Nikon Mount Conversion Service - The 'Silver Bullet' for the Future?

[JKoerner007]

IMO, one of the most brilliant concepts Sigma Corporation has is their Mount Conversion Service—where, basically, if you decide to switch brands (e.g., from Canon to Nikon), you don't have to sell your lens at all—instead, you can pay Sigma a nominal fee ($100 to $380), and they will simply change the mount of your lens to the mount of the another manufacturer.

I think Nikon could learn from this innovative/adaptable perspective as a means by which to handle the pending shift from conventional DSLRs into the mirrorless era.

If you have read the latest DP Review Article, The Reign of the DSLR is Almost Over, the most important single sentence out of the 1826-word piece is this:

• It’s hard to imagine, for example, how much more advanced Nikon’s DSLR platform can get, following the release of the D5 and D850.
  (However,) At a certain point, the mirror and prism will become barriers to further innovation, and if we haven't reached that point already, surely we must be getting close?

As a companion, it is important to realize the following two truths:

• Third party high-end vendors Voigtländer and Zeiss are all targeting mirrorless with their future endeavors.
• From a long-term perspective, 'cameras' really don't matter; lenses are what truly matter, from an investment perspective.

That said, one of the greatest trepidations I have about buying any more 'Nikon glass' is where will its relevance be in 2 years?
Will I be stuck with a 'dead end'? Or will there be some way to adapt it to the future ... and do I really want 'an adapter,' even if it's available?

IMO Nikon's greatest move toward the future would be to offer a Lens Mount Conversion Service, for their existing customers, to help them transition into the new era. Physically-altering the mount is a superior solution to an 'adapter,' at a roughly-equivalent price point. Not to mention that the knowledge of this being available would make purchasing existing AF lens choices more secure for newer customers.

In keeping with the above, on advantage Nikon has (that newbies Sony/Fuji don't have), is Nikon already has the lens designs to far more elite glass than any of these companies do, and by a country mile.

It will be far easier for Nikon to utilize these same formulas, and merely re-design their existing lens mounts to be mirrorless, than it will be for the Sonys/Fujis to come up with as many brand-new, totally-fresh lens developments as to what Nikon has already

Thoughts?

[Frank Fremerey]

my two cents:

I see a lot of current high performance glass is heavy.
I see many of the mirrorless cameras are light.
I see the combined systems as ergonomic nonsense.
I see a heavy Nikon with heavy glass makes a lot of sense ergonomically as  a light Leica with light glass does.

What if someone starts to design handling around the lens, camera only as an appendix to the lens system?

I imagine a break out box from the chip holder attached to the lens collar residing in the center of gravity. The center of gravity of the whole system has all knobs, dials and levers plus a high res video finder. No I did not patent this but noone can follwing this post.

Just food for thought thrown to the design folks

[JKoerner007]

It's not really about 'lightness' or 'heaviness'; it's about the mirror itself being an impediment to technology.

Remove the mirror; you change the dynamics of how the lens mount  is created.

Change how the lens mount is created, you create a compatibility dilemma for legacy glass.

MF lenses are easy to adapt, so no problem there.
It's the future of DSLR AF glass ... what do you do with it ... after the world goes mirrorless within 2 years?

Your choices will be limited to the following 4 alternatives:

Keep all your existing lenses, and keep your DSLR, until death do you part (or malfunction separates you);
Keep your lenses,  and buy awkward adapters, and accept a minor impediment (and decreased lens value) as mirrorless becomes the norm and your lenses get more-and-more obsolete;
Dump all your lenses, take the financial loss, and re-build again from scratch ...

or ...

Pay for a lens-mount-change, factory direct, keep your existing glass, and pay a nominal charge to bring them up to speed with the new mirrorless bodies.

To me, the last option seems best.

[Frank Fremerey]

I am an old horse. With everyone jumping the mirrorless train I catch the fallout of cheap D850, D500 and D5 to accomodate my glass or any glass I might still be able to buy.

If I get the mount converted will I be happy to attach a 350 Gramm camera to a lens double or triple its weight? no.

I will buy a system with light cameras a light glass if finally I see a convincing electronic view finder with no drive by wire focussing.

So: If Nikon manages to design an ergonomic mirrorless system with light cameras, light glass, an EVF that satisfies my eyes and no drive by wire I will buy cameras and glass from them. If not I stay with what I have got. More than happy with that!

[JKoerner007]

I am an old horse. With everyone jumping the mirrorless train I catch the fallout of cheap D850, D500 and D5 to accomodate my glass or any glass I might still be able to buy.

Why would you buy a cheap D850/D500, when you already own them?

I fear you're missing the point.

My point is about future lens investment ... right now ... at the looming dawn of the crossover ... not "being happy with what you already have."

I will buy a system with light cameras a light glass if finally I see a convincing electronic view finder with no drive by wire focussing.

So: If Nikon manages to design an ergonomic mirrorless system with light cameras, light glass, an EVF that satisfies my eyes and no drive by wire I will buy cameras and glass from them. If not I stay with what I have got. More than happy with that!

I am getting the idea that Nikon's D5/D850/D500 were "the last great stand" of the DSLR ... marvelous cameras ... but that the lenses that they need (particularly AF) are going to go the way of the DoDo (particularly the D and G dinosaurs, with manual diaphragms).

I dumped my 300 f/2.8G VR II for two main reasons: 1) not ergonomically-friendly, and 2) the dinosaur design, unfit for the pending modern era.

I only have ONE "E" LENS (300 PF) ... but I was going to invest in some others ... but I am not sure I want to do that right now.

Everything else I have is MF and I am not worried about those.
It's buying new Nikkor AF lenses that I am worried about ...

I don't want to buy a 600mm f/4E, for example, only to find out Nikon puts all DSLRs to pasture next year ... and comes out with a new mirrorless line, radically-changing the mount

Even if adapters are offered, I also really don't want 'adapters,' when all is said and done

On the other hand, if there were some sign, some indication, that Nikon could convert its modern E mount to its new mirrorless mount, keeping the usefulness of my recent E lens investments, then I would be more willing to pick up a few more E lenses during the interim, while we wait for the future to unfold.

Yes, I too am happy with what I have right now, D810/D500, and lots of nice MF (Zeiss/CV) glass + one E lens (300 PF) ... but that's not my point.

My point is, I think I am done buying anything else, until I know what Nikon's intended future model is, and how/if current items can/not be adapted/changed into them.

Hope this makes sense ...

[jgould2]

Hi all.

" mirror and prism will become barriers to further innovation"

I am not sure that further innovation is necessary though the returns are sure to continue to diminish.

I can take beautiful pictures of birds in flight and landscapes that can be printed as large as anyone would reasonably want. My long glass (400 f/2.8, 500 f/4 and 600 f/4) doesn't even have VR nor do I intend to pay for more modern glass. Now that I have two D500s and a D810, I can't see what a mirrorless camera would do for me that I can't already do.

JIM

[richardHaw]

there is no need for that because the new camera will be F-mount compatible via adapters  but it will not be cheap

[Roland Vink]

Thom Hogan has written about the mount options for a new Nikon Mirrorless camera http://www.sansmirror.com/newsviews/the-mirrorless-prisoners.html and concludes:
"But one thing is pretty clear from the above: Nikon has to choose to use the existing F-mount for full frame or they strongly risk losing the number two ILC market share."

But the 46.5mm lens mount register is awkward for a mirrorless system, especially for compact wide lenses. And it has a lot of compromises along the way as Nikon shoehorned AI, AF, AF-S, VR and E into the original F mount. I think they are better making a clean break, with a modern properly designed mount much as Canon did with the EOS lens system in 1987. Recent patents suggest they are going down this path. As long as they make an adapter which works well and is not too expensive, photographers can continue to seamlessly use their existing glass. I imagine the adapter would support AF-S, VR and E, hopefully also AI, but not older screw-drive AF - unless they can squeeze an AF motor inside the adapter!

[MFloyd]

During the last couple of months, I have tried everything worthwhile in the mirrorless world (Leica, Sony, Fuji)... I don’t see, for the medium term, any mirrorless camera replacing the high end DSLRs. If the former is the new need, demanded by the market, these will have to live side by side.

[Les Olson]

it's about the mirror itself being an impediment to technology.

Remove the mirror; you change the dynamics of how the lens mount  is created.

What exactly do you mean by "the dynamics of how the lens mount is created"?  What technology is the mirror an impediment to?

We know what DPR means by saying that the mirror and prism will become "barriers to further innovation", because they tell us: "It's hard to argue with Mr. Tanaka of Sony that "if cameras are going to develop […] manufacturers have to develop mirrorless technologies". Consider features like face / eye-detection AF, full-frame autofocus coverage and 4K video".  That's it?  Those are the "innovations" we are being deprived of?  Or is it the ability to turn your face into an emoji (I saw this in a phone ad while I was watching Paris-Roubaix, but I am only guessing that is what Barnaby Britton means by "clever computational tricks")?   

Thom Hogan is right about one thing (at least): camera companies need to find a way to persuade people to buy new cameras.  That is what DPR is trying to do, because they are in the business of selling cameras.  DPR is not banging the mirrorless drum because there is a problem with the SLR design, but because persuading all dSLR owners that they have to switch to mirrorless is the only way the camera industry can get near to the sales volumes of 15 years ago, when everyone all at once had to buy a digital camera.  Having failed with promoting imaginary advantages of existing features (face-detect AF, FCOL), they have turned to claiming that SLRs are doomed to disappear because of entirely imaginary technologies.  They must think we are idiots.

[Bjørn Rørslett]

---  They must think we are idiots.

Apparently, this is the universal business model of our times.

[Les Olson]

But the 46.5mm lens mount register is awkward for a mirrorless system, especially for compact wide lenses.

That is true, in that wide-angle lenses have to be retrofocus designs.  However, mirrorless cameras with smaller-than-36 x 24 sensors also need retrofocus designs for wide-angle lenses. The MFT mount is practically equivalent to the F-mount in this respect, and an APS-C mirrorless camera with a 20mm flange focal distance avoids a retrofocus design for only one of the traditional focal lengths - a 35mm equivalent.  Even for an FX mirrorless sensor camera, only wide angle primes benefit: a 14-24 zoom still has to be retrofocus over the majority of its range. 

Digital sensors do not like oblique light, because they are made up of wells.  The longer flange focal distance required by the mirror turns out to be exactly what digital sensors need, and it would be seriously bad if Nikon used a short flange focal distance mount for its mirrorless camera.  The short flange focal distances of current mirrorless designs have the disadvantage of creating severe peripheral light fall-off and a tendency for peripheral colour shift.  The light fall-off is mitigated by designing severe barrel distortion into the lenses, but then you either tolerate the light fall-off and distortion or you correct them, and either way image quality suffers.   

[Frank Fremerey]

I do not see any mirrorless that makes sense to me ergonomically, except for the Leica M digital (OVF!)

If Nikon manages to make one I will buy it and I will sure not attach huge & bulky DSLR glass to it, but small and light new glass that integrates into the ergonomic design.

I have yet to see one EVF that makes sense to me, the best I have tried so far is the X Pro 2 by Fujifilm, but drive by wire manual focussing kills the system for me. AF-S is the better design by a long shot.

[Erik Lund]

,,,,
Digital sensors do not like oblique light, because they are made up of wells.  The longer flange focal distance required by the mirror turns out to be exactly what digital sensors need, and it would be seriously bad if Nikon used a short flange focal distance mount for its mirrorless camera.  The short flange focal distances of current mirrorless designs have the disadvantage of creating severe peripheral light fall-off and a tendency for peripheral colour shift.  The light fall-off is mitigated by designing severe barrel distortion into the lenses, but then you either tolerate the light fall-off and distortion or you correct them, and either way image quality suffers.   

I agree, this has always been a key point for image sensors. I clearly remember the battle with this back when I got the D1


Leica has take this to the extreme in order for their lenses to work as best as possible, yet several of their older lens designs are useless on their Digital series of Leica M cameras.

[Les Olson]

I do not see any mirrorless that makes sense to me ergonomically, except for the Leica M digital (OVF!)

If Nikon manages to make one I will buy it and I will sure not attach huge & bulky DSLR glass to it, but small and light new glass that integrates into the ergonomic design.

It is not only for ergonomic reasons that you won't be using your SLR lenses.  One "advantage" of the rangefinder design is that it saves you buying a lot of lenses because it can't use anything wider than 28mm (without a special viewfinder) or longer than 135mm, and it can't use macro lenses because of parallax.