View Single Post
  #3  
Old January 14th 18, 10:19 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default Why do people confuse "mount type" with flange distance?

On Jan 14, 2018, RichA wrote
(in ):

On Sunday, 14 January 2018 00:57:54 UTC-5, Savageduck wrote:
On Jan 13, 2018, RichA wrote
(in ):

On Saturday, 13 January 2018 22:17:59 UTC-5, Savageduck wrote:
On Jan 13, 2018, RichA wrote
(in ):

"Nikon can't use the F mount for a mirrorless! It's too deep!" WTF has
the
chrome-plated RING on the camera body where the lens bayonets in got to
do
with the FLANGE distance? If Nikon is designing a "Z" mount, there are
other
reasons for it. The bayonet they have now could easily be used. Still, if
they build a "Z" mount (it's rumor now) I'm sure they'll have adapters
for
F
lenses since legacy lenses are all that is keeping Nikon afloat.

DSLR lenses regardless of manufacturer will always have to take the mirror
chamber into account, so Nikkor F lenses will not have a flange distance
optimized for a mirrorless with an F mount. If Nikon intends to make their
proposed MILC, F lens compatible they will be discarding one of the
advantages of MILCs, the ability to design a more compact MILC without the
space taken up by a mirror chamber.

If this Nikon MILC is going to be successful, it should be provided with a
dedicated mirrorless “M”, or “Z” mount and lenses designed, and
optimized for that mount. Then as you suggested, they should have an
“F-M” adaptor to accomodate the legacy Nikkor glass. The adaptor would
accomodate the flange distance differential, in much the same they do for
the
other MILC adaptors such as the F-X adaptor I use.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

My point really was that the bayonet, which is the lens mount, has nothing
do
with flange distance, it's just a ring of metal.


Correct.

The camera body determines the flange distance.


The whole design concept determines the flange distance, the camera body is
part of that.

IMO, if they do change the bayonet type, it'll be to add
more contacts which has been done by other brands when bringing out
mirrorless, for additional functionality.


That is your opinion, but what addional functionality are you refering to?

Technically, a mirrorless mount
"could" possibly be narrower as it is closer to the sensor, provided the
original mount (and Nikon has been criticized for this) wasn't narrow to
begin with.


...and where did this criticism of Nikon with regard to width of their mount
come from?


No idea where or how it started, but it pertained to extremely fast lenses
and comparisons with Canon's EOS mount.


Then WTF are you concerned about? This has nothing to do with a Canon-Nikon
mount comparison. This is about speculation with what Nikon is going to do,
or might have done with its proposed MILC, and its mount.

--

Regards,
Savageduck