Nikon Z6/7 mirrorless system

[Frank Fremerey]

Apparently the "dummies approach" worked ... Nice product shot.

Not sure about the idea of putting a TC into the FTZ. You would upset the optical design of a lot of candidate lenses for the TC plus likely getting an issue with register distance. That is, unless the length of that particular FTZ is adjusted to bring the geometry correct and one actually ends up more or less with the same layout as shown in your picture.

it is obviously stacked...

[Eddie Draaisma]

The empty space in the FTZ could be filled with additional elements for a potentially even better TC, it doesn't have to become shorter in length. The setup as shown is easy to use with patience, in times without that I prefer a single piece solution.

[Birna Rørslett]

The empty space in the FTZ could be filled with additional elements for a potentially even better TC, it doesn't have to become shorter in length.  ---

The F-mount lenses are designed for a given register distance. Putting glass into an FTZ would wreak havoc on that.

[Jack Dahlgren]

The F-mount lenses are designed for a given register distance. Putting glass into an FTZ would wreak havoc on that.

The existing teleconverters change register distance and have glass in them as well (without it they are merely extension tubes) so they are already wreaking havoc. If we don’t limit ourselves to strict adherence to the FTZ, it certainly would be possible to create a one piece TC which fits between an F lens and Z body. Call it the FTCZ. Because of the additional space available with Z mount, it may be possible that it would perform better than current teleconverters.

[Birna Rørslett]

The TC's of today all have the usual 46.5mm register distance of the F mount.

[Jack Dahlgren]

The TC's of today all have the usual 46.5mm register distance of the F mount.

This is because they have to! Other brands have teleconverters with different register distance so clearly that distance is not a magic number. Nikon could take existing designs and integrate a spacer the length of FTZ, or there may be an optical/cost/size advantage to designing one which does not require the extra distance.

The dumb approach of integrating a spacer removes one pair of mounts and contacts which means better weatherproofing, increased electrical reliability and better mechanical stability, and requires mechanical design only (no optical change). A more comprehensive optical redesign could achieve all that while also potentially decreasing size or improving optical quality.

[Birna Rørslett]

I don't expect Nikon to do this feat. All TCs for F-mount do have the same register distance whether they are Nikon-made or not.

Of course Nikon can recompute existing designs, or make new ones, but I have a feeling their main thrust for native lenses of the Z range is on shorter focal lengths. Long lenses are very expensive and making a dedicated lens of this class for the Z system is not economic before the Z itself is a major player in their line-up.

[Jack Dahlgren]

I don't expect Nikon to do this feat. All TCs for F-mount do have the same register distance whether they are Nikon-made or not.

Of course Nikon can recompute existing designs, or make new ones, but I have a feeling their main thrust for native lenses of the Z range is on shorter focal lengths. Long lenses are very expensive and making a dedicated lens of this class for the Z system is not economic before the Z itself is a major player in their line-up.

Yes, it is all dependent on how prevalent Z system becomes. Also, seems the trend in teleconverters may be to build it into the lens itself.

I’m only continuing as it seems you are missing a point I’m trying to make. Nikon F mount and Nikon compatible TCs must have the same register distance, therefore they all have it. But Canon TCs have a different register distance as do other brands. The register distance is a design constraint. The point is that Nikon could easily extend the rear flange of existing TCs and add Z type mount with just a bit of mechanical engineering, allowing long lens design to stay the same for both F and Z mount. No recomputing necessary.

[Birna Rørslett]

So, to what end? One particular lens would have to be made in two separate versions any way. At present the F system is the default, so one adds the ~30mm spacer required for F>Z. Were the opposite scenario manifested, the native Z version would require an internal spacer of the same magnitude to be able to be used on F and still one would have to remove a section of the lens.

That different camera systems and their lenses are designed with different register distances is a moot point here.

[Jack Dahlgren]

So, to what end? One particular lens would have to be made in two separate versions any way. At present the F system is the default, so one adds the ~30mm spacer required for F>Z. Were the opposite scenario manifested, the native Z version would require an internal spacer of the same magnitude to be able to be used on F and still one would have to remove a section of the lens.

That different camera systems and their lenses are designed with different register distances is a moot point here.

I’m only talking about a teleconverter for Z cameras to use F telephotos. Lenses stay the same. Removes the FTZ from the chain.

[Birna Rørslett]

We'll see in a few years' time. A lens cannot be optimised equally well for both systems is my hunch. But I've been proven wrong before.

[Birna Rørslett]

The Z6 is the "high ISO" champion in the Z range -- so far.

A quick demonstration of how it handles 50K ISO (51200), 80K ISO(eq.), 100K ISO(eq.) and finally 200K ISO(eq.). The 50K ISO (51200) rating is the upper end of the factory calibrated ISO settings, the remainder correspond to Hi0.7, Hi1, and H2, respectively.

All with the 50/1.8S on the Z6 a dark, cold winter night. Hand-held, f/9, and shutter speeds starting around 1/60 sec. NEFs run through Photo Ninja at flat settings expect for the noise reduction, that was set to 'moderate'. Downscaled and converted to sRGB before posting here.

My impression is that one can, given conducive situations, get a lot out of the camera even at these elevated ISO equivalents.

[Bent Hjarbo]

Impressive 

[Birna Rørslett]

The frames captured with the 50/1.8S can be compared to the one below, taken with the very flat 15mm f/4.5 Voigtländer Heliar at 24K ISO (25600) on the Z6. Same vantage point and processing as before.

[John Geerts]

That looks very impressive.