Thread Rating:
  • 0 Vote(s) - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
Rumours about Canon mirrorless...
#21
A longer registration of SLR mount only affects short focal length lenses, less than 50mm or thereabouts. Longer focal length lenses will be shorter since some of the distance will be consumed by the body. And the difference between say micro4/3 and EF is less than 25mm.


I'm not sure legacy mounting or mount adapting is terribly important for the vast majority of people. In most cases, wouldn't it be better to have a native lens for the job?


SLR lenses not working optimally with mirrorless is going to be a problem regardless of the registration distance so I don't see it as an argument either way. Adapters are not an ideal solution either. You retain all mount conversion problems and add a new one in the form of reduced mechanical stability. It is not a premium solution.


A new lens line for a dedicated mirrorless mount, that'll end well. No other company that has tried this has managed to do this quickly. It will cost significant time and money to do, I'd argue Nikon has neither of these to spare. If you're going to make everyone switch to a new mount, there doesn't have as much tie in, and if you're going new system competitor ones will be a viable option also.


In an ideal world, for an optimal experience, you need a new system from ground up. Sony, micro4/3 and Fuji have done this, mainly as they had little to nothing to lose on the DSLR side. I don't see Nikon being in that position. They have everything to lose if they do a mount transition wrong. Pentax is a bad example to draw on. They're in a bad place financially and will be limited in their ability to do anything.


I'm not saying Nikon going DSLR mount mirrorless is a good option, but only that it may be the least worst of their options. Ignoring CX, they're the last major player to show their hand in bigger sensor mirrorless. If they're going to have a go at all, they probably should skip the crowded APS-C market and take Sony head on with full frame. I'd like to see CX revived as a low cost solution it should have been from the start.

<a class="bbc_url" href="http://snowporing.deviantart.com/">dA</a> Canon 7D2, 7D, 5D2, 600D, 450D, 300D IR modified, 1D, EF-S 10-18, 15-85, EF 35/2, 85/1.8, 135/2, 70-300L, 100-400L, MP-E65, Zeiss 2/50, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300/2.8, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Olympus E-P1, Panasonic 20/1.7, Sony HX9V, Fuji X100.
#22
Nikon is not forced to make a mount to put on all other non-Nikon lenses.


Small, elegant and well to handle? I tried a couple of mirrorless, but is either that OR the other, not all in one package. No matter what, i expect Nikon to be the last guest on ML party.
#23
Popo wrote;

   "SLR lenses not working optimally with mirror-less is going to be a problem regardless of the registration distance so I don't see it as an argument either way. Adapters are not an ideal solution either. You retain all mount conversion problems and add a new one in the form of reduced mechanical stability. It is not a premium solution."

  

Wrong, IMO! 

 

 

 A "Nikon" adapter  mounting a Nikon F mount to the new Nikon ML mount would have absolutely no reason not to function as well as it would on an F mount DSLR. 

There is no reverse engineering going on there, it's just a question of electric contacts and if necessary the screw-drive through shaft.(if it were to be retained)

 The mechanical situation would be no different from that of say a tele-converter or an extension tube, only it's AF would not be optimum, the new ML mount however would be.

 

 

It seems that folk are bundling together third party reverse engineered adapters with ones that OEMs "could" make for their own lenses and preconceiving ideas that any adapter can only produce reduced performance! 

 

  So existing mounts can be perfectly converted to new shorter ML mounts and this is what should be brought to the party, "crippling" a new ML system with a less well adapted existing mount will turn the party into a probable funeral!

 

Nikon/Canon would not however make adapters out side their own produced lenses so the miseries of poor third party adapters could still remain, but that's another improving situation.

Dave's clichés
#24
Popo is right. An adapter does add instability, as it is one mechanical connection adding tolerances. Meaning, with heavy glass in front of the adapter, wou will have to say Goodbye to centerring. The lenses usually are pulled towards the mount by springs. Adding one set more will have an impact, trust us, dave.
#25
Quote:Popo is right. An adapter does add instability, as it is one mechanical connection adding tolerances. Meaning, with heavy glass in front of the adapter, you will have to say Goodbye to centering. The lenses usually are pulled towards the mount by springs. Adding one set more will have an impact, trust us, dave.
    

 

 

  I'm going to talk basic engineering here! 

 

        I am not talking about TPM adapters in this (my) Nikon reference to this thread, I'm talking about an OEM adapter made by "Nikon" especially to adapt the F mount to a new Nikon ML mount.

<p style="font-size:14px;">   

<p style="font-size:14px;">    

<p style="font-size:14px;">  The Nikon TC14E II tele-converter is well constructed on a metal body,  there is a sense of precision when mounting to say the 500mm F4, all 4.2 Kgs of it! ..........so Nikon know how to make a good tele/extension tube. 

<p style="font-size:14px;"> 

<p style="font-size:14px;">  The lenses usually are pulled towards the mount by springs.  

<p style="font-size:14px;">  

<p style="font-size:14px;"> 

<p style="font-size:14px;">   

      ​Errr no!  A well fitting pair of bayonets have no play, the male's lugs locate behind the female's when turning and locking the lens, they are mechanically "locked" together!

<p style="font-size:14px;">   With a good metal bayonet (chromed brass), the springs are there "to provide an even resistance when mounting the lens, they "do not support the lens at all" only the lugs do!    except on cheap crappy Chinese ones!

<p style="font-size:14px;">  So it's all a question of quality manufacture, if done well, you keep solidity and alignment (centering).......if you can make a Rolex?   n'est pas JoJu?  Tongue 

<p style="font-size:14px;"> 

<p style="font-size:14px;">  The Meike extension tubes I bought are cheap and poorly constructed, their contacts did not line up and the body contacts and the aperture lever wasn't free  etc....I have fixed two of them and need a miniature resistor for the third*..

<p style="font-size:14px;"> 

<p style="font-size:14px;">BTW..... The Meike female aluminum bayonet is not a complete aluminum bayonet, it has plastic lugs, part of the plastic body, it's Achilles heel...... No buy!  :o 

<p style="font-size:14px;">   

<p style="font-size:14px;">    Bearing in mind this blog is about "whether Nikon should continue with a new ML mount or stay with it's F mount for ML"......, (kinda big important decision for Nikon no?)

<p style="font-size:14px;"> 

<p style="font-size:14px;">  So here the adapter would be a "bridge in time"crossing the existing Nikon F lenses to cover the new short registration ML lenses that would be coming out,.....  as time passes the ML lenses would dominate without an adapter!

<p style="font-size:14px;"> 

<p style="font-size:14px;">  Unless some here think that the F mount should remain on ML?

Dave's clichés
#26
Adaptera are NOT an issue, generally. They have worked well for decades. The extenders/teleconverters always have been used with heavy tele lenses too. The Canon macro extender for the 50mm f2.5 macro also works just fine without "centering issues" The Canon FD to EOS adapter for longer tele lenses also does what it is supposed to do. The Canon EOS to Ef-M adapter, no complaints either. The different Sony A-mount to E-mount adapters, same story.

 

The many stories I read about adapting EOS lenses to E-mount, either with optics for APS-C only, or without. None talk about such issues.

 

Then there are the many 3rd party adapters that work just fine without problems. 

 

If an adapter would introduce a big tilt (none does...), you would get a tilted focus plane, not a centering issue.

#27
I cannot make a Rolex and I haven't seen a Rolex with an adapter to change small hands to big ones. But I own a Nikon converter which has some play

 

I also don not believe in big differences of ML to SLR lenses these days, as soon as the focal length surpasses the mount distance. It's a different story with wide-angles and it's also a different story if the protection glass in front of the sensor gets thicker. I agree it's an important decision for Nikon, but if they decide to change the mount, they will be more far behind than they already are.

 

Not to speak of the handling when you change lenses and have both mount versions, but only one ("super-expensive" will be the normal description for it) adapter. you will just need as long as you need to put a converter or distance ring in between.

 

If they go FF, size or weight advantage will melt away. But an important argument for the solution you have in mind is the easier construction of wide-angles. So let's see what they come up with.

 

Besides a well made bayonet only has no play if the flanges if the bayonet's "wings" (don't know how to name the three segments differently) are not parallel but conical and act like a screw o tighten. Nikon's bayonet is one of the parallel types and needs the springs. If it would be different I could not wobble the lens up and down. 

#28
Quote:Adapters are NOT an issue, generally. They have worked well for decades. The extenders/teleconverters always have been used with heavy tele lenses too. The Canon macro extender for the 50mm f2.5 macro also works just fine without "centering issues" The Canon FD to EOS adapter for longer tele lenses also does what it is supposed to do. The Canon EOS to Ef-M adapter, no complaints either. The different Sony A-mount to E-mount adapters, same story.

 

The many stories I read about adapting EOS lenses to E-mount, either with optics for APS-C only, or without. None talk about such issues.

 

Then there are the many 3rd party adapters that work just fine without problems. 

 

If an adapter would introduce a big tilt (none does...), you would get a tilted focus plane, not a centering issue.
Agreed then BC!   

 

   Just one thing isn't de-centering a tilted frame, double elements poorly aligned/ poorly mounted?
Dave's clichés
#29
Quote:I cannot make a Rolex and I haven't seen a Rolex with an adapter to change small hands to big ones. But I own a Nikon converter which has some play

 

I also do not believe in big differences of ML to SLR lenses these days, as soon as the focal length surpasses the mount distance. It's a different story with wide-angles and it's also a different story if the protection glass in front of the sensor gets thicker. I agree it's an important decision for Nikon, but if they decide to change the mount, they will be more far behind than they already are.

 

Not to speak of the handling when you change lenses and have both mount versions, but only one ("super-expensive" will be the normal description for it) adapter. you will just need as long as you need to put a converter or distance ring in between.

 

If they go FF, size or weight advantage will melt away. But an important argument for the solution you have in mind is the easier construction of wide-angles. So let's see what they come up with.

 

Besides a well made bayonet only has no play if the flanges if the bayonet's "wings" (don't know how to name the three segments differently) are not parallel but conical and act like a screw o tighten. Nikon's bayonet is one of the parallel types and needs the springs. If it would be different I could not wobble the lens up and down. 
 As I wrote JoJu, your wings are called "lugs".  As for parallel lugs, I've just been studying the mount lugs, unfortunately I cannot gain good access to the lugs to accurately measure them, they look parallel to my poor eyes.

   Theoretically they should be parallel, any angle to the lugs would introduce wear and would have to be perfectly "indexed" to the mounts locking pin, bringing more problems to the table, as far as I can see my Nikon TC does not have play, even half rotated on to the mount, but I wouldn't bet my life on it........(I would however bet yours)  Rolleyes

 

  Suffice to say that apart from your worn/defective Nikon converter JoJu   Sad ..........  the majority of quality adapter/converter/extension tube owners are in bathing in the "shear glory" that their adapters etc. are giving their photography a new lease of life to their otherwise redundant glass!  Tongue

Dave's clichés
#30
Again, I could start to defend my positions, but actually there's nothing to defend. If one does not have the insight to see the mechanical tolerance problems of a just mounted, but never adjusted converter, adapter, distance ring - fine. At the same time I say, only few lenses are sensitive to tolerances coming from the adapters - and all of them, be it Nikon or others, WILL have tolerances.

 

These few lenses are wide angles with larger apertures than f/2.8. There are not many of these around. But with them, tilting has the same effect like decentering in one direction only. Two parts of the picture are blurred which would otherwise be theoretically sharp (normal lens flaws adding to that problem). One can ask "oh yes, maybe, but then when are you doing reproductions of flat things with wide open  aperture?" Adapter or not, a part of the picture will still be as sharp as the lens delivers. Here the discussion becomes academic = meaningless for practical use.

 

You two, BC as you, dave, underestimate very much the impact of higher resolving sensors which show these flaws just a bit better. And if you add (what you don't because I don't think anyone of you has) fast wide-angles the problems to AF these glass.

 

Academic again, because one who needs fast glass for desperate light situations will usually not put a HR sensor behind it. And I can't say, it's speeding things up to have only CDAF in such light situations

 

The handling problem remains, though. Not only change lenses but sometimes also genuine lenses with adapted. Two more planes have to be perfectly parallel, two more sets of electrical contacts need to work all time flawless, to just not add more problems. However, it's said the Sigma Adapter on Sony adapts certain Sigma lenses very well.

 

I said, I "could start to defend positions" - to be honest, I will make my position about an eventually upcoming Nikon mirrorless system camera for larger sensors (than they already did with their now discontinued "1" series) after it happens. They first have to solve the same problems like all other ML manufacturers had and come up with a better system. I think Canon can do better here than Nikon.

 

The 1 was everything in terms of light and small size. I just wonder why those of us claiming a mirrorless system has to be small and light, were not running for that system, Studor13 being an exception but he never insisted on these features. "yes, but the sensor was too small!" - alright, go bigger with the sensor, but stop implying the lenses have to remain small - just look over at Sony's bricks.

 

I think, Nikon made their biggest mistake with the 1 system not to offer more tryout-events. Most of us remained sceptical as the sizes are small, the prices not necessarily.

  


Forum Jump:


Users browsing this thread:
4 Guest(s)