Nikon Full Frame Mirrorless to Have New Z Mount
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
peters said:
Nikon rumors talks about an adapter so it is the same thinking behind EOS-M. The only lenses that wouldn't be compatible would be a new modern mirrorless lenses mounted on the old dslr bodies. But that won't matter until the mirrorless selection is superior, at which point the original concern of the new mount needing an adapter will be mostly moot.
I've seen NR post a few patents for nikon mirrorless lenses which intrigued me a bit. one was a 50mm f/0.9x and a 35mm f/1.2. IF (and I emphasize that) such patents are representative of their first lens batch, it could be indeed a bit of a burn for the larger DSLR buyers. However more realistically I'd expect a new system to start with your standard variety of redundant zooms and basic primes. Nothing that would make a nikon dslr owner care much as long as whatever they own does work with the new mirrorless camera.
Upvote
0
neuroanatomist said:So my money is on a thin mount FF mirrorless (+FX adaptor, surely) for Nikon, and -- their pride be damned -- without saying the words "Canon lenses will work on it" they will make it clear what the advantages of a thin mount is.
...and the more I think about it, this is a non-zero land-grab opportunity for Nikon.
Have a lot of Nikkor glass or Nikon speedlites? Keep using 'em.
Want some tiny mirrorless 35f/2.8 for a tiny travel kit? Here you are.
Always wanted to try that Canon 11-24 / MP E 65 / 400 5.6 / etc? Done.
Oh, you're an A7 user with a bag full of adapted glass who doesn't want a tiny grip and menu/controls designed by a 14 year old binging on Monster energy drinks? Welcome! The tears you involuntarily are ugly crying right now are from the feeling of a comfortable hand grip and buttons and controls where you need them -- this is normal.
- A
Upvote
0
9VIII said:
...and mis-mounting the lens. That idea above sounds teleconverter-y to me, and I'm always skittish about mounting my 2x III vs. the ease of a standard EF lens changeout.
(It's a super clever idea you get at -- I don't mean to dismiss it -- but perhaps in our focus by wire collapsible electronic future all the 'reaching into the body' bits telescope backwards automatically after startup to avoid a mis-mount or optical element scratch.)
- A
Upvote
0
brad-man said:
One of the pain points of being second or third in the market is that you have to come harder each and every new launch.
So if you can get a first Nikon grip for free with a body these days, the FX adaptor may just come in the box as well as two batteries with this new mirrorless offering.
- A
Upvote
0
There is a reason Sony didn't keep the A mount on their mirrorless. There is a reason that Nikon didn't keep the F mount on theirs.
And that's the same forward-thinking that Nikon failed with, and Canon excelled with, when switching to autofocus lenses back in the 80s.
You ditch the mount, you have an amount of pain in the short term (but far less than the FD->EF transition), and you win from having the better system.
There is no compromise about a shorter flange distance. The EF mount *IS* the compromise, with a large flange distance required to keep the mirror out of the way of the back of the lens.
Without the mirror this compromise is not needed.
All the talk about shorter flange distances bending light differently are complete red herrings. Lenses don't have to be designed with the rear element right bang on the flange distance. Indeed even most EF lenses have at least some gap already.
Your personal fear of having to upgrade lenses is just that - fear. It has nothing to do with what Canon needs to look at, which is building the future market. Selling cameras to existing customers is important, but the number of Canon EOS owners who own more than just the kit lens is a small percentage of their market.
If Canon caves in and does an EF mount mirrorless body it will be uninspired, it will likely fail in comparisons with the other makes in independent reviews, and potentially a commercial failure.
But, if Canon were to do a new mount (or even just the EF-M mount) suitable for FF pro-cameras, and were to bundle the camera body with an adaptor for EF glass that is:
a) fully weather sealed
b) physically securable by more than just the bayonet, perhaps with a device that attaches to the bottom of the adaptor and also to the tripod mount on the body, to give a more stable platform.
Then you have the best of both worlds. Take the adaptor off, and you have a compact FF camera that will take a new generation of compact lightweight primes for the new system 35mm f/2.8, 50mm 1/.8 etc.
That's what I want to see
And that's the same forward-thinking that Nikon failed with, and Canon excelled with, when switching to autofocus lenses back in the 80s.
You ditch the mount, you have an amount of pain in the short term (but far less than the FD->EF transition), and you win from having the better system.
There is no compromise about a shorter flange distance. The EF mount *IS* the compromise, with a large flange distance required to keep the mirror out of the way of the back of the lens.
Without the mirror this compromise is not needed.
All the talk about shorter flange distances bending light differently are complete red herrings. Lenses don't have to be designed with the rear element right bang on the flange distance. Indeed even most EF lenses have at least some gap already.
Your personal fear of having to upgrade lenses is just that - fear. It has nothing to do with what Canon needs to look at, which is building the future market. Selling cameras to existing customers is important, but the number of Canon EOS owners who own more than just the kit lens is a small percentage of their market.
If Canon caves in and does an EF mount mirrorless body it will be uninspired, it will likely fail in comparisons with the other makes in independent reviews, and potentially a commercial failure.
But, if Canon were to do a new mount (or even just the EF-M mount) suitable for FF pro-cameras, and were to bundle the camera body with an adaptor for EF glass that is:
a) fully weather sealed
b) physically securable by more than just the bayonet, perhaps with a device that attaches to the bottom of the adaptor and also to the tripod mount on the body, to give a more stable platform.
Then you have the best of both worlds. Take the adaptor off, and you have a compact FF camera that will take a new generation of compact lightweight primes for the new system 35mm f/2.8, 50mm 1/.8 etc.
That's what I want to see
Upvote
0
jolyonralph said:
I'm split on the mount as I see enthusiasts and gadgety folks wanting something smaller (for modestly spec'd short/mid-FL lenses) vs. pros / serious hobbyists wanting a 5D sans mirror.
But forget any fear you perceive for a moment. What is the benefit of going thin and making people either use an adaptor or buy new native glass? As I see it, the lists include:
- Adapt older/other-mount glass.
- For those decidedly unsexy lenses you just stated, you can create a smaller aggregate lens + body combo, sure.
And....? Anything else?
Because if not, it sounds like you're saying all Canon owners of existing glass need to choose between using adaptors for all their old glass (and hoping they never leave that adaptor at home while on assignment) and buying all new mirrorless mount lenses?
...just so some of us can occasionally build a cute 35 f/2.8 travel setup or tinker with a Nikkor 14-24 or old Canon FD lens -- even though very few of us are going to do that? Really? Is that all?
Now I am actually not a flat-out 'no thank you' opponent to thin mount -- I sit somewhere between the gearhead tinkerer who might love that value proposition and the 'I hope it is totally seamless with my FF SLR' camp. I see both sides of it. But for me, the move to a thin mount will mean years of adaptor use as Canon builds the lenses I need for the new mount. I can't honestly say I'm looking forward to that, as I don't plan to adapt much old glass and the times I must have a smaller rig are only when I'm traveling on business and my bag is stuffed with work items.
That's a hard sell, dude -- I need more to willingly walk into that convenience. Tell me it's a curved sensor and FF lenses will actually get smaller and you'll get my money. Tell me these new mount lenses are (IDK) carbon fiber or basalt based and that they're half the weight but still just as tough. I just need a little more to tipped over to Thin.
But depending on where you sit on the continuum of the [opportunity of thin mount] vs. the [nuisance of thin mount], your love of the sales pitch above will vary, and wildly so.
- A
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:
The benefit for you, or for Canon?
From Canon's point of view there is one benefit. They sell more cameras and lenses. You may not be happy with having (eventually) to upgrade lenses, but you'll do it.
ahsanford said:
Well, if you're going to keep the adaptor stuck on the camera all the time you're not going to leave it at home, are you?
Upvote
0
I love the idea of curved sensors, but that would be a real problem for all of us with legacy glass! Entirely new lenses for us all.
Upvote
0
jolyonralph said:Well, if you're going to keep the adaptor stuck on the camera all the time you're not going to leave it at home, are you?
It's a rare threat, but it's still a threat. Most people if stuck with a thin mount setup will eventually say 'aw shucks' and get a pancake or smaller mirrorless mount lens.
Then you put it in your bag with that lens attached and with three EF lenses and a speedlite to shoot an an event. You do the visual check of body / lenses / speedlites / blackrapid / batteries / memory cards / etc. and -- everything being there -- you go out on your way.
And you walk into that event without the adaptor.
As improbable as that might be, it 100% will happen to people in their first year of ownership. Maybe not you, maybe not me, but someone will feel the pain of this. That failure mode / situation is completely taken off the board with a full EF mount.
- A
Upvote
0
jolyonralph said:
The number of Canon EOS owners who own a FF dSLR is also a small percentage of their market. But, I'd bet good money that there's a significant overlap between those who own more than just the kit lens and those who own a FF dSLR...and we're discussing a FF MILC here. In other words, Canon owners looking for a FF MILC are those most likely to own multiple lenses.
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:
And yet you're still more likely to go out without a memory card and/or spare batteries.
I don't really see why this is such a big issue.
Upvote
0
ahsanford said:
Only with an adaptor with extra glass inside, and that would impact on quality.
So no, you don't want to use existing glass with a curved sensor.
Now, if Canon can get the sensor to change shape....
Upvote
0
Lenses already cast light at an angle, the sensor would work just fine with existing lenses, even the field of focus is already curved (if my understanding is correct).
The only problem is lenses corrected for a flat sensor would have a bit of distortion on the edges, but it would have to be pretty severe for most people to care, and Canon could build in a software correction.
The only problem is lenses corrected for a flat sensor would have a bit of distortion on the edges, but it would have to be pretty severe for most people to care, and Canon could build in a software correction.
Upvote
0
9VIII said:
No, the image would be defocused towards the edges as the lens is designed (if it's designed properly!) to project a sharp image onto a flat surface, when that surface is curved you're moving the sensor out of that plane of focus.
The whole reason to do this is that it's much easier to design new lenses that focus onto the curved sensor (so less glass = higher quality + lower weight) than onto a flat plane, so that the new lenses won't work with old sensors, and vice versa.
This would be very much like the switch from FD to EF. There'd be converters to allow attaching lenses, but it'd be optically pointless so you'd be better off selling your old glass and investing in new.
Upvote
0
littleB said:
Yes, but this is an order of magnitude at least more difficult than IBIS, which Canon still haven't figured out.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
