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. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#1
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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
|
|||
|
|||
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 | |
|
|
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 01:24 PM |
What exactly is the "flange distance" on an SLR camera lens? | Richard J Kinch | Digital Photography | 60 | March 5th 07 11:55 PM |
Can you go lens... then Circular Polarizer Fitler... then "Petal" type hood? | Ryan Bygland | Digital Photography | 14 | January 14th 07 09:32 PM |
Diopters and "apparent focusing distance" | Little John | Digital Photography | 3 | June 5th 06 10:14 PM |