Nikon Full Frame Mirrorless to Have New Z Mount

[jolyonralph]

In addition to workable AF, Nikon would have to come up with a high quality Elecronic Viewfinder if if wanted to try to make money with a mirrorless version of the D850.

One thing Nikon do differently is that they're prepared to outsource major components such as sensors for the cameras. They may not have a good EVF, but they can go out and buy the technology in from someone else without any problems.

 

[jeffa4444]

In addition to workable AF, Nikon would have to come up with a high quality Elecronic Viewfinder if if wanted to try to make money with a mirrorless version of the D850.

One thing Nikon do differently is that they're prepared to outsource major components such as sensors for the cameras. They may not have a good EVF, but they can go out and buy the technology in from someone else without any problems.

Epson make EVF for Olympus (and others), Nikon used to have some lenses made externally and Fuji definitely still do. Many parts inside all the manufacturers are made by various medium & small companies in Japan.

 

[jeffa4444]

If you strip away all the tribal comments and look at the engineering / technical aspects of the EF mount or the F mount they have a fixed back focus, period. This governs what you can do with a FF mirrorless camera, you cannot side step it.

Canon has a 18mm back-focus with the EF-M (Sony E mount is also 18mm), with both the EF & EF-S it is 44mm. I'm struggling to understand how Canon other than via an adaptor can make a mirrorless camera work and save size / weight (the point of mirrorless) without a fundamental change in camera design.

When they moved from FD/FL to EF it was a complete change and arguably a very profitable one in the longer term. However when you factor in the cost of development of the tilt shift lenses and 85mm f1.4 alone in 2017, they are committed to EF. So they have a packaging dilemma (as do Nikon).

Sensors are normally fixed maybe one solution is a variable sensor (two positions) retracted flat field 44mm, extended curved, 18mm. However a 26mm travel (just over 1 inch) doesn't really solve a packaging issue in the body depth and requires a mechanism to move it (more space) so I'm stumped as to how they pull this trick off without a full-frame version of the EF-M lenses.

Another point to ponder, all of Sony E Mount FF fast lenses are still big beasts so in practical terms what do you actually win?

 

[BillB]

In addition to workable AF, Nikon would have to come up with a high quality Elecronic Viewfinder if if wanted to try to make money with a mirrorless version of the D850.

One thing Nikon do differently is that they're prepared to outsource major components such as sensors for the cameras. They may not have a good EVF, but they can go out and buy the technology in from someone else without any problems.

Maybe so, but the key technology would seem to be for the information processing needed to drive the information display which would need to be integrated into the camera's main information processing system. Not sure how easy it would be to outsource that integration.

 

[kphoto99]

Sensors are normally fixed maybe one solution is a variable sensor (two positions) retracted flat field 44mm, extended curved, 18mm. However a 26mm travel (just over 1 inch) doesn't really solve a packaging issue in the body depth and requires a mechanism to move it (more space) so I'm stumped as to how they pull this trick off without a full-frame version of the EF-M lenses.

In theory you could extend the distance with mirrors that move in and out of the light path.
No I'm not suggesting that will happen but it is (maybe) possible.

 

[ahsanford]

If you strip away all the tribal comments and look at the engineering / technical aspects of the EF mount...

[truncated]

Another point to ponder, all of Sony E Mount FF fast lenses are still big beasts so in practical terms what do you actually win?

So if:

1) the whole point of mirrorless is to be small (as you stated),
2) you only gain an inch (26mm) of space by pulling the mirror,
3) FF lenses will be huge no matter what and will water down any body size savings, and
4) Canon has a massive commitment to EF...

Why go thin mount at all if you are Canon?

#1 above is a strongly held opinion by some -- I am not one of them. Mirrorless has a host of virtues that are unrelated to size. However, Mirrorless (potentially) being thin adds to what a mirrorless camera could possibly do: (a) you could build a smaller/lighter rig under certain circumstances (purpose built, small/slow/light lenses) and (b) you could adapt older/other/competitor's lenses.

Now weigh (a) and (b) against (i) having to build a lot of new lenses and (ii) saddling EF Nation with an adaptor. Is it still worth it to go thin? Should Canon do what the market thinks it wants despite all common sense to not do this in their case?

- A

 

[bwud]

If you strip away all the tribal comments and look at the engineering / technical aspects of the EF mount...

[truncated]

Another point to ponder, all of Sony E Mount FF fast lenses are still big beasts so in practical terms what do you actually win?

So if:

1) the whole point of mirrorless is to be small (as you stated),
2) you only gain an inch (26mm) of space by pulling the mirror,
3) FF lenses will be huge no matter what and will water down any body size savings, and
4) Canon has a massive commitment to EF...

Why go thin mount at all if you are Canon?

#1 above is a strongly held opinion by some -- I am not one of them. Mirrorless has a host of virtues that are unrelated to size. However, Mirrorless (potentially) being thin adds to what a mirrorless camera could possibly do: (a) you could build a smaller/lighter rig under certain circumstances (purpose built, small/slow/light lenses) and (b) you could adapt older/other/competitor's lenses.

Now weigh (a) and (b) against (i) having to build a lot of new lenses and (ii) saddling EF Nation with an adaptor. Is it still worth it to go thin? Should Canon do what the market thinks it wants despite all common sense to not do this in their case?

- A

If Canon believes they will generate more profit selling new-mount lenses and adapters than EF lenses going forward, they should develop them. If not, they shouldn’t.

The last mount change was arguably a major win for the company, but I don’t envy the ultimate decision maker.

 

[ahsanford]

If Canon believes they will generate more profit selling new-mount lenses and adapters than EF lenses going forward, they should develop them. If not, they shouldn’t.

The last mount change was arguably a major win for the company, but I don’t envy the ultimate decision maker.

This won't be an FD to EF sort of change. There is near zero likelihood Canon climbs this mountain of lens building pain all over again (like Sony is doing) as a similar move would stoke fears of abandoning EF altogether, which would cost them customers.

Also, as many have said, once you get above a certain speed and/or FL, you'll just end up with big lenses that evaporate your size savings. Proceeding to build those lenses is tantamount to cloning EF / having two of everything, which also makes no sense.

So I see this being one of two outcomes:

1) Canon goes thin and offers say 5-7 lenses over the first 3-4 years just for the new mount: 2 small wide-standard primes, UWA f/4 (or variable) zoom, standard f/4 (or variable) zoom, macro and possibly one relatively compact portraiture tool (say an 85 f/1.8.).

2) Canon goes full EF mount.

- A

 

[bwud]

If Canon believes they will generate more profit selling new-mount lenses and adapters than EF lenses going forward, they should develop them. If not, they shouldn’t.

The last mount change was arguably a major win for the company, but I don’t envy the ultimate decision maker.

This won't be an FD to EF sort of change. There is near zero likelihood Canon climbs this mountain of lens building pain all over again (like Sony is doing) as a similar move would stoke fears of abandoning EF altogether, which would cost them customers.

Either way could cost them customers:

• those who don’t buy the big lenses and/or want the smaller package mirrorless can sometimes provide (e.g. that portion of the market which never buys a lens not sold as a package deal), and
• those who if they need new lenses anyway may look at other manufacters (i.e. those who no longer feel “captive”).

Both calls are risky, hence my not envying the person holding the bag for the decision.

Proceeding to build those lenses is tantamount to cloning EF / having two of everything, which also makes no sense.

It makes sense if they can sell them, and if it’s a new mount it wouldn’t be a cloning exercise, they’d have fundamentally different designs.

I wouldn’t expect them to pursue two full frame lines, however. Much like Sony’s a mount lenses, if canon changes mounts, they would likely ramp down and eventually end EF development.

If I were a gambler, I’d put money on them keeping EF. But strategy is never an easy call, and changing mounts could very well be advantageous in the long run.

 

[ahsanford]

Proceeding to build those lenses is tantamount to cloning EF / having two of everything, which also makes no sense.

It makes sense if they can sell them, and if it’s a new mount it wouldn’t be a cloning exercise, they’d have fundamentally different designs.

But it would sap your economies of scale -- offering both an EF 24-70 f/2.8L II and an EF-M 24-70 f/2.8L would mean 2x of everything: design, production process, inventory, etc. and unit prices of lenses would have to go up.

Sony knows this pain. They sell an A-mount and an FE-mount 24-70 2.8 lens -- and they both cost over $2k. Part of this is surely their lower manufacturing volumes compared to Canon in general, but having to build two of these is not a cheap proposition.

- A

 

[BillB]

If you strip away all the tribal comments and look at the engineering / technical aspects of the EF mount...

[truncated]

Another point to ponder, all of Sony E Mount FF fast lenses are still big beasts so in practical terms what do you actually win?

So if:

1) the whole point of mirrorless is to be small (as you stated),
2) you only gain an inch (26mm) of space by pulling the mirror,
3) FF lenses will be huge no matter what and will water down any body size savings, and
4) Canon has a massive commitment to EF...

Why go thin mount at all if you are Canon?

#1 above is a strongly held opinion by some -- I am not one of them. Mirrorless has a host of virtues that are unrelated to size. However, Mirrorless (potentially) being thin adds to what a mirrorless camera could possibly do: (a) you could build a smaller/lighter rig under certain circumstances (purpose built, small/slow/light lenses) and (b) you could adapt older/other/competitor's lenses.

Now weigh (a) and (b) against (i) having to build a lot of new lenses and (ii) saddling EF Nation with an adaptor. Is it still worth it to go thin? Should Canon do what the market thinks it wants despite all common sense to not do this in their case?

- A

One question would seem to be how small a camera Canon could make while still sticking with an EF mount. I don't know what the answer is, but my guess is that Canon has come up with their answer. If it is somewhere around the size of an SL1, would that be enough to wipe out any significant advantage from a new mount?

 

[bwud]

Proceeding to build those lenses is tantamount to cloning EF / having two of everything, which also makes no sense.

It makes sense if they can sell them, and if it’s a new mount it wouldn’t be a cloning exercise, they’d have fundamentally different designs.

But it would sap your economies of scale -- offering both an EF 24-70 f/2.8L II and an EF-M 24-70 f/2.8L would mean 2x of everything: design, production process, inventory, etc. and unit prices of lenses would have to go up.

Sony knows this pain. They sell an A-mount and an FE-mount 24-70 2.8 lens -- and they both cost over $2k. Part of this is surely their lower manufacturing volumes compared to Canon in general, but having to build two of these is not a cheap proposition.

- A

You have to look long term though. Any decision regarding a new mount will incur costs probably for several years before ROI is made.

If, and that’s a big one, canon makes a new full frame mount without the mirror-defined flange distance, I’d expect them to end full frame EF lens development and slow/eventually end full frame EF lens production. There may be some overlap initially (although they likely have inventory of popular items, making it easier. All their inventory including non-photographic products is consolidated into a single value, $5.4 billion US, in their financials, so it’s impossible to know how big the cushion is) and those would be pain points, but if it serves the overall strategy, so be it.

 

[neuroanatomist]

If, and that’s a big one, canon makes a new full frame mount without the mirror-defined flange distance, I’d expect them to end full frame EF lens development and slow/eventually end full frame EF lens production.

End lens development for a platform comprising 2/3 of the ILC market? ???

 

[Sporgon]

I must get round to replacing all the mirrors in my house with display screens and cameras.

 

[bwud]

If, and that’s a big one, canon makes a new full frame mount without the mirror-defined flange distance, I’d expect them to end full frame EF lens development and slow/eventually end full frame EF lens production.

End lens development for a platform comprising 2/3 of the ILC market? ???

Yes, given the above if:

“If Canon believes they will generate more profit selling new-mount lenses and adapters than EF lenses going forward”

The current market isn’t set in stone. The SLR lens share could increase, or decrease. It could be saturated or have a great deal of growth potential. Either way there is a business opportunity.

 

[ahsanford]

If, and that’s a big one, canon makes a new full frame mount without the mirror-defined flange distance, I’d expect them to end full frame EF lens development and slow/eventually end full frame EF lens production. There may be some overlap initially (although they likely have inventory of popular items, making it easier. All their inventory including non-photographic products is consolidated into a single value, $5.4 billion US, in their financials, so it’s impossible to know how big the cushion is) and those would be pain points, but if it serves the overall strategy, so be it.

Is the promise of offering a 1" smaller aggregate FF setup and adapting other lenses worth walking away from the EF portfolio?

Short answer: no flipping way. A Sony-like migration from A to FE mount (i.e. a huge push in FE, the occasional dying embers of an A mount released as a PR stunt 'with an ongoing commitment to A mount') would be tantamount to Canon severing it's own leg on the prospect of running even faster someday. It would be madness.

Again: It's either full EF mount or a thin mount with a very-well bounded small number of tinier mirrorless only lenses. An exodus from EF or running two FF mounts in parallel with the same lenses for many years to come isn't going to happen.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

If, and that’s a big one, canon makes a new full frame mount without the mirror-defined flange distance, I’d expect them to end full frame EF lens development and slow/eventually end full frame EF lens production.

End lens development for a platform comprising 2/3 of the ILC market? ???

Yes, given the above if:

“If Canon believes they will generate more profit selling new-mount lenses and adapters than EF lenses going forward”

Agree, actually. But Canon couldn't possibly believe the 'if' clause above. Here is the list of Pros for migrating from EF to EF-mirrorless:

• A handful of smaller lenses (say 10-20% of the current EF portfolio) could lead to a nontrivially smaller body + lens combination
  
  
• [...crickets...]

And the Cons list looks like what would happen if a black hole for all resources and product development consumed your company for 10+ years.

Unless you want to talk about a major tectonic delta in lens design to support curved sensors, every lens will be a compact telescoping/collapsible design, they start to offer leaf shutter lenses, etc., rebuilding all/most of EF into mirrorless FF lenses is a colossal waste of time and money when you consider the very meager pickings on the Pros list above.

- A

 

[bwud]

• If, and that’s a big one, canon makes a new full frame mount without the mirror-defined flange distance, I’d expect them to end full frame EF lens development and slow/eventually end full frame EF lens production.

  
  End lens development for a platform comprising 2/3 of the ILC market? ???

  
  Yes, given the above if:
  
  “If Canon believes they will generate more profit selling new-mount lenses and adapters than EF lenses going forward”

  
  Agree, actually. But Canon couldn't possibly believe the 'if' clause above. Here is the list of Pros for migrating from EF to EF-mirrorless:
  
  

  • A handful of smaller lenses (say 10-20% of the current EF portfolio) could lead to a nontrivially smaller body + lens combination
    
    
  • [...crickets...]

  
  Your list appears to be from the customer perspective, which is fair enough. It assumes however the continuation of EF, otherwise it would necessarily include:
  
  • The availability of new lenses
  
  Canon controls its supply, and can make new EF lenses unavailable. The questions include:
  
  • Can they credibly strong-arm people into a new mount?
  • How much market potential is there in continuing EF for new sales versus convincing EF owners (refresh) and new customers to buy a new mount?
  
  If th best way to grow is to obsolete your legacy products, that’s what you do. Witness SpaceX’s BFR strategy.

 

[Orangutan]

If, and that’s a big one, canon makes a new full frame mount without the mirror-defined flange distance, I’d expect them to end full frame EF lens development and slow/eventually end full frame EF lens production.

End lens development for a platform comprising 2/3 of the ILC market? ???

Yes, given the above if:

“If Canon believes they will generate more profit selling new-mount lenses and adapters than EF lenses going forward”

The current market isn’t set in stone. The SLR lens share could increase, or decrease. It could be saturated or have a great deal of growth potential. Either way there is a business opportunity.

That's a very big "if." I can imagine Canon starting to investigate lens design in a primarily mirrorless market, but we are not anywhere close to that point yet.

 

[AvTvM]

of course mirrorless FF will come with a new mount. For a number of good technical reasons and even more so for a number of compelling profit reasons for makers. Nikon as well as Canon.

My only surpise would be if Nikon really goes down to only 16mm FFD ... but if they want to offer an adapter for all their old F-shards and their mechanical and Phase-Af shenaningans, they obviously need every mm for they can get for the adapter.

Thanks to their bold, radical and 100% correct decision in 1987 to jettison old FD mount and "to hell with backwards compatibility", Canon is in a much better position now. Something like 20-22mm FFD and an even wider mount than rumored Nikon Z (49mm) will make life for Canon lens designers a hell of a lot easier than for their Nikon counterparts. And may give Canon customers optically excellent, and less expensive lens options in the future - ofc in addition to a wide selection of Luxuriously priced L glass.

Now Canon just needs to get around launching their FF MILC system .With new, short FFD /wide-mouth Canon mount. It wont be called Z-mount. My preliminary guess of a Canon EF- X-mount may well turn into reality soon. Until then i shall continue to not spend a cent on new Canon gear.