A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

Why do people confuse "mount type" with flange distance?



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #1  
Old January 14th 18, 03:17 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,543
Default Why do people confuse "mount type" with flange distance?

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

  #2  
Old January 14th 18, 05:57 AM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,543
Default Why do people confuse "mount type" with flange distance?

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?

Even the rear exit lens on a fast 50mm (f/1.2) isn't wide enough
on a close-flange FF to require a wider mount than Nikon already has.


So, no problem then.

--

Regards,
Savageduck

  #3  
Old January 14th 18, 09:19 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 15,543
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

  #4  
Old January 14th 18, 09:51 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
android
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 3,854
Default Why do people confuse "mount type" with flange distance?

On 2018-01-14 21:19:15 +0000, Savageduck said:

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.


The link below is kinda informative. The mount diameter of the Sony FE,
Nikon F and Canon EF-M is about the same. The EOS plain is a bit wider.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flange_focal_distance
--
teleportation kills

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
"Corset-Boi" Bob "Lionel Lauer" Larter has grown a "pair" and returned to AUK................ \The Great One\ Digital Photography 0 July 14th 09 12:04 AM
"Can't determine type" error message Slez via PhotoKB.com Digital Photography 0 March 11th 08 12:24 PM
What exactly is the "flange distance" on an SLR camera lens? Richard J Kinch Digital Photography 60 March 5th 07 10:55 PM
Can you go lens... then Circular Polarizer Fitler... then "Petal" type hood? Ryan Bygland Digital Photography 14 January 14th 07 08:32 PM
Diopters and "apparent focusing distance" Little John Digital Photography 3 June 5th 06 10:14 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 04:29 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright 2004-2018 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.