measured may well actually be the same definition.

Zeiss's measured can only be true for one lens, unless their production side is so good as to produce exact clones of each lens every time .. I think highly improbable.
We do know that their copy to copy variation is in the very low range (ie. top of the class) according too Lensrental.
So the 'measured' MTF is either going to be listed for their best copy .. or an average of many copies, which really kind'a means theoretical anyhow.

EDIT:
If I'm reading it correctly .. but I can't read German!) One thing I like about the Zeiss level of info... on their website(in PDF form) is that they do give MTF graphs for both infinity focus and for a focused length a bit shorter as well.
The infinity focused MTF graph does show a lot more astigmatism, than at shorter focus distances, but what's curious tho is that at infinity, stopping down actually increases the astigmatism issue!
(note that stopping down is supposed to decrease it, as most lenses do).

All up tho, that's not useful for a would be astro/star photographer, who generally wants to shoot as wide open as they can.

The shorter focused distance is listed as 1:20 .. so I assume that'd be 20x focal length :confused013 .. 20x28= .. err dunno, but if it that's the way I'm reading it, then it's 560mm, so about 1/2m or something.

[swifty]

I'm not 100% sure but I take it measured means an actual bench test from a sample, perhaps similar to how lensrental do theirs. Granted it might be a cherry picked copy but it's supposed to be a measurement from an actual lens. Whereas Nikon (and all others?) are a computer generated theoretical MTF chart I think.