A few of you (including some Nikon employees) are a bit defensive about my comment yesterday regarding DX lens neglect. But let me try to illustrate my point. Consider the following table (telephoto is left off because you don't tend to get size and weight advantages for smaller sensors once you get past a certain point):
| m4/3 | DX | FX | |
| wide zoom hi | 7-14mm | 12-24mm | 14-24mm |
| wide zoom lo | 9-18mm | 10-24mm | 16-35mm |
| wide prime fish | 8mm | 10.5mm* | 16mm |
| wide prime 20 | 20mm f/2.8 | ||
| wide prime 24 | 12mm f/2 | 24mm f/1.4 | |
| wide prime 28 | 14mm f/2.5 | 28mm f/2.8 | |
| wide prime 35 | 17mm f/2.8 | 35mm f/1.4 | |
| normal prime | 25mm f/1.4 | 35mm f/1.8 | 50mm f/1.4 |
| normal macro | 40mm f/2.8 | 60mm f/2.8 | |
| normal kit | 14-42mm | 18-55mm | |
| normal zoom hi | 17-55mm f/2.8 | 24-70mm f/2.8 | |
| normal zoom lo | 16-85mm | 24-120mm f/4 | |
| superzoom | 14-140mm | 18-200mm | 28-300mm |
*No AF-S: doesn't focus on half of Nikon's DX bodies
No, it's not a perfect comparison, but it illustrates an interesting point: FX is, as you'd expect, pretty full of options (and there are even more lenses than I put in the table), with only a "kit" type normal zoom missing in the lineup. That makes sense because we don't have a consumer FX body. Meanwhile, the big gap for m4/3 is in higher-than-kit normal zooms (and the 70-200mm f/2.8 equivalent, for that matter, but DX is also missing that ;~). Specifically, we need at least one faster fixed aperture lens for m4/3, like a 12-36mm f/2 or even a 14-40mm f/2.8. (Why didn't I include the 24mm f/2.8 as a possible DX substitute for a 35mm? Well, first it's not a DX lens. Second, the old f/2.8 FX primes don't tend to perform all that well on digital bodies in my experience.)
But look at that big gap in DX: no wide angle prime. Why is m4/3 catering to that group when DX isn't? Because of size. A m4/3 body (especially the latest E-PM1 or GF3) with a prime wide is a small little devil, and quite capable. Of course, a D5100 with a 16mm f/2.8 would be a pretty small package, too. But apparently Nikon wants to concede the "small package" market to the mirrorless companies. Note this: Nikon has had 12 years to come up with one wide angle DX prime. The m4/3 makers have come up with two in two years.
A more likely explanation is that Nikon thinks that their upcoming mirrorless "solves" the small package problem and will hold off all those m4/3, NEX, NX, and whatever comes next bodies. If so, that logic is severely flawed, and again because of the lens issue: Nikon isn't likely to have nearly enough lenses on launch to satisfy the market. Meanwhile, the m4/3 consortium seems well on the way to replicate the basic lens set enthusiasts want covered. Three well chosen primes and a couple of high-end zooms will finish their task. So where does that leave the serious DX user? Well, they move to m4/3 or FX, I guess. Nikon is one good m4/3 sensor away from having DX suddenly look like a bad choice.
Two-thirds of Nikon's business is cameras and lenses. Unfortunately, they are now in a really tough place. They need to sell 20+ million cameras and lenses this year just to stay in place. The 40mm Micro-Nikkor, at the low price it's being offered at, will sell a nice chunk of units, I have no doubt. But to what end? Nikon's brand reputation is built on high-quality, high-performance, pro and prosumer products. It's the serious photographer and enthusiast that has made their brand reputation. If some of those customers start feeling like they're not being catered to, they'll migrate to other mounts. What happens when you don't have any serious photographers telling their friends about how great Nikon is but instead how much they love their Panny, or Oly, or Sony, or heaven forbid, Samsung?
It doesn't take a lot of love, Nikon: a 16mm f/2.8 or faster wide prime, a 60mm f/2 or faster portrait lens, a 50-150mm f/2.8, and a rework of the 17-55mm would keep your faithful DX users happy, I think. Until then, the love is fading.
Update: a lot of comments coming back to me in email have questions or comments in them that indicate that the notion of "photographic equivalence" isn't fully understood. If I'm standing in the same spot with the same subject at the same distance away from me, the question is "can I take the same exact picture with different formats?" The answer is yes, but it's not just about focal length. DOF also comes into play, for example. (By specifying the same spot and subject, I've kept perspective constant.) Three "equivalents" would be:
- 300mm f/2.8 on FX.
- 200mm f/2 on DX.
- 150mm f/1.4 on m4/3.
But I didn't ask for absolute equivalency in my chart (we don't always use maximum aperture, after all). I was actually just suggesting that it would be nice to have similar tools in the bag for the different formats. Using a large zoom lens in place of a small prime is not similar enough for me, or, as it turns out, for quite a few of you.