Nijkon FF mirrorless - goodbye F-mount!

[AvTvM]

https://petapixel.com/2017/09/07/nikon-patents-2-full-frame-mirrorless-lenses-52mm-f0-9-36mm-f1-2/

yes, yes, yes - bring it on Nikon - so we will finally also see FF mirrorless system by Canon!

And yes, yes, yes - a new short-flange distance native mount for FF image circle unlike Canon with APS-C only EF-M mount and Sony with small E-mount causing major issues in FF lens design.

Nikon will be able to smoothly transition to only 1 totally UNCOMPROMISED mount for both FF and APS-C mirrorless cameras/systems ... rather than needing 2 different mounts. They are very late, but maybe they are smarter ...

 

[Loswr]

No patent for an 85mm f/2.4 VR? They're doomed before they even start...

 

[privatebydesign]

That's great news because it practically guarantees Canon will keep the EF mount for their version. Canon and Nikon have always been contrarian, dials and lens mounts going the 'wrong' way etc etc, so if Nikon bring out a different mount it seems certain Canon will not, which is how I'd see a ff mirrorless camera market segment. Feature functionality and ergonomics over size and crappy battery life.

 

[Jopa]

They have already patented a couple of mirrorless lenses in the past, but a 50mm f/0.9 looks sweet if they ever make it.

 

[Mt Spokane Photography]

Canon patented a FF mirrorless mount so long ago that it has slid out of many peoples awareness.

Canon has stated that their discussions with pros indicate that they want to use their EF lenses. So, its possible that we could see a new mount, I hope not. Sony was able to do it because their A mount lenses were pretty poor and few would be sad to see them go. Repairing one was a nightmare.

I think that Nikon would be making a big mistake to come out with a new mount. Those who bought into the J series might agree, their lenses still work, but are dead products. I would not want to buy into a new lens system from Nikon or Canon.

 

[AvTvM]

new short FFD mount is no prob. simple extension tube adapter suffices to keep all current F-mount lenses fully viable. some 1957 glass shards without electronic aperture and stupid screwdriver-AF will have to go ... so what. high time for hi noon.

 

[Dylan777]

Sign me up for both lenses

 

[rrcphoto]

https://petapixel.com/2017/09/07/nikon-patents-2-full-frame-mirrorless-lenses-52mm-f0-9-36mm-f1-2/

yes, yes, yes - bring it on Nikon - so we will finally also see FF mirrorless system by Canon!

And yes, yes, yes - a new short-flange distance native mount for FF image circle unlike Canon with APS-C only EF-M mount and Sony with small E-mount causing major issues in FF lens design.

Nikon will be able to smoothly transition to only 1 totally UNCOMPROMISED mount for both FF and APS-C mirrorless cameras/systems ... rather than needing 2 different mounts. They are very late, but maybe they are smarter ...

except those lenses are 150mm++ in total length each

so highly unlikely they are for a mirrorless camera and if they are, they are laughingly huge.

 

[SecureGSM]

judging by the published data:

ＢＦ ＝ 18.225 (backfocus)
ＢＦ ＝ 21.673 (backfocus)

A very short flange distance for a DSLR. And yes: huge, heavy and expensive.

so highly unlikely they are for a mirrorless camera and if they are, they are laughingly huge.

 

[AvTvM]

except those lenses are 150mm++ in total length each

so highly unlikely they are for a mirrorless camera and if they are, they are laughingly huge.

just look at the flange focal distances ... no space for a mirror! ;-)

2 different ffds ... around 18 and 21mm ... apparently nikon is looking/protecting multiple options in the most promising ffd range. personally i would lean more towards 21mm than 18 to get more freedom for ff lens designs ... coupled with a generously wide mount hole (throat width) ... but we shall see whether nikon has learned from spny's e-mount mistakes

i am not in the least interested in lenses faster than f/1.8 ... bulky, heavy, freakin expensive ... leica SL crap ... but nikon will want them for bragging rights when they release their hi-end FF milc system ... "fastest blabla in history", "previously unmatched amounts of light blabla" ... "faster than canon and leica blabla" ... and there are probably enough well-heeled potential buyers willing to buy such monsters at any price ... for their glass collections.

perfectly fine with me, it will help finance those nimble, small, optically excellent and affordable constant f/4.0 zooms and f/2.0 pancake primes i will be buying later on at decently affordable prices.

 

[Talys]

judging by the published data:

ＢＦ ＝ 18.225 (backfocus)
ＢＦ ＝ 21.673 (backfocus)

A very short flange distance for a DSLR. And yes: huge, heavy and expensive.

so highly unlikely they are for a mirrorless camera and if they are, they are laughingly huge.

They are also titled -
Nikon 52mm f/0.9 full frame mirrorless lens diagram.
Nikon 36mm f/1.2 full frame mirrorless lens diagram.

I also counted 14 elements on the 52mm and 13 elements on the 36mm. They'll be very large for their focal length, for sure.

 

[Aglet]

I hope they include a wicked good IBIS system like Oly's or Pentax.
I'd be up for a ML version of the d850... and some adapters for the old F-mount glass.
And they'd best go with a fairly short register distance for better UWA.
Longer FL can always use a longer barrel.
HAHA! And I think they finally decided to go with an electronically controlled aperture.

 

[jolyonralph]

And yes, yes, yes - a new short-flange distance native mount for FF image circle unlike Canon with APS-C only EF-M mount and Sony with small E-mount causing major issues in FF lens design.

Nikon will be able to smoothly transition to only 1 totally UNCOMPROMISED mount for both FF and APS-C mirrorless cameras/systems ... rather than needing 2 different mounts. They are very late, but maybe they are smarter ...

The EF-M mount is perfectly capable of supporting full-frame lenses should Canon want. It would make far more sense to use EF-M than create yet another format. That way full-frame EF-M lenses could still be used on APS-C cameras and, unlike EF-S, vice versa.

Also, I am not sure where you got the idea that this is going to be a wider mount. If you look at the patent designs for the two lenses you'll see that the rear elements are shown no larger than sensor itself, meaning there is no need at all for a mount wider than the EF-M or FE mount.

And let's please again deal with the fallacy that short flange distance mirrorless mount somehow compromises lens design. Which you keep repeating yet remains completely untrue. Don't forget that the Nikon F mount is almost identical in diameter.

The only issue is distance between rear element and the sensor, and the mount only restricts the minimum distance this can be, not the maximum.

So far from restricting design it is completely the opposite giving lens designers more flexibility.

There's only a compromise if you're creating ultra-compact lenses for the mirrorless mount. And these Nikon lenses certainly aren't that.

The most interesting thing about the new Nikon announcements is that the F mount adaptor has a dedicated focus system with a pellicle mirror. Much as Sony initially did with their A mount to E adaptor.

This presumably means they haven't got on-sensor phase detection autofocus anywhere close to either Sony or Canon's DPAF.

 

[ahsanford]

No patent for an 85mm f/2.4 VR? They're doomed before they even start...

I got really excited this week b/c Fuji almost put out the lens of AvTvM's dreams: an 80mm f/2.8 IS. Ticks most of the boxes for AvTvM: Crop-sensor-specific, reasonably quick, and the right focal length.

One small problem -- it's somehow not a pancake.

Stupid Fuji.

- A

 

[ahsanford]

The most interesting thing about the new Nikon announcements is that the F mount adaptor has a dedicated focus system with a pellicle mirror. Much as Sony initially did with their A mount to E adaptor.

This presumably means they haven't got on-sensor phase detection autofocus anywhere close to either Sony or Canon's DPAF.

Agree the pellicle adaptor idea is an interesting find. But I'm not convinced that means Nikon can't resolve AF on the sensor -- the Nikon 1 I rented had decent enough AF speed/consistency, far quicker than the early (pre-DPAF) EOS M models I tried.

Perhaps -- just riffing here -- the pellicle adaptor has something to do with compatibility with older autofocusing Nikkor lenses, or it somehow provides a better/snappier experience manually focusing really old glass.

- A

 

[andrei1989]

Why are you all so excited/positive about Nikon releasing a new FF mirrorless mount that would make F-mount lenses work via adaptor but when it comes to Canon doing the same you're all: STUPID CANON ????

 

[ahsanford]

Why are you all so excited/positive about Nikon releasing a new FF mirrorless mount that would make F-mount lenses work via adaptor but when it comes to Canon doing the same you're all: STUPID CANON ????

This is less about being excited and more about seeing where the huge decision finally lands. The mount decision is the biggest unknown for CaNikon getting into mirrorless, and it fundamentally boils down to the full EF/FX mount or a thinner mount + an adapter. (Or possibly offering both once FF mirrorless generates a large enough following.)

Though many claim to know exactly what will happen, there are equal arguments on both sides --> a large chunk of people will be unhappy on day one of the announcement because their dream setup (on what they believe is an obvious / straightforward decision) isn't happening.

- A

 

[mistaspeedy]

This will create some weird situation where Canon glass works on Nikon cameras. Up until now, if you wanted Canon glass to work on a full frame sensor, you had native Canon and Sony via an adapter. Now we will have one more option.

 

[AvTvM]

The EF-M mount is perfectly capable of supporting full-frame lenses should Canon want.

no, it cant. Canon exceutives themselves have stated that in interviews. It might just about work for some lenses/focal lengths, but it would be even more seriously compromised than Sony E-mount is for FF lens design.

Wider diameter (throat width) is always a good thing and always makes it easier to design ANY lens - including extremely fast glass ... f/1.0 lenses for digital imaging for example are not reasonably possible for Nikon F mount .. simply because that hole is too small in diameter.

For any given sensor format there is a sweet spot combination of flange focal distance and throat width. BOTH parameters need to be "just right in combination" to allow maximum freedom for all sorts of lens designs.

 

[AvTvM]

I got really excited this week b/c Fuji almost put out the lens of AvTvM's dreams: an 80mm f/2.8 IS. Ticks most of the boxes for AvTvM: Crop-sensor-specific, reasonably quick, and the right focal length.
One small problem -- it's somehow not a pancake.
Stupid Fuji.

that Fuji thing is a Macro lens weighing 750 grams. Despite only covering APS-C image circle it costs 1200 USD [compare to the excellent Canon EF 100 L Macro for full frame or to the brilliant, very affordable and reasonably small/light EF-S 60/2.8 Macro!]. Typical Fujifilm ripoff pricing. One of the main reasons I will never consider Fuji products. Big, heavy, expensive as hell - no thanks.

Actually I expect the upcoming Nikon FF MILC system to be BIG, heavy and expensive as hell too >>> "Leica SL land". Yikes.