Nijkon FF mirrorless - goodbye F-mount!

[9VIII]

Nikon adopting a new mount is important because the F-Mount was always too small.
e.g. Nikon can't use an 85f1.2 lens.

Unfortunately there's a chance they're just going to keep things the same on any new mount, but we can hope it gets bigger.
Using a bigger mount would also allow potential for future bodies with larger than 35mm sensors.

The EF mount can already go up to 42mm so theoretically Canon could jump straight to competing with Pentax 645z and Fuji GFX.

 

[ahsanford]

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.

Yep. I wouldn't expect flawless/consistent/speedy AF performance, but you'd get Nikon DNA in the control scheme, ergonomics, handling, menus, etc. which simply must be an upgrade over the 'I want to kill it with a hammer' Sony experience.

Flipping this around, a thin-mount Canon mirrorless rig would get you access to all sorts of Nikkor goodness we've never had to access to before: the 14-24mm f/2.8, 24-70 f/2.8 VR, 28mm f/1.4, 105mm f/1.4, 24-85/24-120 walkaround zooms, etc.

- A

 

[jeffa4444]

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.

Sony FF / Vistavision CineAlta camera 'Venice" arriving March 2018 comes equipped with their E mount as well as PL. The E mount has an 18mm back-focus and the whole point is to have concentric light paths to the sensor its the same with Panavision DXL and the Primo 70 lenses for cinematography.
I agree its BS claiming a short back-focus limits the image circle it doesn't it has more benefits than minuses so it will be the way forwards.

 

[mjg79]

Nikon adopting a new mount is important because the F-Mount was always too small.
e.g. Nikon can't use an 85f1.2 lens.

Unfortunately there's a chance they're just going to keep things the same on any new mount, but we can hope it gets bigger.
Using a bigger mount would also allow potential for future bodies with larger than 35mm sensors.

The EF mount can already go up to 42mm so theoretically Canon could jump straight to competing with Pentax 645z and Fuji GFX.

Does anyone know why Sony use such a small mount for their FE mount? I understand it was the NEX E mount but why didn't they just make a whole new mount, it's hardly like E mount had a loyal fanbase stretching back decades.

I just wish Canon would continue to make more use of their large mount - I think they should restart making 50mm 1.0 lenses - I know it was flawed but it makes such a statement and is one of those things that other manufacturers can't or won't attempt.

 

[Fleetie]

Nikon adopting a new mount is important because the F-Mount was always too small.
e.g. Nikon can't use an 85f1.2 lens.

Unfortunately there's a chance they're just going to keep things the same on any new mount, but we can hope it gets bigger.
Using a bigger mount would also allow potential for future bodies with larger than 35mm sensors.

The EF mount can already go up to 42mm so theoretically Canon could jump straight to competing with Pentax 645z and Fuji GFX.

Does anyone know why Sony use such a small mount for their FE mount? I understand it was the NEX E mount but why didn't they just make a whole new mount, it's hardly like E mount had a loyal fanbase stretching back decades.

I just wish Canon would continue to make more use of their large mount - I think they should restart making 50mm 1.0 lenses - I know it was flawed but it makes such a statement and is one of those things that other manufacturers can't or won't attempt.

Back in the days of film and low-ISO digital cameras, big, wide, light-bucket lenses were desirable, even if they were optically-flawed compared to modern lenses.

These days, high-ISO performance has overtaken the ability to design high-performing f/1.0 lenses, so f/1.4+ will do, and give higher-quality images.

I doubt that even today, a 50mm f/1.0 lens would be optically stellar - at least at any reasonable price.

I doubt that sufficient market exists for such a lens.

(I'd still drool over one and would love to try one out, though!)