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

[ianwatson]

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

I'm with you, Frank. I handled a couple of mirrorless cameras and they felt very cramped. The lenses are not significantly smaller than some of the offerings for DSLRs. Then there is the electronic viewfinder.....

A Leica would work for me, too, but my wallet says "no."   

Our hands are a certain size and therefore cameras need to be a certain size. So I'm not sure what problem mirrorless cameras are trying to solve except to be different.

[Frank Fremerey]

Our hands are a certain size and therefore cameras need to be a certain size. So I'm not sure what problem mirrorless cameras are trying to solve except to be different.

This is serious & funny at the same time. I really love it!

[chambeshi]

A most interesting thread. Stimulating. It is clear the camera companies have made their decision, but DSLRs will persist for many years. As suggested in an active thread on DPR, DSLRs are analogous to crocodiles in an evolutionary context. They will thrive in key ecosystems, especially as their designs incorporate key +ve traits as mirrorless cameras innovate. This could well see exploiting mirror lockup for silent shutter and faster fps IF needed https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4271743?page=4#forum-post-61007265

So DSLRs and Mirrorless will coexist in the same ecosystem, with the former in key trophic niches, the keystone camera for pros. The DSLR serves a vast diversity of genres rather well.

The interview with Yamaki-san, Sigma CEO, is an interesting read. Really warm to this guy :-)

https://www.dpreview.com/interviews/2150589362/sigma-interview-this-is-just-the-beginning

Posted by: Erik Lund
« on: Today at 11:37:23 » Insert Quote
Quote from: Les Olson on Today at 10:13:18
,,,,
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.

If it comes to be, How will Nikon's rumoured Z-mount really differ from that of the F mount?

[Bent Hjarbo]

I'm with you, Frank. I handled a couple of mirrorless cameras and they felt very cramped. The lenses are not significantly smaller than some of the offerings for DSLRs. Then there is the electronic viewfinder.....

A Leica would work for me, too, but my wallet says "no."   

Our hands are a certain size and therefore cameras need to be a certain size. So I'm not sure what problem mirrorless cameras are trying to solve except to be different.

The manufacturing costs, as they need less components and less adjustments. When you at the same time can get a premium over DSLR, it is profitable if you make the hype that they are better

[JKoerner007]

A most interesting thread. Stimulating.

Indeed

It's basically a question of how well our purchase decisions are aligned with the future

Manual focus? No worries (adapters have little effect on function).

Auto-focus? Big worries (adapters have significant effect on function).

It is clear the camera companies have made their decision, but DSLRs will persist for many years. As suggested in an active thread on DPR, DSLRs are analogous to crocodiles in an evolutionary context. They will thrive in key ecosystems, especially as their designs incorporate key +ve traits as mirrorless cameras innovate. This could well see exploiting mirror lockup for silent shutter and faster fps IF needed https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4271743?page=4#forum-post-61007265

The only 'advantages' DSLR cameras have are because CaNikon haven't really entered the realm, seriously. (Their main technology is still ensconced in DSLRs).

Sony utterly failed in their pathetic DSLR venture ... but they're picking up steam in their mirrorless venture!

As I mentioned, Sony is dwarfed by CaNikon in lens development. All CaNikon would have to do is create different lens mounts, to their existing lenses, and "whollah!" they have a complete line of lenses, new mounts, no problem. Sony/Fuji/Panasonic/Pentax are nowhere near this stage of lens development

And, at the end of the day, lenses are everything, after all ...

However, Sony has proven certain limitations of using a mirror ... and certain undeniable freedoms of dropping the mirror.

It is clear as day, to anyone with eyes to see, that the archaic mirror is only an impediment to future progress.

Are the current, mirrored D5/D850/D500 SLRs already great now? Yes indeed

However, as new technologies develop, retaining the mirror will only hold DSLRs back ... whereas dropping the mirror entirely will give future prototypes a level of freedom DSLRs can never enjoy.

So DSLRs and Mirrorless will coexist in the same ecosystem, with the former in key trophic niches, the keystone camera for pros. The DSLR serves a vast diversity of genres rather well.

There is a saying in biology: "No two organisms can occupy the same role in an ecosystem." (One will eventually take over, while the other will become extinct.)

The current mainstay is the DSLR; however, the 'new kid' (the mirrorless) has all of the environmental advantages for future development (evolution).

The truth is, if/when CaNikon decides to pour ALL of their technology into mirrorless (which, IMO, they will, shortly), the existence of a 'mirror' in future camera designs will become unjustifiable.

The interview with Yamaki-san, Sigma CEO, is an interesting read. Really warm to this guy :-)
https://www.dpreview.com/interviews/2150589362/sigma-interview-this-is-just-the-beginning

A great article indeed ...

If it comes to be, How will Nikon's rumoured Z-mount really differ from that of the F mount?

Which brings us to the point of my original thread: Nikon should make an entirely new lens mount, to deal with the pending contemporary paradigm shift in technology.

However, they should also borrow from Sigma's GREAT innovative idea, and that is to offer a lens mount conversion service, to dampen the shock of the forthcoming transition.

The advantage of this idea (credit to Sigma) is 1) it enables a much better solution than 'adapters', and 2) it makes a person's lens investment decision now entirely 'risk free' for the future ... which is a big concern for anyone wanting to buy 'new AF DSLR glass' ... in an age where DSLRs are headed into extinction

[OCD]

Outside the box maybe?  But I think if Nikon brought back the DL concept, but with a 20mp FX sensor....those bad boys would sell.  And no mount worries.

[JKoerner007]

Outside the box maybe?  But I think if Nikon brought back the DL concept, but with a 20mp FX sensor....those bad boys would sell.  And no mount worries.

I agree ... I think Nikon would have killed it upon the release
I had 2 on order (the wide and the mid-range) for my work as an investigator.
Can't think of any Nikon shooter who did not have one of these on order, come to think of it ...

Oh well, can't go back in time ...

The hope is the concept is not entirely dead ... but, rather, being re-branded as mirrorless (and/or with upgraded technologies).

[Frank Fremerey]

An even more basic argument as predictions blossom on non fertile ground:

I want the job done.
I require a tool.
I get the best tool for my purpose I can justify to afford.
I watch the market and test new tools.
If better tools for my purpose become available I buy them.

Currently I do not see any mirrorless that serves my purpose better than what I already own

[JKoerner007]

Currently I do not see any mirrorless that serves my purpose better than what I already own

"Currently," yes, as has been agreed.

This thread topic, however, has to do with the future ...

That said, if Nikon (1) develops a D850 mirrorless equivalent ... with a brand new lens mount ... and (as it previously-ditched the DL) abandons any further 'E' lens development for DSLRs ... and 2) begins developing everything new toward the mirrorless paradigm ... you will be left 'holding the bag' in the end.

While those who 'waited a year,' to see the final direction-switch, can invest in the new era with confidence ...

But if Nikon develops a 'mount conversion service,' this will help bridge the gap between today and tomorrow ... and facilitate more confidence in current Nikon lens purchase decisions.

If the point of this thread is missed again, then I will give up 

[Ilkka Nissilä]

A mount conversion is only realistic if the lens is originally designed so that the electronics and rear part of the barrel are replaceable.

Secondly, for mirrorless (AF to work well) you need a different kind of focus motor (or two motors), a suitable optical design where the focus group is light and/or only needs to move a short distance.

Finally, DSLR lenses typically have the rear element further away than in a short flange distance mirrorless camera, and Nikon like to optimize the PDAF sensors to the native lens exit pupil position.

For third party lenses there is also the issue that sensor optics stack has different thicknesses in different brands of camera so you get something of a compromise if the lens designs are used on several brands of cameras.

Personally I think ideally each lens should be used on its native platform.

I don't see mirrorless as the "successor" of DSLR but just a different type of camera. I prefer optical viewfinders and am staying with them.

[JKoerner007]

Personally I think ideally each lens should be used on its native platform.

We agree.

I don't see mirrorless as the "successor" of DSLR but just a different type of camera. I prefer optical viewfinders and am staying with them.

I hope that you are right. I fear that you are not.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

There is a huge industry rummaging "mirrorless is the future" to people's minds because what these web sites make money of is advertiser clicks and making people feel insecure and dump their system and switch to another is an effective way to make money for these sites. The enemy is people happily focusing on their photography using the gear they have because then these sites make no money. But the photographer's best interest is usually just that: use what you have a make the most out of it rather than buy new gear.

Furthermore a system switch is especially effective because the user generally ends up with less than they had, so they have to save and spend a lot to try to catch up with what they already had working for them. It's basically manufacturers and gear sites making money without the photographer gaining anything but the temporary smell of new gear and loss of their previously reflexive ability to instinctively use the camera effectively.

Mirrorless is basically making a still camera out of a video camera and vice versa. This is especially in the interest of those companies who failed to produce a competitive still camera system. IMO video and stills are shot in a fundamentally different way and have little in common. Lights are different, the camera position, focus, zoom, aperture etc. cannot change instantly but they have to form a smooth continuum that is easy to watch in video. In stills you can do whatever you want between frames and so it's very liberating. Instead of needing a crew (or a thousand people as in some movies), in still photography, one photographer can do a lot by themselves.

I would not take these gear-switch pushing websites too seriously. I do not believe their views have photographers' best interest at heart but their wallets. Having to view the world through an EVF would be a total loss for me and it would lead into my withdrawal from photography because there would be no joy in it. If you look at CIPA stats they show mirrorless to have a 35% share of the ILC market in Jan/Feb 2018 whereas in 2017 it was about 40%, if I recall correctly. DSLR and mirrorless can share the ILC market just fine. Both have advantages and disadvantages and we should enjoy what is offered rather than try to force other people into the same mindset as some are intent on doing.

[JKoerner007]

Consider features like face / eye-detection AF, full-frame autofocus coverage and 4K video".  That's it?

What do you mean, "that's it"?

Those are no small advantages, if you get real for just a moment.

The truth is, a "mirror" offers exactly ZERO advantages.

It slows the potential for FPS, it increases the distance between sensor and lens, and it impedes the workability of video.

Remove the mirror, and even if you add only "these three" assets to what is (already) great about Nikon DSLRs, you will have improved the overall package greatly.

In other words, the Nikon D850 is 'almost' perfect.

Remove the mirror, increase its AF performance, as well as its video performance (and remove the noise it makes), and you thereby make it the perfect camera.

[JKoerner007]

I would not take these gear-switch pushing websites too seriously. I do not believe their views have photographers' best interest at heart but their wallets. Having to view the world through an EVF would be a total loss for me and it would lead into my withdrawal from photography because there would be no joy in it. If you look at CIPA stats they show mirrorless to have a 35% share of the ILC market in Jan/Feb 2018 whereas in 2017 it was about 40%, if I recall correctly. DSLR and mirrorless can share the ILC market just fine. Both have advantages and disadvantages and we should enjoy what is offered rather than try to force other people into the same mindset as some are intent on doing.

I am not going to "switch" to anything. I thoroughly enjoy my Nikon products.

What I am doing is taking my foot off the "buy" pedal for a moment to assess where Nikon is going.

I had ordered the D850 last week (still on backorder, due to popularity), but cancelled the order for the time being.
I was going to order the 28 f/1.4E and 105mm f/1.4E as well ... but am holding off on any AF lens purchases for at least a year now.

I want to see what Nikon's intent is before I buy anything further (esp. AF lenses) from Nikon.

If Nikon comes out with a D850-level mirrorless, plus some good new primes, I will buy these instead.

If they come out with nothing new by Christmas, then I will get the D850 for a better price than what's going on right now.

In the meantime, I will continue to enjoy what I have ... D500 + 300 PF / D810 + Zeiss/CV primes.

[Frank Fremerey]

I think Ilkka made some great points, esp the getting used and getting better by becoming accoustomed to your gear. I felt cameras like the F4, FM2, F100, D3, D500 & D850 became like body parts over time and I do not even use the display over a day of shooting. Reliability, Dependability, Reproducability .... I shot shiploads of film from 1983 till 2004 ... with the D500 and D850 I feel the display has its merits but for normal shooting I simply do not need it.

The state of mirrorless is generations from that.

I watch and wait ...