Mirror vs Mirrorless

HankB

The "design disadvantage to Canon" of the Nikon F mount specifically relates to the F mount’s smaller diameter. In addition to limiting Nikon’s f/1.2 possibilities, we hear from time to time that Nikon must use more expensive optical designs to compensate for that small mount. Perhaps Nikon’s long struggle to bring its 70-200 f/2.8 up to par with Canon’s is an example of this disadvantage.

This may be totally speculative and possibly wrong, but I have read that when the two rivals are ready to move to sensor based image stabilization, Canon’s wider optical path is an advantage here too.

And finally, when Nikon and Canon both move to mirrorless, they probably would want to cut their flange to sensor distances to benefit for many years into the future from no longer needing the space hogging mirror box. Perhaps Canon’s larger mount would make it easier to design a sturdy, unobtrusive, yet inexpensive adapter for your old DSLR glass—just a guess.

PB_PM

Yup, it's all about size. The EF mount is 10mm wider in diameter. Not having to leave space for the physical aperture lever and hardware is the real advantage as well, since that takes up a good bit of space on Nikkor leneses and camera bodies. On the lens side Nikon has fixed this with the E glass, but without dropping support for a lot of lenses Nikon cannot drop support on the camera side.

Full info in Photohraphy Life article

tc88

When they reduce the flange distance, by definition, it's already a new mount. They sure can increase the diameter. And they sure will offer the adapter. They can even build in the AF and aperture levers in the adapter, but that will more likely be a business decision between trying to retain existing customers and selling more new lens. I think they will take a route of skip the levers because the customers who insist on using old lens probably are not buying much new stuff and thus not very profitable. But it probably will be a decision made at release time based on the market share/trend at that time.

My main concern is the battery life in addition to the OVF/EVF issue. Until they cut down mirrorless battery usage to allow a single battery to be used for most of a day during heavy shooting, the DSLR will have a significant advantage in that regard.

BVS

tc88 said:

When they reduce the flange distance, by definition, it's already a new mount. They sure can increase the diameter. And they sure will offer the adapter. They can even build in the AF and aperture levers in the adapter, but that will more likely be a business decision between trying to retain existing customers and selling more new lens. I think they will take a route of skip the levers because the customers who insist on using old lens probably are not buying much new stuff and thus not very profitable. But it probably will be a decision made at release time based on the market share/trend at that time.

Personally, I think they'll keep the aperture lever. There's not enough E type lenses currently. If they don't support G lenses then it's not really worth making an adapter. I could see the older D and Ai(S) lenses maybe getting cut though to keep the price of the adapter down. Or, maybe there could be a basic adapter (only G and up) and a more expensive version that supports everything.

HankB

tc88 said:

My main concern is the battery life in addition to the OVF/EVF issue. Until they cut down mirrorless battery usage to allow a single battery to be used for most of a day during heavy shooting, the DSLR will have a significant advantage in that regard.

A mirrorless replacement for Nikon (and Canon) pro and enthusiast DSLR's would be marketed on the basis of the information and display advantages of a sophisticated, well designed EVF, rather than on the basis of being smaller and lighter. So size and weight savings gained by eliminating the mirror, mirror box, pentaprism, etc could and should be partially or fully applied to housing a larger battery.

And the bigger battery approach would certainly address complaints from those who don't like the feel or balance of smaller cameras

HankB

BVS said:

tc88 said:

Personally, I think they'll keep the aperture lever. There's not enough E type lenses currently. If they don't support G lenses then it's not really worth making an adapter. I could see the older D and Ai(S) lenses maybe getting cut though to keep the price of the adapter down. Or, maybe there could be a basic adapter (only G and up) and a more expensive version that supports everything.

I think you have the right idea

WestEndFoto

Thank you for the article PB_PM.

Speaking to the article:

Mechanical Diaphram Lever - certainly an issue with earlier lenses, but not an issue with the E lenses. I don't, therefore, see this as a mount issue. More of a lens issue.

Canon mount diameter is 10mm bigger than Nikon - very interesting and seems reasonable so let me concede that it is a mount issue. But 1.4 at 50mm looks great and while 1.2 would be nice, it is not a big deal if I can't have it, I can always go to a longer focal length.

Len's mount - so you cannot use Canon lenses on Nikon cameras. I doubt that Nikon cares about this.

And remember, a bigger mount will mean a bigger camera all things being equal.

I just can't imagine that the above issues would be serious factors in motivating Nikon to discard the f-mount.

WestEndFoto

HankB, that is a good point. 2.8 glass weights the same regardless of DSLR vs Mirrorless.

Now if Nikon put the D5 battery into a Mirrorless body with a 36 by 36 sensor and focus points all the way to the corners with a nice EVF, then that might interest me.

F-mount too please.

BVS

WestEndFoto said:

Thank you for the article PB_PM.



Speaking to the article:



Mechanical Diaphram Lever - certainly an issue with earlier lenses, but not an issue with the E lenses. I don't, therefore, see this as a mount issue. More of a lens issue.



Canon mount diameter is 10mm bigger than Nikon - very interesting and seems reasonable so let me concede that it is a mount issue. But 1.4 at 50mm looks great and while 1.2 would be nice, it is not a big deal if I can't have it, I can always go to a longer focal length.



Len's mount - so you cannot use Canon lenses on Nikon cameras. I doubt that Nikon cares about this.



And remember, a bigger mount will mean a bigger camera all things being equal.



I just can't imagine that the above issues would be serious factors in motivating Nikon to discard the f-mount.

I think there's a few additional issues with F mount:

1. IBIS. Not sure if this can be done with F mount throat diameter or not.

2. Retrofocus. My understanding is that all F mount lenses about 42mm or so and wider need to be retrofocus, which can make them bigger and more complicated. These lenses could be simplified with a smaller flange distance.

3. Aesthetics. Some people want small sleek cameras, some people want large beefy cameras, and some people don't care. With a short flange distance you can make big cameras and small cameras and cater to all your customers. With a large flange distance you can only make big cameras and have to give up a lot of your consumer level customers (which make up 80% of your customer base) to other brands.

Personally, I'd love a small sleek large sensor camera with some small kit and prime lenses to carry around for social stuff, like an A6000, RX1R, or NX500, to compliment the DSLR for more serious stuff. A DSLR is just not socially appealing in a lot of situations.

WestEndFoto

BVS said:

WestEndFoto said:

Thank you for the article PB_PM.



Speaking to the article:



Mechanical Diaphram Lever - certainly an issue with earlier lenses, but not an issue with the E lenses. I don't, therefore, see this as a mount issue. More of a lens issue.



Canon mount diameter is 10mm bigger than Nikon - very interesting and seems reasonable so let me concede that it is a mount issue. But 1.4 at 50mm looks great and while 1.2 would be nice, it is not a big deal if I can't have it, I can always go to a longer focal length.



Len's mount - so you cannot use Canon lenses on Nikon cameras. I doubt that Nikon cares about this.



And remember, a bigger mount will mean a bigger camera all things being equal.



I just can't imagine that the above issues would be serious factors in motivating Nikon to discard the f-mount.

I think there's a few additional issues with F mount:

1. IBIS. Not sure if this can be done with F mount throat diameter or not.

2. Retrofocus. My understanding is that all F mount lenses about 42mm or so and wider need to be retrofocus, which can make them bigger and more complicated. These lenses could be simplified with a smaller flange distance.

3. Aesthetics. Some people want small sleek cameras, some people want large beefy cameras, and some people don't care. With a short flange distance you can make big cameras and small cameras and cater to all your customers. With a large flange distance you can only make big cameras and have to give up a lot of your consumer level customers (which make up 80% of your customer base) to other brands.

Personally, I'd love a small sleek large sensor camera with some small kit and prime lenses to carry around for social stuff, like an A6000, RX1R, or NX500, to compliment the DSLR for more serious stuff. A DSLR is just not socially appealing in a lot of situations.

I don't see why you couldn't use IBIS, as it is the sensor that is manipulated. I think that you are correct on retrofocus. Aesthetics, I suppose that is a matter of taste.

I think that Nikon should come out with a new mount that will service a mirrorless line a bit larger than DX and a bit smaller than FX with a dedicated lens lineup -say a 30mm square sensor that could shoot roughly 24 by 24 or 20 by 30 in either portrait or landscape mode. For lenses I would start with a selection of 5 or 6 1.8 primes and three f/4.0 zooms that roughly matched the FX holy trinity - the emphasis being small and sharp. With a well designed adapter, the FX lineup would also be acceptable.

I then think that Nikon should produce mirrorless cameras for the F-mount. They should start with a high end model with a square sensor in a form factor resembling a D5 - except that you would switch between landscape and portrait mode by "flipping a switch". Shortly after, they should come out with an entry level camera.


Finally, I think that Nikon should come out with a medium format offering, but not medium format light like Fuji and Hasselblad. I think that they should be targeting Phase One in this market. They may want to wait a few years to develop this fully.

There is an opportunity for sensor rationalization here. They could optimize a sensor for mirrorless and where a medium format sensor can be recovered from a wafer, recover that. The rest of the sensor could be used for the smaller sides - so they are not throwing away large swathes of flawed wafers which would hopefully reduce the cost. Not sure if it is practical to design a "mirrorless" wafer that could also be used for FX DSLRs - though I can't think of a reason why not.

I imagine that Nikon has experimented with all of these scenarios plus many that I have not thought of. It will be interesting to see what they come out with.

snakebunk

Wouldn't it be possible that a new mount could support larger than fx sensors, in addition to dx and fx?

Vipmediastar_JZ

I handled both mirrorless and mirror camera so I know the difference first hand. I still prefer the mirror camera for whatever reason that my mind things is better. EVF is great but I'm not 100% with it from the fuji x' I have tried.
Now on the D850 liveview and silent mode it "feels" like a mirrorless as there is no mirror moving at that time. I really like this and if NIkon implements a body like d500 or d810 in mirrorless format and accepts current lens lineup with adapter I'm all in.