Arrival of Nikon mirrorless (finally!)

[Ilkka Nissilä]

Many lenses have rectangular masks to cut unwanted light, so probably a square sensor of equal diagonal would not be covered.

[Roland Vink]

Good point.

Another possibility is a slightly oversize sensor which can be cropped in different ways to give different aspect ratios while still using the full image circle. A larger sensor is obviously more expensive so this would only be found on high-end models. A larger sensor is more difficult for IBIS, so they might drop this feature ... overall I think this option is not likely ...

[Erik Lund]

Obviously, if a new medium format camera comes out from Nikon with the Z mount and a larger sensor than 24x36 they would design new Nikkor lenses for it!
However the old F-mount FX lenses would be compatible, you would just need a crop dow to 24x36 for almost all of them, except PC lenses but their movements would not be possible to utilize fully either.


Seems very strange to me that Nikon go up in size/diameter for the Z-mount if they don't do it for optical reasons, sensor size, then why? An larger diameter makes for larger more heavy build mount itself as well as the lenses almost no matter what you do, also you need more material to make it similar stiffness, all pointing at more weight and bulk,,,

[Erik Lund]

You can add an external display or EVF to a DSLR using the HDMI or USB port. These are available and are widely used for video. Two weeks ago when I was at Pori Jazz, I saw one Sony mirrorless camera with 70-200/2.8 Nikkor attached, and the videographer wasn't using the EVF; he had an external display mounted on the hot shoe and he was using that to monitor the footage. There was also a Red Dragon with EF 70-200/2.8, it seems adapted lenses are really common nowadays for video work.

A "hybrid" OVF/EVF would result in a reduced quality viewfinder and thus I would not be happy with such a contraption. The reason for the quality loss is that the EVF would be positioned at the front of the prism and thus the coatings would have to be removed to permit the light from the EVF to reach the ocular on the other side of the prism. Removal of the coatings would lead to loss of light when using the OVF.

A better solution is to have interchangeable viewfinder modules as was available earlier in 1-digit F series Nikons (until and including the F5). However, this also apparently results in some loss of viewfinder brightness;; according to Nikon this was the reason why the F6 was made without interchangeable viewfinders. I never owned an F6 but the F100 viewfinder was appreciably brighter than that of the F5. I suspect the focusing screen was a part of the reason; the F5 viewfinder was easy to manual focus with but the image was a bit dimmer.

I think it's better to just use mirrorless for those applications where mirrorless is advantageous and correspondingly for DSLRs. A hybrid isn't necessarily the "best of both worlds", it could be seen as the "worst of both worlds" depending on what the photographer values most. A hybrid camera with reduced viewfinder quality but increased weight (due to having the components for two viewfinders, only part of which would be shared) would not satisfy me. I would prefer to keep mirrorless mirrorless and DSLR DSLR, and if necessary, maintain two systems and choose depending on the requirements of the task. One of the main advantages of mirrorless is smaller size and lower weight, and perhaps the main advantage of DSLRs is the high-quality optical viewfinder. A hybrid camera would give neither of these benefits.

I totally understand the benefits of silent shooting and once the electronic shutter is fast enough to minimize rolling shutter, I will likely  be happy to purchase such a camera and lenses for applications that require silence, but it won't be my main camera due to the lack of OVF. I generally think of mirrorless ILC cameras as just one type of camera among others and  having this choice is important to users. But not necessarily in the same camera. Of course, if someone wants to make a hybrid camera they're welcome to do so, and then we can evaluate it on its merits and drawbacks.

That is exactly the case, Nikons own words:


Nikon will continue to lead imaging culture with the launch of the new mirrorless camera, as well as with the continued development of Nikon digital-SLR cameras, providing consumers with the choices to enjoy the unique values of either system.

[Akira]

That is exactly the case, Nikons own words:

Nikon will continue to lead imaging culture with the launch of the new mirrorless camera, as well as with the continued development of Nikon digital-SLR cameras, providing consumers with the choices to enjoy the unique values of either system.

Well, I don't necessarily disagree, but that was exactly the same as what Nikon said when they released F6, if I remember correctly.  But no further film SLR was released.  So, only time will tell.   

[Erik Lund]

He he yes I remember, they stated something similar


At the launch of F6 a digital revolution started for DSLR cameras,,, I really don't see mirrorless as such a revolution    I see their statement like a safety fall back, that when/if the Pro crowd starts to criticize the new mirrorless wonder from Nikon and deem it unusable, for some reason,,, they can fall back on the DSLR series.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

Seems very strange to me that Nikon go up in size/diameter for the Z-mount if they don't do it for optical reasons, sensor size, then why? An larger diameter makes for larger more heavy build mount itself as well as the lenses almost no matter what you do, also you need more material to make it similar stiffness, all pointing at more weight and bulk,,,

Larger aperture lenses is one stated reason (f/1.2, f/1.0, etc.), other benefits include possibilities to make lenses with less vignetting, less need to offset the microlenses on the sensor (if the light comes more symmetrically around the edges of the frame), greater freedom of movements for PC lenses, more space for adapters etc.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

Well, I don't necessarily disagree, but that was exactly the same as what Nikon said when they released F6, if I remember correctly.  But no further film SLR was released.  So, only time will tell.   

I think quite a lot of people were surprised that Nikon would release the F6 at all, at the time it had became clear that digital would be the mainstream medium for photography.  Most of the workflow had moved to digital systems already and people were scanning their film for the purposes of making prints, publishing etc. The scanning step was time-consuming and could be avoided by using digital cameras.

I don't see mirrorless as a replacement for DSLR, however; this is a different situation. Both are digital cameras, just as fast in terms of workflow and they give similar results (in terms of the technical image quality). However, the shooting experience is different and this part is very important to me.

[Erik Lund]

Larger aperture lenses is one stated reason (f/1.2, f/1.0, etc.), other benefits include possibilities to make lenses with less vignetting, less need to offset the microlenses on the sensor (if the light comes more symmetrically around the edges of the frame), greater freedom of movements for PC lenses, more space for adapters etc.

Yes I read all that, It just doesn't justify to go with such a huge opening just for 24x36mm - When looking at what is possible with for instance the Leica M mount or even the F-mount

[Ilkka Nissilä]

43mm is the diagonal for FX; 49mm (?) the mount opening if I understood correctly.

I now realize that in the NR page describing the patent 49mm is the "external diameter" of the mount so does this mean the outer part of the metal ring? In that case there wouldn't be all that much extra space around a 35mm sensor.

https://nikonrumors.com/2018/01/11/nikons-upcoming-mirrorless-camera-rumored-to-have-a-new-z-mount-with-16mm-flange-focal-distance.aspx/

A 2.9mm difference in diameter vs. the Sony E mount. This together with the 2 mm shorter flange distance would maybe leave enough space for E mount lenses to be adapted to be used in the new Nikon mount. If the dimensions are true, it would mean that the new Nikon mirrorless lenses can't be used on Sony cameras (at least not with infinity focus).

Correction: they now say the 49mm is the diameter of the opening.

[Erik Lund]

Actually we only have rumored opening diagonal/diameter,,,


I agree with you statement, that is the reasoning I have as well.


Why make such a great camera/mount and then only advantage if you also design all the lenses to a higher standard since none of the current F mount lenses will suddenly/magically become different in performance re this,,, These lenses will be huge, glass diameter, very well APO corrected and therefore very very expensive,,, Only Pros or very wealthy enthusiasts would buy these,,,


The cat's eyes highlights bokeh is only followed by a tiny fraction of photographers, the majority by far prefer smooth bokeh rendering of out of focus fore and backgroud.

[Roland Vink]

Yes I read all that, It just doesn't justify to go with such a huge opening just for 24x36mm - When looking at what is possible with for instance the Leica M mount or even the F-mount

The focal plane to lens mount distance is reported to be only 16mm - very short. Not sure why, maybe to give enough space for the F-mount adapter?.
The short distance gives very little space for optics at the rear of the lens to enlarge the image circle so that it covers the sensor, so the opening must be large enough to cover the sensor without mechanical vignetting, with some space to spare for IBIS, lens mount etc.

[chambeshi]

Actually we only have rumored opening diagonal/diameter,,,


I agree with you statement, that is the reasoning I have as well.


Why make such a great camera/mount and then only advantage if you also design all the lenses to a higher standard since none of the current F mount lenses will suddenly/magically become different in performance re this,,, These lenses will be huge, glass diameter, very well APO corrected and therefore very very expensive,,, Only Pros or very wealthy enthusiasts would buy these,,,

The cat's eyes highlights bokeh is only followed by a tiny fraction of photographers, the majority by far prefer smooth bokeh rendering of out of focus fore and backgroud.

Release of a new Nikon camera has always catalyzed much speculation and debate....the Df, D5, D850. Only the D500 slipped in hardly noticed 

And now it's a whole new Mount 

Obviously, any of the more reasonable suggestions entail elements of guesswork, based on dimensions given in Nikon's patent of a new mount (NR reported this as the Z-mount in January). The strategic implications sure are intriguing - and here's the diagram, which suggests implications for Canon, Sony etc who've already committed to their respective ML mounts: ".... Beyond matters of the Z-F adapter, the short register set in the Z mount dimensions will restrict use of new Z-Nikkors on other mounts - i.e. to adapt to rival ML Mounts." https://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/61445441

So we wait for 23rd August. But , I'm confident those of us with decades of investment in the best of the classic and current F-Mount Nikon-Fit glass need not lose sleep on compatibility with the forthcoming Nikon mirrorless....Nikon, itself, cannot afford to antagonize its clients

here's that schematic comparing relevant lens mounts, with possible Z-Mount

[Erik Lund]

I completely agree - I'm just giving a heads up that you will need huge lenses for there to be any advantage.
Edit to add, I don't see why VR in the body, IBIS would require a larger diameter mount.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

I completely agree - I'm just giving a heads up that you will need huge lenses for there to be any advantage.

The rear part of the lens will be wider but the short flange distance may permit an otherwise simpler optical construction and that could lead to a smaller overall size of the lens (wide angles mainly).
There have been patents for a new 35/1.2 and 50/0.9 the latter of which is very large.

Yes, the market will be small. But the rumored lenses included 24-70/4 which would seem more mainstream.

Edit to add, I don't see why VR in the body, IBIS would require a larger diameter mount.

Edit: Ah, now I see I misunderstood your point.

IBIS at least theoretically would require a larger circle of coverage from the lens so that when the sensor is moved, the lens can still produce a full image without cropping. A larger mount may make it easier to achieve a larger image circle. However, I don't know how large the range of movement in IBIS is.

IBIS is said to be effective against rotation of the camera  (i.e. when pressing the shutter button, the camera tends to rotate a bit around the optical axis) so it's more flexible than the X- and Y-compensation of conventional stabilization systems. Also it would permit stabilization with lenses that don't support it in the lens. People seem to be very happy with the latest generations of IBIS.

I think IBIS has the disadvantage that transfer of heat from the sensor to the body and out of it would be more difficult than when the sensor is fixed to the body. This is seen when doing long exposures at night, there are reports of increasing noise with IBIS cameras compared to those where there is no sensor stabilization. Apart from long exposures, this may show up in extended video use.

I think there are pros and cons to both sensor and lens based stabilization. Lens based VR is said to adversely affect bokeh, though I must say I haven't seen this effect myself. Also the VR system may break in which case it is a trip to service. My 70-200/4 came with faulty VR unit out of the box; Nikon repaired it under warranty. There was a rattle which I noticed immediately when starting to use the lens, but the lens did work, only in cold temperatures did the VR actually malfunction. Service found faulty VR system as source of the rattle and replaced almost everything in the lens.

Stabilization is not critical to my use but it is occasionally of value. I don't generally base purchase decisions around the presence of or absence of stabilization because I feel that a lens or camera without it may be more durable, but sometimes the technology does have practical benefits.