Arrival of Nikon mirrorless (finally!)

[Ilkka Nissilä]

I would prefer to have mechanical connection between the focus ring and the focus group in the lens, because in focus-by-wire systems there can sometimes be slight delays which make the manual focusing experience less precise and less predictable. A well-implemented MF mechanism is excellent but a poorly implemented one may be worse than electrical adjustment of focus.

[Erik Lund]

There is a uni-directional coupling between the focus ring and the focus lens group. Turn the focus ring and the focus lensgroup will move. But the other way around, move the focus lens group through the AF motor and the focus ring will NOT move.This uni-directional coupling works in off mode, so it is “mechanical”. I call it a “clutch”, feel free to give it a better name...

Obviously we don't share the same terminology for "mechanical" 


I just don't hope the new native Nikkor lenses will be focus by wire! I believe the fully electronic design of AFS Nikkor lense with SWM ring motors are at the peak of performance possible currently, state of the art speed and precision.


I'm not so fond about the gearbox design with SWM motor, but they work adequately for the short focal length AFS f/1.4 series,,,

[Frank Fremerey]

Yes. Focus by wire is a badly defined tool

[longzoom]

On very last Nikon teaser: 4 bolts only to tight way wider mount to the body. Is it enough to keep it firmly? To carry old day long heavy 200-400 or such, with adapter? When it started "play"?  Look at last Sony: 6 bolts, for the reason, of course, to prevent body deformation.  Yeap, it making me alert. LZ

[Ilkka Nissilä]

On very last Nikon teaser: 4 bolts only to tight way wider mount to the body. Is it enough to keep it firmly? To carry old day long heavy 200-400 or such, with adapter? When it started "play"?  Look at last Sony: 6 bolts, for the reason, of course, to prevent body deformation.  Yeap, it making me alert. LZ

Well you're never supposed to carry such a lens from the body. It's stated in the lens manual. Always, when lifting the lens + camera, you support the lens.

[longzoom]

Well you're never supposed to carry such a lens from the body. It's stated in the lens manual. Always, when lifting the lens + camera, you support the lens.

Manual, theory and reality are not the same. Even my much lighter 80-400, with adapter, will create, sometimes, very heavy turning moment for the new smaller body. 4 bolts is not enough for way lighter body.

[Erik Lund]

It depends on how thick the mount ring itself is how many screws are needed and how large they need be and also the chassis material, thread type etc.


Edit to add:


Here the warning about D810 about the chassis material, or lack of it,,,
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,3633.0.html

[longzoom]

It depends on how thick the mount ring itself is how many screws are needed and how large they need be and also the chassis material, thread type etc.


Edit to add:


Here the warning about D810 about the chassis material, or lack of it,,,
http://nikongear.net/revival/index.php/topic,3633.0.html

    Of course, but sources stay that the new body is way lighter. Better say now then be sorry later. Will see. LZ

[Ilkka Nissilä]

Manual, theory and reality are not the same. Even my much lighter 80-400, with adapter, will create, sometimes, very heavy turning moment for the new smaller body. 4 bolts is not enough for way lighter body.

Well, if the user doesn't follow the instructions in the manual any breaking of the equipment is then the user's fault and not Nikon's. IMO lifting a heavy lens from the body is just asking for trouble.

With a small body, I don't think it would even be possible in practice to hold a 80-400 pointing forward and composing a subject without holding the lens. I don't see why this would be an issue since normal usage necessitates supporting the lens.

A wider mount means there is less force applied to the screw from gravity applied on the lens if the lens is pointed at a direction normal to the direction of gravity. I.e. if you point it forwards the momentum from the lens applies a smaller force on an individual screw in a wide mount than a narrow mount. So the situation should be a bit easier on a wide mount than on a narrow mount such as the F mount. If you hang the lens downwards from the camera then in that case the force would be the same (irrespective of the diameter of the mount), but the weight of the adapter would be added to the weight of the lens, of course.

The 80-400 + an adapter could get to the weight range where damage could occur, or not. I think probably Nikon will give some warnings about it if they regard it appropriate.

Both the F and EF mounts have four screws.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

    Of course, but sources stay that the new body is way lighter.

That may be but taking out the pentaprism, AF motor, mirror mechanism etc. from the body will reduce the weight of the body considerably already. I would expect that if Nikon make a high end mirrorless body, it will have a metal interior chassis (though probably not very thick).

I believe the composite mirror box was used because it maintains calibration better (when metal is deformed, it stays deformed) and this led to the ability to make more accurate AF while maintaining light weight. However, the threads in that material were not very durable, it seems, so it was abandoned in the D850.

Of all the camera bodies I've owned in the 2007- era, the D810 required the least AF fine tuning. Both the D5 and D850 require more (in terms of average adjustment as well as variability between lenses).

A mirrorless body doesn't need fine tuning or AF calibration so they might as well use lightweight metal to minimize the chance of threads coming off upon impact.

[JohnBrew]

After my D810 returned from the dreaded "impact damage" repair, it required zero AF adjustments. Hopefully we will see lens coupling to an all metal body with the new mirrorless.

[chambeshi]

From the enlarged frontal image captured in today’s Nikon teaser, I get a correction ratio of 1.7 for Overall Width of Flash Hotshoe Mount (21.1mm in my Df, D500 and D850), and I also calculated a correction ratio of 1.7 for Greatest Width of the Mirrorless Grip (42.5 and 43 in my D500 and D850, respectively). This is measuring across the mount, grip and flash mount of the Nikon image with dial calipers to closest 0.1mm, and outer extent of this ML camera with a steel rule to 1mm.

I estimate the Overall Width = 149mm and Total Height = 114mm of this Nikon mirrorless. Total Grip Height = approx. 91mm: compared to 95mm and 98mm in my D500 and D850, respectively. Outer-Most Width of Z-Mount = 72mm, Throat = 62mm. 59mm across inside of the Bayonet Lugs..... So width close to D500 and width of D750.

Assuming measuring error of the Hotshoe is 1mm wider - then corresponding change= 70.7; 60; 57.5. Conversely, if we try use the the Gap between Flash-lugs of 12.4mm = Correction Ratio of 1.81. Then Overall Width = 140mm and Total Height = 107mm. Total Grip Height = approx. 86mm: compared to 95mm and 98mm in my D500 and D850, respectively. And CR of 1.81 estimates Outer-Most Diameter of Z-Mount = 68mm, Throat Diameter = 58mm. 55mm across Bayonet Lugs.

Given the errors or parallax and resolution etc entailed estimating these stats off a glimpsed image of this new camera, this Z-Mount is indeed large.... Note that a smaller (DX equivalent) MF sensor of 44x33 has a diagonal of 55mm.

[gryphon1911]

From the enlarged frontal image captured in today’s Nikon teaser, I get a correction ratio of 1.7 for Overall Width of Flash Hotshoe Mount (21.1mm in my Df, D500 and D850), and I also calculated a correction ratio of 1.7 for Greatest Width of the Mirrorless Grip (42.5 and 43 in my D500 and D850, respectively). This is measuring across the mount, grip and flash mount of the Nikon image with dial calipers to closest 0.1mm, and outer extent of this ML camera with a steel rule to 1mm.

I estimate the Overall Width = 149mm and Total Height = 114mm of this Nikon mirrorless. Total Grip Height = approx. 91mm: compared to 95mm and 98mm in my D500 and D850, respectively. Outer-Most Width of Z-Mount = 72mm, Throat = 62mm. 59mm across inside of the Bayonet Lugs..... So width close to D500 and width of D750.

Assuming measuring error of the Hotshoe is 1mm wider - then corresponding change= 70.7; 60; 57.5. Conversely, if we try use the the Gap between Flash-lugs of 12.4mm = Correction Ratio of 1.81. Then Overall Width = 140mm and Total Height = 107mm. Total Grip Height = approx. 86mm: compared to 95mm and 98mm in my D500 and D850, respectively. And CR of 1.81 estimates Outer-Most Diameter of Z-Mount = 68mm, Throat Diameter = 58mm. 55mm across Bayonet Lugs.

That's a lot of numbers!   

Given the errors or parallax and resolution etc entailed estimating these stats off a glimpsed image of this new camera, this Z-Mount is indeed large.... Note that a smaller (DX equivalent) MF sensor of 44x33 has a diagonal of 55mm.

[longzoom]

That may be but taking out the pentaprism, AF motor, mirror mechanism etc. from the body will reduce the weight of the body considerably already. I would expect that if Nikon make a high end mirrorless body, it will have a metal interior chassis (though probably not very thick).

I believe the composite mirror box was used because it maintains calibration better (when metal is deformed, it stays deformed) and this led to the ability to make more accurate AF while maintaining light weight. However, the threads in that material were not very durable, it seems, so it was abandoned in the D850.

Of all the camera bodies I've owned in the 2007- era, the D810 required the least AF fine tuning. Both the D5 and D850 require more (in terms of average adjustment as well as variability between lenses).

A mirrorless body doesn't need fine tuning or AF calibration so they might as well use lightweight metal to minimize the chance of threads coming off upon impact.

We will see. If there in a new ML body is the reinforcing 4-threaded ring inside back of the outer mount, we may consider it very reliable. Hope so.  THX!  LZ

[chambeshi]

We will see. If there in a new ML body is the reinforcing 4-threaded ring inside back of the outer mount, we may consider it very reliable. Hope so.  THX!  LZ

Yes. For we are only privy to glimpses of a complex instrument. Nikon engineers will not have missed something so elementary, that weakens their lens mount set for their 2nd century