If you could buy a Nikon compact camera with (say a) 13 x 10mm chip and an 85mm f1.2 lens, would you?

I don't know anything, I'm just asking.

I can buy a mini and a wheel of a truck, would you buy these?

What would you say if I offered you a bucket of Cheez Whiz and a 1976 telephone. Is that something you'd like? lol

I want the Cheez Whiz with the 85/ 1.4.

How compact are we talking?

85 f1.2 sounds expensive for a less than half dx sized camera. any idea on the filter size, and is iso 2000 usable? it'll want a pretty nifty af system to nail 85mm @f1.2 all the time.

if its priced cheaper than the gh1 with a good range of quality glass then i'll off loading my d200 dive setup for this.

it'll also make sence of those posters, from last year, showing three different sensor sizes.

tomorrow you say?

That's the equivalent of what, about 200/2.2 on 24x36? Sounds interesting, but I'd be more interested if there were a 45/1.0 and 17/1.4.

I'm joking, smaller cameras with fast lenses are always of interest, sounds kind of strange though.

Depends, would it also have a 50mm-equivalent f/1.4, a 35mm f/2.8, and a ~24-250 f/3.2-f/6 zoom? I'd Take a look at that.

cgiff: I think, for no reason at all, that nikt's 85mm accounts for the crop factor. The purely-hypothetical actual focal length would be about 32mm.

http://nikonrumors.com/2009/10/16/its-a-nikon-patents-friday-nikon-mirrorless-interchangeable-lens-camera.aspx

naa just a 45 f1.4, 35 2.8 plus a load of zooms.

16mm fisheye and a 150mm micro would be nice too.

nikt wrote:
If you could buy a Nikon compact camera with (say a) 13 x 10mm chip and an 85mm f1.2 lens, would you?

I don't know anything, I'm just asking.




You mean 85mm equivalent, or true 85mm? Because an 85mm lens on a 13X10mm sensor would have the FOV of a ~235mm lens on FX. And it would be a pretty large lens. 30mm on this same sensor would roughly equal the FOV of 85mm on FX. I'm not sure what kind of bokeh you can expect from a 30/1.2 lens. Also, your DOF on this size sensor will resemble that of a 30/2.5.

Overall, this doesn't sound like a very attractive package to me. Some of the original Nikon Coolpix cameras had an 8.80X6.60mm sensor, and those had almost unlimited DOF at f/2.8. This type of setup would be better suited for a macro or long tele lens, not for a fast portrait shooting.

omen wrote:
Depends, would it also have a 50mm-equivalent f/1.4, a 35mm f/2.8, and a ~24-250 f/3.2-f/6 zoom? I'd Take a look at that.

cgiff: I think, for no reason at all, that nikt's 85mm accounts for the crop factor. The purely-hypothetical actual focal length would be about 32mm.

Yes, it would have a 50mm lens as well.

And yes, it is a 32mm lens (with a conversion of approx. 2.6 , 2.7).

The idea of this package is simply to be a brilliant but serious compact. Even micro 4/3rds is too big for this market.

how bout a 200 f2 on a Minox 8x11! Just put it in your pocket.



R

nikt wrote:
The idea of this package is simply to be a brilliant but serious compact. Even micro 4/3rds is too big for this market.

Would I buy it?...NOT unless a 10x13mm sensor can deliver at least an 8mpx image IQ & ISO equivalent to (previous generation) DSLR's like Nikon D60 or Canon 40D. I'm wouldn't expect it to be as good as the latest generation DSLR's but it would have to be ALOT better than any small sensor that's currently available. By you own definition, you want it to be "a brilliant but serious compact"...that is (for now) an oxymoron. Micro 4/3 is too big and struggles with high ISO, so anything smaller can't be "brilliant" (as you say) ...it might be a nice idea but with so much effort going towards 4/3 & Micro 4/3, I don't think your idea will ever 'see the light'

Omar

I don't think it's an oxymoron at all. I'm not going to get into definitions of what I consider as what is good in it's class.

A brilliant little compact car shouldn't be compared to a Mercedes S500. High ISO is not the only measure of a cameras abilities. Micro 4/3rds does not struggle and actually takes very good photos at ISO 1600.

Anyway, who gives a crap. Yes, we'll see what happens, again.

when? image wise compared to a d200?

That makes sense in light of all the Nikon patents that people have been digging up lately (Nikon Rumors). Something with a 17mm image circle somewhere between the micro 4/3s format and the 1/1.7" type sounds interesting, but building an entire system of lenses and accessories around seems a little overdone. Given, the sensor is likely 4x the size of the Canon G11's and S90's, why not just leave it in a fixed lens zoom compact instead of trying to market an entire system of SLR-type lenses for it?

If you already shoot a dSLR system, are you really going to invest in another system with that many compromises for the convenience of a camera that may or may not be pocketable? Most of us can find something in current technology and are happy enough not to be carrying a bag full of lenses on vacations. And if you're totally new to anything but a point & shoot, this will give you images that can't match Micro 4/3s cameras with all of the complications of a ~2.8x crop factor at what I couldn't imagine being much less than the cost of entry to m43.

Micro 4/3s was the middle ground between entry-level dSLR and bridge point & shoot; why is Nikon trying to bridge a bridge. They're giving us something no one asked for. What ever happened to something inline with the X1? Like a digital FM3a? I know people have been begging for that for years, yet Leica was the one to come to market with it first. So maybe an FM3d and a rereleased pancake 45mm f/2.8 retro kit? I'd be first on line for something like this. People have been wishing for many things, but this new format just isn't one of them.

Well, I certainly wished for it.

Scroll down a little to my post from this FM archive here

Research shows people want small compacts that perform well. That's why the EP-1 is selling well. I've sold more Panasonic GF1's in the past week than I have any Ricoh GR camera or Sigma DP1 or anything that had a fixed lens.

Don't worry, you'll all love if it comes out.

WHEN not IF right Nik?

Funny. I typed 'when'... and then changed to IF! hahahaha