"Konica Minolta pulls plug on cameras, film"

[arnabdas]

Eric, understood :)

 

Harvey, good idea! I love my 5400/II. Wouldn't mind getting another one before they are discontinued. I'd choose that one over the CS5000 in a hearbeat (yes, I've used both).

[andrew robertson]

Some buyers want a NEW camera. After all, there are plenty of Leicas out there, why do they

continue to make new ones?

 

And I do think the film abandonment would be a good segue into a mount change - when

the last F6s are sold off, what possible reason does Nikon have for sticking to the F mount?

They sure aren't planning on releasing full frame cameras.

[StuartMoxham]

How would a change of mount help Nikon. That would just be a good way to push away what customers they have. What about all the D50, D70, D100, D200, D1 and D2 bodies that have been sold. I suspect that future lenses from Nikon will feature electronic apertures and consumer bodies may well only functions with these lenses with better bodies and pro bodies being able to funtion with newer and older lenses. Nikon has already lost the aperture control ring on the G lenses but the aperture is still a sring loaded mechanical one so electronic apeture may well be the next step.

[andrew robertson]

It's easy to see the benefits of a new mount. They could use an electronic interface, which

helps reliability and makes lenses generally simpler to build. They could build the mount

closer to the sensor plane (as they probably won't do a full frame camera), which helps a

tremendous amount in correcting aberrations. They could have 100% compatibility across

the whole lens / camera lineup, which is something that Nikon hasn't had for a good third

of a century. I'm sure there are other benefits as well that others could elucidate upon.

 

I am not sure that they'll do this, of course, but I have read in the past few months a few

hints and rumors that indicate this may happen.

 

If it did, I'm sure it would stick so painfully in the craw of Nikon fans that they'd

immediately go EOS.

[umd]

I don't know how long it has been volunteer brand propagandists chewing the same "Nikon will/should/must/has to/ought to change the F mount soon" gum and relate any of Nikon's and other vendors (Zeiss) business decisions with a mount change, Nikon demonstrated they can have in lens motors (AFS), vibration reduction and full frame (Kodak) with the existing F mount in time. And they did this elegantly with keeping almost full compatibility with former manual focus lenses, which is certainly lacking in some other brands.

[gaius1]

a) Sony will fab anything for anyone. If they won't then someone else will, fabbing is a cut-throat business. The key intellectual property assets rest with Nikon. They could rent fab capacity from Intel, IBM, Texas Instruments, and several others.

 

b) Nikon's business is more diversified that you think - I'd bet that Sony are using Nikon equipment at their fab to make sensors for Nikon cameras - and indeed every other electronic component they manufacture.

[ky2]

Damn. Made me feel so down, I had to go out and shoot two rolls of film.

[StuartMoxham]

I think many knock Nikons choice to stay with the F mount because of the poor AF performance from the early Nikon AF bodies. I am sure many people changed to Canon back then to get better AF performance. But keeping the F mount gave Nikon users a reason to stick with Nikon. The AF performance may have been poor compared to the EOS system but at least existing users could still mount their old lenses and use their new AF lenses on their old bodies. With a new mount Nikon may not have been able to offer this backward compatibility so many more Nikon user may have moved to Canon if Nikons AF performance was not up to par. Really Nikon was stuck between a rock and a hard place and made the decision that was best for them at the time.

[gaius1]

It was never really a technological problem so much as it was a philosophical one; Nikon simply believed that AF was just a gimmick, at first. When Nikon did decide apply themselves to AF, the MultiCAM-1300 was the best in the business - until they started shipping the MultiCAM-2000.

 

Canon have their fancy 45-sensor AF... but cross-type sensors are what matters, and Nikon has more of those.

[umd]

<i>I think many knock Nikons choice to stay with the F mount because of the poor AF performance from the early Nikon AF bodies. I am sure many people changed to Canon back then to get better AF performance.</i><br><br>

 

First what has AF performance has to with mount size? Second than why most Nikon bodies have/had better AF performance than equivalent Canons in terms of low light AF ability (documented fact, not a speculation). And as of today Nikon has the edge in AF in terms of the number of cross type sensors and ergonomics, additionally.<br><br>

 

What Canon did well in the early days of AF was the inclusion of full time manual focus ability via their in lens motors which was appreciated by the early AF adopters who has a default tendency to grab and turn the focusing ring. Also in these days AF was not as quick and reliable as today, which excarbated the issue.

[dj_soroka]

If SONY decides to enter this game, they are the 800 lb. gorilla who will re-write the rules of the game.

 

And if SONY decides to play the game, they have the financial resources to err and still prevail.

[StuartMoxham]

I said "I think many knock Nikons choice to stay with the F mount because of the poor AF performance from the early Nikon AF bodies." Many people knock the F mount for a large number of other reasons also. How many times has someone said Nikon cannot do full frame digital because the F mount is too small. How many times has it been said that Nikon would not be able to put motors in the lenses because the F mount is too small. I can't remember the number of conversations I had with people back in the early 90s that really thought Nikon would have had better AF performance had they done a similar thing to Canon. Of course none of it has anything to do with the F mount but still pepole choose to knock it. I said in a post after Andrew Robertson what good would it do Nikon to change the lens mount. I am not knocking the F mount in any way.

[umd]

Sorry if I misunderstood, then my reply would be to whoelse thinks so. Its usual that trolls like Andrew Robertson come under multiple identities and try creating a illusion of public support.

[ci_p]

The issue isn't going to be that Sony restricts sales of sensors to Nikon. But, say, they develop a whizzy new FF sensor with many pixels, they are not likely to not use it themselves. So *at best* a Nikon that relies on sony for sensors is only going to have equivalent sensor technology. And then they have to think about how they are adding value / competing with the other aspects of their system. I'm not sure there would be much mileage in coming to markey with sony tech, six months late. It will be interesting to see what happens, Sony has the potential here to become an absolute monster.

[StuartMoxham]

No worries.

[ottocrat]

Sony have deep pockets but they don't have a Midas touch, not any more. If Nikon can compete with Canon then they sure as anything can compete with Sony. I'm not worried about more competition in this marketplace.

 

The CCD-sourcing thing is an issue. No, Sony are not going to stop selling Nikon sensors overnight - business people are hard nosed and follow the money, Microsoft has been selling MS Office on the Mac platform for years, why? Because it makes money. So Sony will keep selling sensors to Nikon as long as they make money, more money than they would by keeping their sensors for their own brand cameras.

 

However it does complicate matters and it should push Nikon to look for a source of sensors where they have rather more leverage and autonomy. If I were Nikon I would feel uncomfortable having to source the single most essential component of my SLR bodies from the competition, moreover a behemoth who's hungrily looking at your market share.

[douglas_green1]

Peter, that may be true with respect to volume, but there is no way that it's true with respect to market influence. Nikon is a player because Nikon is still perceived as the brand of pros and serious amateurs (even though now Canon is certainly at least as prevalent, if not more so). If Nikon loses it's serious top-end users, it is only a matter of time before they lose their entire market position.

[StuartMoxham]

I would like to know the reasons why people think it would be good for Nikon to change their lens mount. Just for sake of? Because Canon did? In what way does the F mount effect Nikon in a negative way and how would changing the F mount now be a positive move for Nikon. The F mount can offer everying that the EOS mount can offer, they already offer G lenses with no apeture ring and electronic apeture could well follow in the future, so what would they gain.

[lazy_sod]

Nikon has already _changed_ their lens mount several times, but they have never _replaced_ it.

 

The only thing that's fundamentally different between the mounts of a Canon EF lens and a Nikkor G-type AF-S lens, is that the aperture is set mechanically on the Nikkor. Everything else, like controlling AF, reading focal length, reading min/max aperture and activating image stabilisation (VR/IS), is done electronically.

[ilkka_nissila]

In practice the mechanical aperture control works fine, on the best bodies the reproducability is very good. On some cheaper bodies the body control seems to be less precise than using the aperture ring to set aperture, but these have little or practical significance when using digital.

 

All this is is just some Canon fans would like to get rid of all competition so they spread rumors about the supposed problems of the F mount. It's quite pathetic. We all know that many F-mount lenses work just fine on FF Canons (at least as well as EF lenses do from the optical point of view) which proves that the mount does not limit creation of FF Nikons.

[mark_chappell]

<I>All this is is just some Canon fans would like to get rid of all competition so they spread

rumors about the supposed problems of the F mount. </i><P>

 

Eh? What kind to twisted logic is that? Getting rid of Nikon as a competitor is about the

<B><I>LAST</B></I> thing this Canon user would want to have happen. Competition is a

good thing for us consumers, at least in this kind of technological venue. I want a

successful Nikon out there to keep Canon working hard to stay in the game, and you Nikon

folks should want Canon there for the parallel reason.

[ilkka_nissila]

Mark, there is no physical or any other rational reason to abandon the F mount. Canon is making FF cameras because they fabricate their own sensors and so they can do what they like, even if it isn't profitable at first. Nikon's bean counters figured that the advantage vs. increase in cost wasn't worth bothering with (I don't agree) and that's that. This has nothing whatsoever to do with mount size.

 

Believe me, the internet is full of people who can't stand the idea that some other brands' cameras are useful than those that they've chosen. These people love to start this kind of rumours. There is no rational justification for abandoning the F mount. It only limits a few ultrafast lenses from being realized.

[andrew robertson]

Umit, let's make no mistakes here as to who is a 'volunteer brand propagandist'. You are

just as flagrant an offender as anybody else I have ever seen. You often go a step or two

further, with childish ad-hominem attacks that really belong on the dpreview.com forums

or other cesspools of the internet.

 

As I explained before with my caveats, I am not accusing Nikon of switching mounts, but it

is something I read about more than a few times just in the past few months. It would

also go a long way towards explaining their recent baffling announcements.

 

As Peter said above, an adapter of some sort may be all Nikon needs to retain F mount

compatibility with their new mount, if it exists, as it would surely have a shorter flange

back.

 

And Stuart, I already offered the reasons why I thing Nikon may change their mount. They

obviously don't plan on moving up from the half frame format, which would enable them

to build a mount with shorter flange back. They could widen the mount as well, to allow

for more exotic lens designs and better correction. The EF mount is fully electronic, which

has reliability benefits and helps integration, as the proper size AF motor can be included

in the lens, and there needs be no Rube Goldberg assembly of gears and pinions and

levers to actuate the aperture. The EF mount also allows for better utilization of space for

the same reasons explained in the last sentence.

 

I'm not convinced that they will change mounts, but they've done it before for those with

short memories. In fact, every major surviving camera maker has changed mounts at least

once.

[arnabdas]

Nikon has changed it's mount slowly over the years. This is more of a gradual evolution without any radical changes, but it has changed (Non-AI-->AI-->AIS-->AFD-->AFS-->AF-G/AFS-G). I think the only major sacrifice they have had to make is the aperture collar. I think they are quite technically able to put all the latest features in the current mount (see 70-200mm f/2.8D G-AFS ED-IF VR, 200-400mm f/4 G-AFS ED-IF VR, f/2.0G AF-S ED-IF VR ... all are non-DX).

 

If they had tried to retain the aperture collar you'd get slow beasts like 80-400mm f/4.5-5.6 AF-D ED VR. I don't think they will have to change anything else related to the mount in the foreseeable future.

[darren_cokin]

I disagree with the comments that droves of Nikon users would jump ship if they made cameras with a new mount. Assuming they were sticking with the DX format, then new mount should be smaller than the old one, with a shorter registration distance. And therefore, it would be a simple matter to make an adapter from one to the other. If they included one of these with the new cameras for the first few years, and old lenses were fully supported when mounted this way, then no one need be pissed off about it.

 

Not that I believe they are going to do this, I just wanted to point out that they could.

 

Darren