Industry News: Nikon Announces Development of Next Generation Full-Frame Mirrorless Camera and Nikko

[Aglet]

Re: Industry News: Nikon Announces Development of Next Generation Full-Frame Mirrorless Camera and N

Either way, I’ve not seen any significant problems from poor parallelism tolerance; it’s an easy configuration.

Perhaps you haven't, but have you actually looked? Uncle Rog has, and his conclusion was:

[quote author=Roger Cicala @ lensrentals.com]
I won’t bore you with another 20 graphs that look pretty much like these. We tried Leica to NEX and Leica to Micro 4/3 adapters, Canon to NEX, etc. We tried different lenses on one adapter. It didn’t really matter. None of them would be acceptable for testing. Not one.

...

In the examples above, though, center resolution is pretty much unchanged, it’s only when you get away from center that you start to see issues. So someone shooting portraits and centered subjects is unlikely to notice an issue. A landscape photographer, though, would likely see some problems along the edges of the image.

Putting a great lens on your camera via an adapter might still be better than an average native-mount lens. On the other hand, that great lens certainly wouldn’t be as good as it would be on its native-mount camera.

Read the article here:
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/09/there-is-no-free-lunch-episode-763-lens-adapters/


AvTvM, I'd advise against clicking that link...you'll find Data on the other side of it, and I know that's anathema to you. You just go on ignoring facts and believing that an adapter is the best solution for a Canon FF MILC, that it won't cause any optical problems at all. Enjoy your free lunch. :

To be clear, I didn’t see any significant problems - in my own use. I did not compare adapted to non-adapted, nor collect laboratory data, much less set up test equipment using one. Rather I shot tens of thousands of images with adapted glass and a sole sample adapter, with acceptable results.

Similarly I’ve shot tens of thousands of images with what some lab testing would consider poor dynamic range, also with acceptable results.

I obviously accept that mounting a lens off-parallel will manifest in image degradation (increasing as the angle between grows), and maybe a large sample of adapters from a third party, poorly funded operation demonstrates a trend... about that poorly funded operation. But if nikon can make a camera and lens combination, I have confidence they can make a camera, lens, and adapter combination. Canon too. Sure it adds tolerance contributions, but it’s simple geometry, and the OEM is likely to do it well since they’d have nobody to point fingers at. 2-4 more interfaces isn’t all that many in the context of a camera and lens combination, where you may have 12 elements in the lens alone, the mount to lens, mount to body, body to sensor assembly, sensor assembly to semiconductor, etc.
[/quote]

I didn't go back to read the LR blog on that topic but maybe it's that off-center image degradation with adapted lenses has more to do with differences in filter-stack refraction affecting off-center focus than mechanical misalignment.

Variation in the total amount of glass different Mfrs use in their filter stacks is considerable.

You can sometimes see this in the different edge performance of different camera brands when used with the same model of 3rd-party lenses too.

Didn't early Speedbooster adapters have an issue with this too until they redesigned their optics to compensate for the filter stack on the host body?

Old film-era glass adapted to a digicam with a filter stack is also likely to have some degraded off center performance too. How much these effects occur probably depends on how close the rear lens element is to the sensor and the incident light angles.

So that's the optics.

As far as the mechanics go for making an F-mount to MILC adapter, it's not a big deal to make a tiny motor drive to turn those mechanical AF lenses and Nikon could probably come up with a clever way to drive the aperture lever too, if they want to.

Pellicle mirror in the adapter?..
Why even bother? It's likely more for the sake of a patent.
Why not just drive the lens focus using the same OOF data the sensor would obtain from a native lens? it may be a bit slower but it will still work. CDAF works well enough for non-action shooting. We may not get AF-P speeds out of adapted lenses but.. we never had that speed from them in their native mode anyway.

A well designed and precision mfd F to Z(?) adapter could work just fine.

Intro pricing of the system...
THAT is important.

 

[3kramd5]

Re: Industry News: Nikon Announces Development of Next Generation Full-Frame Mirrorless Camera and N

I didn't go back to read the LR blog on that topic but maybe it's that off-center image degradation with adapted lenses has more to do with differences in filter-stack refraction affecting off-center focus than mechanical misalignment.

The blog is about using adapters to mount lenses to their optical bench, not cameras. I don’t know when they started simulating filter stacks with optical glass. Maybe it was after this was published.

 

[fullstop]

Re: Industry News: Nikon Announces Development of Next Generation Full-Frame Mirrorless Camera and N

i know the lensrentals article. always like rogers writeups, enjoy his style and respect his approach and data.

but ... in this test he only tested cross-brand mount adapters ... without identifying specific brands! i guess it was mainly metabones (whom i generally do not trust very much) and similar China-stuff. and it was for different makers, different systems mounts which physically/geometrically may have been quite different ... leica to Sony adapters etc. ... making it more difficult to achieve perfectly matching "mechanical/geometrical coupling" .

i would like to see that test done today with original Canon EF-M/EF adapter and some canon EF wide angle lenses. with a good number of lenses and adapters to also get copy variation. (as Roger often does).

until then i don't believe there is a noticeable, real-life relevant problem with the cheap, simple, solid, well made Canon EF/EF- M adapter or any future Canon EF / EF-X adapter. actually at more than 100 bucks for such a simple piece of metal it should be milled and manufactured to very good tolerances. i do think the Canon EF/EF-M adapter - bridging 2 fairly similar/well compatible mount geometries from one and the same the same company - is "really right". i expect the same gor their future FF adapter.

overall definitely a much more "theoretical problem" forme (and millions of other customers!) compared to issues like 20% missing battery charge/shot reach because Canon marketing-nerfed/skimped on battery choice for a specific camera despite better battery readily available.

 

[Mikehit]

Re: Industry News: Nikon Announces Development of Next Generation Full-Frame Mirrorless Camera and N

The camera looks to have a HUGE viewfinder

https://events.imaging.nikon.com/live/en/

But given all the blather they are putting out there, this thing had better be good or they will have egg on their face.

 

[melgross]

Re: Industry News: Nikon Announces Development of Next Generation Full-Frame Mirrorless Camera and N

its not my credibility. Which i dont care about anyways, at all. At least not here in a forum of Canon fanbois.

It is a Canon and industry problem. Stupid Canon honestly thought, they could sell incredibly underspecced EOS M at 899. Body only. LOL. We, the customers taught them otherwise. Stupid Sony believes, lots of people will buy their GMaster bricks at 3k a pop. LOL. We, the customer will teach them, what the market is.

Canon EOS M ... now? After the initrial epic fail and firesale @ 299 ... a success. Why? Simple: because it offers very compact, decent IQ, decent functionality, decent build quality, decent ergonomics cameras and lenses at decent, affordable prices.

If Nikon and Canon manage the same for FF mirrorless, it wil be a runaway success. If not, then not. Sony is astuck at 15% market share and Fuji ist stuck at less than 10%, because ... their [LENS] prices are .. way too high for what they are. Simple, really simple. Customers are not stupid. Companies are, sometimes.

What are you talking about? The M series is the fastest growing mirrorless lines from anybody. Also the biggest overall.

So,Canon, and others discontinue models, and they sell for much less. What new about that? There are also specials. I don’t get your point.

 

[melgross]

Re: Industry News: Nikon Announces Development of Next Generation Full-Frame Mirrorless Camera and N

Nikon announces vaporware!

No!

Yes!

Eventually, Nikon will announce a camera, a few lenses and an adapter. But these are mist today. Nikon will eventually ship these items. Nonetheless, Nikon has promised us very little with their announcement, and nothing more than what we already knew.

Please, just stop it! All camera companies do a bit of preannouncement. We know that Nikon will make an official announcement in about a month, of real products. Vaporware was coined a long time ago when Grid came out with a tablet using their own OS. Microsoft announced that people should wait until theirs, which was in development, came out. Microsoft had no tablet OS in development at the time, and it was labeled as vaporware. Grid failed as a result of people holding back.

That’s not the case here.

Vaporware refers to every piece of hardware or software that has been announced or has as a rumor supported by company hints that does not yet exist as a shipping product.

Vaporware is marketing blather, as is Nikon's announcement.

So, I'll not stop. Why should I? This announcement was mere BS masquerading as information.

No, that’s not what it means. So a phone manufacturer mentioning that they will come out with new phones are announcing vaporware? That’s ridiculous!

Vaporware, if you understood it, means a product that’s announced, in same fashion, by a company that doesn’t follow throug with a product, or does, years later.

So, last year, when Canon did that interview about mirrorless, and they said that, yes, they were working on FF frame mirrorless, it was vaporware? So, every company that talks about future products are talking about vaporware?

That makes no sense. Your definition is odd, to say the least.

My definition is fine. It works, It makes sense.

It’s not fine. It doesn’t “work”, whatever that means. It’s unique to you and it makes no sense.

I don’t even know why I’m bothering. You don’t want to understand this.

 

[melgross]

Re: Industry News: Nikon Announces Development of Next Generation Full-Frame Mirrorless Camera and N

Nikon announces vaporware!

No!

Yes!

Eventually, Nikon will announce a camera, a few lenses and an adapter. But these are mist today. Nikon will eventually ship these items. Nonetheless, Nikon has promised us very little with their announcement, and nothing more than what we already knew.

Please, just stop it! All camera companies do a bit of preannouncement. We know that Nikon will make an official announcement in about a month, of real products. Vaporware was coined a long time ago when Grid came out with a tablet using their own OS. Microsoft announced that people should wait until theirs, which was in development, came out. Microsoft had no tablet OS in development at the time, and it was labeled as vaporware. Grid failed as a result of people holding back.

That’s not the case here.

Vaporware refers to every piece of hardware or software that has been announced or has as a rumor supported by company hints that does not yet exist as a shipping product.

Vaporware is marketing blather, as is Nikon's announcement.

So, I'll not stop. Why should I? This announcement was mere BS masquerading as information.

Maybe you should stop because you are misusing the term vaporware. An uninformative news release does not make the product vaporware. Vaporware refers to a product that is announced as under active development when it is not. The Nikon mirrorless has been in active development for quite a while and at this point is almost certainly in production. Something that is in production is not vaporware.

Sorry, but announcing nothing specific and lacking an actual announcement date makes this vaporware, as I stated. I am not misusing the term. The term was commonly used to refer to announced product that did not ship after the announcement. Nikon's mirrorless FF camera will cease to be vaporware when it ships.

I do not believe the world is well served by marketing BS.

It’s certainly not served by your posting BS.

What's odd here is your taking a mildly sarcastic post of mine and turning it into an event.

No, you’re turning it into a “thing”. This is the first time you’re saying that you didn’t even mean it? Well, you could have short circuited this and said that in the beginning. It would have saved us all a lot of bother.

 

[melgross]

Re: Industry News: Nikon Announces Development of Next Generation Full-Frame Mirrorless Camera and N

Adapters can be nice, but with four more mating surfaces (because the flanges themselves need to be attached to the body of the adapter) that have to be solid, parallel and precise.

It doesn’t need to be four. You could make the tube a unibody and have only two. Alternately you could ship on assembly. Alternately you could just take the needed tolerances for two faying surfaces and cut them in half. Either way, I’ve not seen any significant problems from poor parallelism tolerance; it’s an easy configuration.

No you can’t. The way these need to be made is with a machined tube with two flanges screwed to it, often with shims. Loss of sharpness is a known problem with all of these ads Peter, even the $500 ones. The question is simply how much you will lose. Parallelism is the first to go. Back focus is the next. It happens to all of them.

 

[melgross]

Re: Industry News: Nikon Announces Development of Next Generation Full-Frame Mirrorless Camera and N

Either way, I’ve not seen any significant problems from poor parallelism tolerance; it’s an easy configuration.

Perhaps you haven't, but have you actually looked? Uncle Rog has, and his conclusion was:

[quote author=Roger Cicala @ lensrentals.com]
I won’t bore you with another 20 graphs that look pretty much like these. We tried Leica to NEX and Leica to Micro 4/3 adapters, Canon to NEX, etc. We tried different lenses on one adapter. It didn’t really matter. None of them would be acceptable for testing. Not one.

...

In the examples above, though, center resolution is pretty much unchanged, it’s only when you get away from center that you start to see issues. So someone shooting portraits and centered subjects is unlikely to notice an issue. A landscape photographer, though, would likely see some problems along the edges of the image.

Putting a great lens on your camera via an adapter might still be better than an average native-mount lens. On the other hand, that great lens certainly wouldn’t be as good as it would be on its native-mount camera.

Read the article here:
https://www.lensrentals.com/blog/2013/09/there-is-no-free-lunch-episode-763-lens-adapters/


AvTvM, I'd advise against clicking that link...you'll find Data on the other side of it, and I know that's anathema to you. You just go on ignoring facts and believing that an adapter is the best solution for a Canon FF MILC, that it won't cause any optical problems at all. Enjoy your free lunch. :

To be clear, I didn’t see any significant problems - in my own use. I did not compare adapted to non-adapted, nor collect laboratory data, much less set up test equipment using one. Rather I shot tens of thousands of images with adapted glass and a sole sample adapter, with acceptable results.

Similarly I’ve shot tens of thousands of images with what some lab testing would consider poor dynamic range, also with acceptable results.

I obviously accept that mounting a lens off-parallel will manifest in image degradation (increasing as the angle between grows), and maybe a large sample of adapters from a third party, poorly funded operation demonstrates a trend... about that poorly funded operation. But if nikon can make a camera and lens combination, I have confidence they can make a camera, lens, and adapter combination. Canon too. Sure it adds tolerance contributions, but it’s simple geometry, and the OEM is likely to do it well since they’d have nobody to point fingers at. 2-4 more interfaces isn’t all that many in the context of a camera and lens combination, where you may have 12 elements in the lens alone, the mount to lens, mount to body, body to sensor assembly, sensor assembly to semiconductor, etc.
[/quote]

Some people have lower standards. What will be unacceptable to some will be fine to others. That doesn’t mean the quality loss isn’t there, just that some aren’t that interested in maximum quality. Certainly, if photos are presented in smaller sizes, it may not matter that much. But I’ve seen problems that are way too obvious. I’m hoping that Canon/s will be the best they can possibly make, and not cost as much as a lens, as some do.

 

[3kramd5]

Re: Industry News: Nikon Announces Development of Next Generation Full-Frame Mirrorless Camera and N

Adapters can be nice, but with four more mating surfaces (because the flanges themselves need to be attached to the body of the adapter) that have to be solid, parallel and precise.

It doesn’t need to be four. You could make the tube a unibody and have only two. Alternately you could ship on assembly. Alternately you could just take the needed tolerances for two faying surfaces and cut them in half. Either way, I’ve not seen any significant problems from poor parallelism tolerance; it’s an easy configuration.

No you can’t. The way these need to be made is with a machined tube with two flanges screwed to it, often with shims. Loss of sharpness is a known problem with all of these ads Peter, even the $500 ones. The question is simply how much you will lose. Parallelism is the first to go. Back focus is the next. It happens to all of them.

That’s the cheapest way to make them, but not the only way to make them. The bayonet geometry would be expensive, however you could machine a single piece body for the adapter with secondary operations to come in from the side to insert electronics (if desired). You could use additive manufacturing. Etc.

But fine. Say it’s four. Four more is not particularly alarming in a stack of 20. If everything stacks against you, sure you’ll be in bad shape. But realistically you’ll get something approximating a normal distribution across the multitude of interfaces which make up the optical path. If they can make a lens work, they can make a spacer work, and they could also potentially actuate the sensor to accommodate poor parallelism.

Some people have lower standards. What will be unacceptable to some will be fine to others. That doesn’t mean the quality loss isn’t there, just that some aren’t that interested in maximum quality.

Ah, yes, the ‘you have low standards’ card. That must why I’ve spent upwards of $30,000 on glass in the last decade.

There is no such thing as maximum quality. We are talking here about statistical deviations. Adding 4 interfaces to 2 would be significant. Adding 4 interfaces to a typical camera and lens system is far less significant. In that situation, additive (worst/worst) tolerance analysis is not appropriate, especially in a scaled production environment.

Granted, you’re adding to two which have been deemed okay, but those two each have stackups of more than 4 interfaces.

A company like canon, or Nikon, is well positioned to make adapters with little discernible ill effect. They will most likely inspect them at the assembly level, where it’s “a thing” (as opposed to three or more parts) with some allowable profile tolerance from one end to the other (adapter without optics, so perpindicularity to the barrel axis is not a concern). If it’s out of spec, they’ll adjust it.

 

[sdz]

Re: Industry News: Nikon Announces Development of Next Generation Full-Frame Mirrorless Camera and N

Nikon announces vaporware!

No!

Yes!

Eventually, Nikon will announce a camera, a few lenses and an adapter. But these are mist today. Nikon will eventually ship these items. Nonetheless, Nikon has promised us very little with their announcement, and nothing more than what we already knew.

Please, just stop it! All camera companies do a bit of preannouncement. We know that Nikon will make an official announcement in about a month, of real products. Vaporware was coined a long time ago when Grid came out with a tablet using their own OS. Microsoft announced that people should wait until theirs, which was in development, came out. Microsoft had no tablet OS in development at the time, and it was labeled as vaporware. Grid failed as a result of people holding back.

That’s not the case here.

Vaporware refers to every piece of hardware or software that has been announced or has as a rumor supported by company hints that does not yet exist as a shipping product.

Vaporware is marketing blather, as is Nikon's announcement.

So, I'll not stop. Why should I? This announcement was mere BS masquerading as information.

No, that’s not what it means. So a phone manufacturer mentioning that they will come out with new phones are announcing vaporware? That’s ridiculous!

Vaporware, if you understood it, means a product that’s announced, in same fashion, by a company that doesn’t follow throug with a product, or does, years later.

So, last year, when Canon did that interview about mirrorless, and they said that, yes, they were working on FF frame mirrorless, it was vaporware? So, every company that talks about future products are talking about vaporware?

That makes no sense. Your definition is odd, to say the least.

My definition is fine. It works, It makes sense.

It’s not fine. It doesn’t “work”, whatever that means. It’s unique to you and it makes no sense.

I don’t even know why I’m bothering. You don’t want to understand this.

Actually, I do understand it. Words do work. Consult the millions of pages written of language use in the 20th century to glean the meaning of that claim.

"Forget it, Steve, it's just an internet message board."

 

[melgross]

Re: Industry News: Nikon Announces Development of Next Generation Full-Frame Mirrorless Camera and N

Adapters can be nice, but with four more mating surfaces (because the flanges themselves need to be attached to the body of the adapter) that have to be solid, parallel and precise.

It doesn’t need to be four. You could make the tube a unibody and have only two. Alternately you could ship on assembly. Alternately you could just take the needed tolerances for two faying surfaces and cut them in half. Either way, I’ve not seen any significant problems from poor parallelism tolerance; it’s an easy configuration.

No you can’t. The way these need to be made is with a machined tube with two flanges screwed to it, often with shims. Loss of sharpness is a known problem with all of these ads Peter, even the $500 ones. The question is simply how much you will lose. Parallelism is the first to go. Back focus is the next. It happens to all of them.

That’s the cheapest way to make them, but not the only way to make them. The bayonet geometry would be expensive, however you could machine a single piece body for the adapter with secondary operations to come in from the side to insert electronics (if desired). You could use additive manufacturing. Etc.

But fine. Say it’s four. Four more is not particularly alarming in a stack of 20. If everything stacks against you, sure you’ll be in bad shape. But realistically you’ll get something approximating a normal distribution across the multitude of interfaces which make up the optical path. If they can make a lens work, they can make a spacer work, and they could also potentially actuate the sensor to accommodate poor parallelism.

Some people have lower standards. What will be unacceptable to some will be fine to others. That doesn’t mean the quality loss isn’t there, just that some aren’t that interested in maximum quality.

Ah, yes, the ‘you have low standards’ card. That must why I’ve spent upwards of $30,000 on glass in the last decade.

There is no such thing as maximum quality. We are talking here about statistical deviations. Adding 4 interfaces to 2 would be significant. Adding 4 interfaces to a typical camera and lens system is far less significant. In that situation, additive (worst/worst) tolerance analysis is not appropriate, especially in a scaled production environment.

Granted, you’re adding to two which have been deemed okay, but those two each have stackups of more than 4 interfaces.

A company like canon, or Nikon, is well positioned to make adapters with little discernible ill effect. They will most likely inspect them at the assembly level, where it’s “a thing” (as opposed to three or more parts) with some allowable profile tolerance from one end to the other (adapter without optics, so perpindicularity to the barrel axis is not a concern). If it’s out of spec, they’ll adjust it.

Understand that nobody makes them as a unibody. The material for the body is usually aluminum, and the mounts are usually chrome plated brass, or SS.

I’m not plaging the quality card. It’s just what it is.

 

[ashmadux]

Re: Industry News: Nikon Announces Development of Next Generation Full-Frame Mirrorless Camera and N

Canon:


"zzzzzzzz.......zzzzzzzzzzzz

...oh...just let them release it, we let our customers wait another year, will give our customers 80% of those features, and call it a day......errrhmmm........

.....zzzzzzzzzzz..."



***

Still have faith in canon, just not that much

 

[3kramd5]

Re: Industry News: Nikon Announces Development of Next Generation Full-Frame Mirrorless Camera and N

Understand I didn’t say people make them unibody. I merely said they need not be made with 4 interfaces. That was just a point in passing. More importantly, I have experienced no discernible loss in quality, and would not hesitate to use a canon EF to mirrorless adapter. YMMV.

 

[kphoto99]

Re: Industry News: Nikon Announces Development of Next Generation Full-Frame Mirrorless Camera and N

All this talk about how hard it is to make a good adapter and how it will degrade the image off centre.

I have never seen anybody complaining about Canon teleconverters, after all, an adapter is just a teleconverter without glass.

 

[Aglet]

Re: Industry News: Nikon Announces Development of Next Generation Full-Frame Mirrorless Camera and N

All this talk about how hard it is to make a good adapter and how it will degrade the image off centre.

I have never seen anybody complaining about Canon teleconverters, after all, an adapter is just a teleconverter without glass.

BINGO!

And OEM branded adapters also exist in the form of Panasonic and Olympus items to adapt four-thirds lenses to MFT bodies.

 

[slclick]

Re: Industry News: Nikon Announces Development of Next Generation Full-Frame Mirrorless Camera and N

All this talk about how hard it is to make a good adapter and how it will degrade the image off centre.

I have never seen anybody complaining about Canon teleconverters, after all, an adapter is just a teleconverter without glass.

You could look a bit deeper, like a Google search. Then you might find tens of thousands of remarks, reviews and posts about Canon TC's with not so glowing responses. Not because it's Canon per se but because EVERY TIME you use one there is degradation. To what extent? YMMV.

 

[takesome1]

Re: Industry News: Nikon Announces Development of Next Generation Full-Frame Mirrorless Camera and N

All this talk about how hard it is to make a good adapter and how it will degrade the image off centre.

I have never seen anybody complaining about Canon teleconverters, after all, an adapter is just a teleconverter without glass.

Umm No....

A teleconverter magnifies the image.

Whereas an adapter connects a lens to a body at the correct distance for the lens to work.

 

[3kramd5]

Re: Industry News: Nikon Announces Development of Next Generation Full-Frame Mirrorless Camera and N

All this talk about how hard it is to make a good adapter and how it will degrade the image off centre.

I have never seen anybody complaining about Canon teleconverters, after all, an adapter is just a teleconverter without glass.

Umm No....

A teleconverter magnifies the image.

Whereas an adapter connects a lens to a body at the correct distance for the lens to work.

But how does the TC do that? It moves the lens forward by a prescribed distance and then magnifies a portion of the image circle, focusing it to the sensor plane. Like an adapter it has to maintain alignment between lens and the sensor, otherwise it would be magnifying a tilted image circle.

Teleconverters aren’t perfect. They lose sharpness and necessarily lose light. I’ve never experienced alignment problems (but again that’s in my own anecdotal usage, not from lab testing).

 

[privatebydesign]

Re: Industry News: Nikon Announces Development of Next Generation Full-Frame Mirrorless Camera and N

All this talk about how hard it is to make a good adapter and how it will degrade the image off centre.

I have never seen anybody complaining about Canon teleconverters, after all, an adapter is just a teleconverter without glass.

Umm No....

A teleconverter magnifies the image.

Whereas an adapter connects a lens to a body at the correct distance for the lens to work.

But how does the TC do that? It moves the lens forward by a prescribed distance and then magnifies a portion of the image circle, focusing it to the sensor plane. Like an adapter it has to maintain alignment between lens and the sensor, otherwise it would be magnifying a tilted image circle.

Teleconverters aren’t perfect. They lose sharpness and necessarily lose light. I’ve never experienced alignment problems (but again that’s in my own anecdotal usage, not from lab testing).

But the point is TC's are only using the bit of the image circle that even Roger's testing shows minimal degradation.

Part of the reason they lose sharpness could well be due to alignment.