rear part of lens/nozzle also looks different on the 2 images. Maybe only different perspective, but not sure. Or different lenses?
Upvote
0
No, but they should sell why it's worth the trouble, investment, etc. As mirrorless is hard to turn into an elevator pitch in a single photo, the logical move is to as simply as possible highlight what the fuss was about.
One way to do that would be to highlight its smaller size -- that's what Sony did in 2013 when the A7 was outed:
But it doesn't have to be a small sell. The other way would be highlight something their FX mount cameras cannot do: if an f/0.9 lens truly exists for this camera, show it off and get people drooling.
But to put what looks like a 24-105 f/4 on there implies 'welcome to our new camera platform and it has stuff you'd expect a camera platform to have'. Fine message, but I sure as hell wouldn't lead with that. Sell why the new system is something you should be fired up about.
- A
Nikon has to sell small, but they also have to sell the idea that the new mirrorless is a serious camera that will have serious lenses, which will be worth the investment. Lots of new glass in the new mount is part of the story.
That said, I'm not convinced Canon or Nikon need to roll out the red carpet on new glass to get folks to adopt the new system. They'll have a standard zoom and a tiny prime, I'm sure, but they don't need much more to get the initial rollout going -- provided there's an adaptor.
Unlike Sony, both Nikon and Canon have hordes of users sitting on plenty of glass already. As much as CaNikon would love new customers, the easiest sale they can possibly make is to their own.
So I think these bodies will sell themselves unless astronomically priced or poor initial reviews / major glitches at rollout are found. There is simply too much pent up (enthusiast) demand for this not to sell well.
- A
Maybe so, but the Nikon adapter for the legacy glass seems iffy and complicated, certainly in comparison to the EF situation. It looks as though Nikon may be heading toward DSLR and Mirrorless lines that are each pretty much stand alone, with little synergy between the two.
Regarding the lens, the double barrel suggests a superzoom lens, e.g., 28-200mm. Hard to make a small one of those.
FX glass has to work on this new platform or folks will leave. It may not be seamless, work for every lens, etc. but the key staple lenses simply must work on that adaptor or they are in a world of hurt.
Second one:
Mos def a zoom. The silhouette from the promo (see attached) pegged the lens around 100mm (of physical length) off the mount. That says 24-70 f/4 or 24-105 f/variable to me, but I suppose 28-200 would be possible if it was super slow, i.e. f/6.3.
The 100mm physical length assumes the lens is fully extended. I'm not sure that's a valid assumption. If 'small' is important from a marketing standpoint, I'd pick a model with large hands and barely extend the lens.
Did you look at the attachment, my good man?
They clearly took some liberties with correcting for the perspective, but that looks like a closed down zoom lens to me.
From TDP24-70 f/4L IS = 100.8mm (possibly incl. the mount)24-105 f/variable IS STM = 111.5mm (ditto above, but could be shorter if the above is f/6.3)
The two zooms you list have a single barrel, the EF 28-200mm has a double barrel...just as the pictured lens in the woman's hands appears to have. That double-barrel design is common on superzooms, but not for zooms in the 3-4x range. The 28-200 is double or more the focal length of your two listed lenses...and physically shorter than both when retracted.
Ignorance of the lens is no excuse.How on earth have I never seen the EF 28-200 before?
Fair point. Does Sony have an FE superzoom? Might be Nikon offering something their competition doesn't.You think they are really launching a new platform with a twentysomething - 200? The double barrel agrees with you, I concede, but that is a very odd 'new hotness' card to play for a new platform.
We're seeing a few different lenses being teased here.
One ring + that size = a fast prime, ya? The hood is neither a deep tele tube nor a very shallow UWA petal, so I'd guess that's a 35 or 50 prime. (Consider: A 35 Art is about that size.)- A
Only 1 clearly visible large ribbed control ring, probably focus for a good size prime.Seems to be an "A" - "M" focus switch on the barrel?maybe it's modern 105mm f/2 short tele for portraiturewith the double-cam-tube setup I'd expect something in the 5x to 6x range.
Maybe a variable aperture 24-150mm f/3.5-5.6 or 24-120mm f/3.5-4.5 kit lens to get the ball rolling.