Why is it impossible? I am thinking that a concave lens element would do the trick.
My guess is that such a thing would need to be tailored to each lens. But really why bother? Why should Nikon devote any resources to it? If you want to use Z glass get a Z camera. Pretty simple, really.
Maybe it would work on a DX....I know they won’t make it regardless if it would work. They want to sell Z cameras.
The issue is distance between the optics and the sensor, not image circle. The lens is not designed to align the light correctly that far from the sensor, you would get all kinds of crazy light distortion, vignetting, CA, and false colour. It would take more than one corrective lens element to fix the issue. If it was that easy Nikon would have stopped making F-mount glass altogether.
Post edited by PB_PM on
If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
Why is it impossible? I am thinking that a concave lens element would do the trick.
Perhaps "impossible to do" is to strong. Perhaps better is "impossible to do with acceptable results". Otherwise, someone would have adapted Canon to Nikon F by now, while there are adapters for the opposite.
Why is it impossible? I am thinking that a concave lens element would do the trick.
Perhaps "impossible to do" is to strong. Perhaps better is "impossible to do with acceptable results". Otherwise, someone would have adapted Canon to Nikon F by now, while there are adapters for the opposite.
I agree. It is counter productive to collect the light and then spread it out again just because the sensor is too far away. And I don't think Nikon wants the Z mount lenses to be used on anything but a Z mount camera.
Lol, I think they need to make a Z to F adapter. That way I can start investing in Z glass and wait for a new Z camera that meets my needs.
If you straight adapted a Z lens to F mount, it wouldn't work. The Z lenses are designed for a camera without a mirror box, you'd have to modify the F mount camera to cut the mirror box out completely. It wouldn't be worth it.
Lol, I think they need to make a Z to F adapter. That way I can start investing in Z glass and wait for a new Z camera that meets my needs.
If you straight adapted a Z lens to F mount, it wouldn't work. The Z lenses are designed for a camera without a mirror box, you'd have to modify the F mount camera to cut the mirror box out completely. It wouldn't be worth it.
I think that the best way to adapt a z-mount lens to an f-mount camera would be to put the lens on a z-mount camera and hack a cable from an f-camera into the z-camera's sensor.
I happen to take trip to NYC and had the opportunity to stop by the famous BH photo. I was able to see the 500mm pf in person, wow....love that thing. It is so light and is great with the D500. Also took another look at the 300mm f/2.8. I want both of them. I may say screw it, purchase another D500 (the hotshoe on mine is broken, I think). Then just wait another 2-3 years to invest in the Z cameras.
After thinking more about it, I currently do not need to purchase a new 45MP camera. The D500 does everything I need it to do.
@webmastadj D500 + 500mm PF is a great combo. And one I am going for myself, but I'll be continuing to build up Z lenses on my Z6 along side it. You can share batteries between the D500 and Z6 and I can FTZ the 500 PF when I need better lowlight. I am not sure why you want to jump all in when you could have a Z today and just build up the glass for it while keeping the 500 PF(the 500 PF is the only F lens worth buying to me.)
@photobunny was more of an investment thing. Use the money that I have today to swap everything to Z or buy 500mm pf and 300 f/2.8.
I would say financially as an investment, lenses are not a great idea. If the 500mm PF was discontinued it's one thing, but it's still in production. But to each their own.
@NSXTypeR they are in the fact that lenses don’t change for 7-10+ year time frames. Also, even passed that, they hold some of their value...now may change with the nikon z mount. New cameras come out every year. You can have an awesome lens on a average camera and it will still take great images. Put a crappy lens on an high-end camera, still crappy photos. I had an D5600 and you couldn’t tell the difference from an image taken from that camera and a D500 shot with the 400mm f/2.8 for example. Or from a d610 and a D6. Of course the higher end camera may be better auto focus, low light, and more control options. But both in the same neutral situation...hard pressed to see a difference.
Camera gear is not an investment, it’s a depreciating asset, like most vehicles. There are some rare cameras and lenses that go up in value, but not mass market stuff. If you had some limited edition Leica stuff maybe, but your run of the mill Nikkor that had hundreds of thousands, or millions of units made? Not likely.
I have bought a few lenses that went up in value for a while during production shortages, but they crashed again after. Now most F-mount glass is tanking on the used market, so many people switching brands or mounts. Most of the time you’ll get 40-50% of what you paid for it, other than high end supertelephoto glass.
Post edited by PB_PM on
If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
When I refer to camera gear as an "investment," I'm not thinking in terms of how much I can later sell it for. I mean as an "investment in capital," i.e., acquiring equipment for a business or serious hobby that might later generate revenue. That's what I've always thought other people meant, too, unless they've indicated otherwise.
Lenses hold value better than bodies sure but even so they are a terrible "investment" if you want to actually make money.
First I do agree with PB_PM on camera gear not being an investment.
Way back in the 1970s and 1980s I would buy a lens and after 2 to 4 years would upgrade and I sold those lenses for $10 to $20 less than I paid for them. But of course, inflation was high which made it easy to sell used equipment for 80% and more then what you paid for them.
I must have owned 5 or more 50mm F1/4 lenses over those years, every time Nikon made an improvement, I sold and upgraded for a few dollars. I started with a Yashica SLR in high school and remember buying my first Nikon body in my 3 year of college for around $120. About 9 months later Nikon upgraded that body and it was significant. So I sold that body for $5 less than I paid for it and got the new body for $10 more. Never will forget that experience. OF course, I hung out with a bunch of college photographers so it was easy to sell the SLR that was less than 1 year old.
For many years when a lens hit 5 years old I sold it and bought the newer model if there was a change to that lens. In today's environment and economy it's different. Just wanted to share my experience.
One thing that I have learned, there is always a Nikon owner who is looking for used equipment since he doesn't have the money for new.
D750 & D7100 | 24-70 F2.8 G AF-S ED, 70-200 F2.8 AF VR, TC-14E III, TC-1.7EII, 35 F2 AF D, 50mm F1.8G, 105mm G AF-S VR | Backup & Wife's Gear: D5500 & Sony HX50V | 18-140 AF-S ED VR DX, 55-300 AF-S G VR DX | |SB-800, Amaran Halo LED Ring light | MB-D16 grip| Gitzo GT3541 + RRS BH-55LR, Gitzo GM2942 + Sirui L-10 | RRS gear | Lowepro, ThinkTank, & Hoodman gear | BosStrap | Vello Freewave Plus wireless Remote, Leica Lens Cleaning Cloth |
So far no one that has commented understands what an investment actually is.
Simplistically, if an expenditure produces a return, it is an investment. Two ways this is so come to mind:
1. The asset, tangible or intangible, that incurred the expenditure increases in value (say a rare collectible item). 2. The asset, tangible or intangible, that incurred the expenditure, produces income (any photography gear that a pro uses to generate income falls into this category).
PS: Another note, the investment does not actually have to go up in value or produce income. If the owner "intends" the above, successful or not, that is enough to qualify as an investment. Whether it is a poor investment or good investment is another matter.
I think most of us here are hobby shooters, so from that stand point it’s not an investment. I’ve made money from shooting, but never more than I’ve paid for gear. Really bad investment from that viewpoint. Given the devaluation of photos from the perspective of culture, the chance of a return on that investment from purchased gear is lower than ever. But yes, from a professional standpoint, it could be an investment in the business.
Post edited by PB_PM on
If I take a good photo it's not my camera's fault.
I think most of us here are hobby shooters, so from that stand point it’s not an investment. I’ve made money from shooting, but never more than I’ve paid for gear. Really bad investment from that viewpoint. Given the devaluation of photos from the perspective of culture, the chance of a return on that investment from purchased gear is lower than ever. But yes, from a professional standpoint, it could be an investment in the business.
The problem with a narrow definition (one that defines ROI in purely monetary terms) is that it excludes other forms of utility our cameras may provide. WEF may disagree, but I consider the money, time, and sweat I put into photography as an investment in my mental health. The return isn't monetary - it's something more important than money. Maslow might call it "self actualization." Doing something that makes (or that I think will make) me feel good about myself, life, the world, the universe, and everything.
Comments
After thinking more about it, I currently do not need to purchase a new 45MP camera. The D500 does everything I need it to do.
I have bought a few lenses that went up in value for a while during production shortages, but they crashed again after. Now most F-mount glass is tanking on the used market, so many people switching brands or mounts. Most of the time you’ll get 40-50% of what you paid for it, other than high end supertelephoto glass.
Way back in the 1970s and 1980s I would buy a lens and after 2 to 4 years would upgrade and I sold those lenses for $10 to $20 less than I paid for them. But of course, inflation was high which made it easy to sell used equipment for 80% and more then what you paid for them.
I must have owned 5 or more 50mm F1/4 lenses over those years, every time Nikon made an improvement, I sold and upgraded for a few dollars. I started with a Yashica SLR in high school and remember buying my first Nikon body in my 3 year of college for around $120. About 9 months later Nikon upgraded that body and it was significant. So I sold that body for $5 less than I paid for it and got the new body for $10 more. Never will forget that experience. OF course, I hung out with a bunch of college photographers so it was easy to sell the SLR that was less than 1 year old.
For many years when a lens hit 5 years old I sold it and bought the newer model if there was a change to that lens. In today's environment and economy it's different. Just wanted to share my experience.
One thing that I have learned, there is always a Nikon owner who is looking for used equipment since he doesn't have the money for new.
|SB-800, Amaran Halo LED Ring light | MB-D16 grip| Gitzo GT3541 + RRS BH-55LR, Gitzo GM2942 + Sirui L-10 | RRS gear | Lowepro, ThinkTank, & Hoodman gear | BosStrap | Vello Freewave Plus wireless Remote, Leica Lens Cleaning Cloth |
Simplistically, if an expenditure produces a return, it is an investment. Two ways this is so come to mind:
1.
The asset, tangible or intangible, that incurred the expenditure increases in value (say a rare collectible item).
2.
The asset, tangible or intangible, that incurred the expenditure, produces income (any photography gear that a pro uses to generate income falls into this category).
PS:
Another note, the investment does not actually have to go up in value or produce income. If the owner "intends" the above, successful or not, that is enough to qualify as an investment. Whether it is a poor investment or good investment is another matter.
Any questions?
WestEndFoto
CPA