Nikon backwards compatibility policy, WTF?

[albertdarmali]

Damn... so that means the 85mm 1.4 AIS is obsolete for DSLR now? :)

[tonybeach]

To Darius and Albert:

 

I didn't say every lens, but you might want to read Bjørn Rørslett's review of the older AIS 85/1.4 and take note of its wide open performance compared to the later AF model. Now I have used a couple of the older Nikkor 28mm lenses including the f/2 and I keep one (the f/2.8 AIS) for close-up work; but none of them have been as good as my slightly flawed Nikkor 17-35/2.8 at the same focal length (I'm going to send that legendary zoom lens to Nikon one of these days to be worked on). I'm planning on getting a 105/2 DC, and again I would refer anyone interested in what Bjørn Rørslett says about this lens and how that compares to what he says about the 105/2.5 PC (PC stands for the lens coating, and not to "perspective control"); it's a subtle difference but Bjørn does say in the second paragraph that the newer formulas outperform the older ones.

 

Now a question for Darius. Why do you think the F mount is compromised? I see absolutely no evidence to substantiate this claim.

[trex1]

I am trying desperately not to go into a diatribe of the dynamics of Japanese organisations, but I will tell you one thing, Nikon's behaviour does very little to build goodwill among its user base. Of course the reasons for Canon's surge are pretty clear. They leapfrogged Nikon, by boldy introducing a brand new space age mount, and came up with a better product, and stole Nikon's pro business from right under its nose. Nikon is the Mac of the pro photo world, used by holdouts, and Canon is its Microsoft.

 

Nikon got left with the worst of both worlds. It has a mount which seriously compromises its ability to compete with Canon, and it has succesfully alienated a number of people by deliberately building planned obsolesence into its products, when it could have been avoided.

 

They are a great company, and I think they need to make some bold moves and stop being so conservative, if they want to take some market share from Canon.

 

I guess with the small frame APS sensors, Canon loses its advantage, which it had with the larger mount, on 35mm frames size cameras. If the fight continues all the way to full frame, then Nikon has to come up with a really special rabbit out its hat, surely?

[trex1]

Of course it is a compromise. Take a look at the EOS mount, they are worlds apart. The F mount was state of the art in 1959, but not anymore. Nikon have slowly been modifying their mount to try and change it into an EOS mount, it is a compromise pure and simple. Take a look how wide so many AF nikkors are in proportion to the throut of the lens.

 

I am still amazed how no one can really get this game right. If the 1.5 aps sensor is really all we need, then why not just make custom lenses and bodies for this size, as Olympus is doing? But Olympus can't get it right. Their lenses amazingly feature fly by wire manual focusing. Why not allow some kind of tactile feedback with true manual focusing?

[Richard Williams]

'Why would you spend $5000+ on an 18mp+ FF digital camera and then stick an obsolete lens on it?'

 

I'm not likely to spend $5000 USD on anything photographic, but might well go for a '5D equivalent' if Nikon ever decides to make one!

 

'Even now I can stick one of those old lenses on my D200, look at the "sweet spot" in the image circle, and those lenses fall on their faces.'

 

What, all of them? Even the AF primes? Are all pre-AFS lenses now considered obsolete?

[ShunCheung]

Hi Darius, your registered e-mail address for photo.net is not working. Please contact me at <my first name> [at] photo.net. Thanks.

[tonybeach]

Darius, you NEED to back up what you are saying about the F mount being "compromised". Frankly, your entire thread here is a thinly veiled rant. What does WTF stand for? I know and so does everybody here, and it betrays your biased attitude on this matter. Regardless, I will read any proof you offer without pre-judging it.

 

Richard, I already said not all older formula lenses are obsolete on DSLRs. Ironically, if I may borrow what Darius said about the F mount, I am asserting that many of those older lenses are "compromised"; but unlike Darius, I'm backing up what I say with my first hand observations and citing a reputable source as evidence. Of course YMMV, but I saw IQ flaws on my D70 of many if not all the older lenses I have tried and it has reached the point where I simply don't bother with them. I do have a Tokina 90/2.5 macro that is somewhat older, and it's a gem stopped down past f/4. However, even many of the "modern" formula lenses exhibit CA and many can barely match the resolution of the D200. If you don't care or call me a "pixel peeper", that's your prerogative; I am simply stating my opinion.

 

Anyway, your non-AFS primes will continue to work on non-consumer DSLRs (the D40 line is obviously very consumer). My point though is that when resolution for even a $2000 FF DSLR reaches 16 or 18 MP (and it will), many of the lenses that worked fine on film or lower resolution DSLRs are going to need to be improved to keep up.

[albertdarmali]

By that logic so all the future lenses should be at least equal quality of something like 17-35mm f/2.8 then? Or else it will not do justice for the future lines of DSLRs?

 

 

As far as I know regardless of the lens generation, of course there are top of the range and there are consumer levels ones, and a newer version (eg. 85mm 1.4 AF) may be slightly better than the predecessor due to improvement in design.

 

 

But unlike computers or any other technologies, if the lens is old doesn't mean that it is a bottleneck in the system (Well, unless that particular lens is not that great to begin with). I still think that if the lens is great to begin with, even if it's old, it will still deliver great performance teamed with current generation DSLRs.

 

For example, I've never noticed any limitation from lenses like 50mm f/1.8 AIS, 50mm f/1.4 AIS, or 85mm f/1.4 AIS. If you're talking about really really old lenses, yeah maybe, it can be the coating (or lack of) making it prone to flare, focus distance, overall sharpness, etc.

 

 

I don't know which old lenses you've tried (from your assumption of almost all, if not all old lenses will be too limiting), but if you're talking about 20mm or 28mm lenses, as far as I know, there are many variations of them that are not that great aren't they?

 

Plus, you are comparing an old, consumer-grade wide angle against top of the line, professional zoom lens (17-35mm 2.8), I don't think the comparison is fair. But if you compare something similar, say, 50mm 1.8 AFD vs 50mm 1.8 AIS, I bet you the difference is minimal (if any).

 

If you're talking about older zoom is worse than current generation zoom, yes, I agree, old zooms sucked compared to what current zoom can do.

[albertdarmali]

By the way, I wanna know how F mount is obsolete too. Maybe what Darius meant was current Canon USM technology is better than AFS/VR technology?

[tonybeach]

Hello Albert.

 

I think you and I would be niggling over minor points since I agree with you that many of my lenses are not limiting the performance of my D200 or other "current generation DSLRs". I do have Bjørn's favorite 28/2.8 and I can assure you that if I mounted in on a D2x or a D3 camera that the results would be no better than what I can achieve on my D200 -- it is a bottleneck to any improvement. I have tried several 20mm, 24mm, 28mm, and 35mm lenses and my 35-70/2.8 and 17-35/2.8 outperformed them all (with the exception of flare). The fact is that indeed many lenses at all focal lengths, if not nearly all of them, will top out below what a 22 MP FF DSLR would otherwise be capable of delivering. So it would appear to me that Nirvana is still a ways away -- although I'm certain that the F mount will not interfere with that at all.

[paul_sauer]

Don't forget, the new D40 and D40X will not autofocus AF lenses if they are the screw drive type. They only support AF-S lenses. So forget that 50mm 1.8 AF prime that would make a nice portrait lens, or the venerable 35mm F2 that now is a decent normal lens.

 

The question is, how do you want your medicine? Like Canon, all at once, a total change of the mount? Or do you want death of backwards compatibility by 100 paper cuts?

 

The nice thing about the Canon line after the trauma of completely changing mounts is that all the lenses work on all of the bodies. Well, except EF-S lenses, which only work on... never mind.

[albertdarmali]

I don't know how soon will Nikon produce 22MP FF DSLR, even if they do, at this stage I'm sure the price is still astronomical. In the mean time, we all can still enjoy shooting with our AF or AIS lenses with our current DSLRs :).

 

About the lack of motor of D40(x), I hope that's just another method of cost cutting for lower end DSLRs, not a beginning of a trend of non-motor DSLRs.

[tonybeach]

Albert said:

 

"About the lack of motor of D40(x), I hope that's just another method of cost cutting for lower end DSLRs, not a beginning of a trend of non-motor DSLRs."

 

My reply:

 

Not just cost, but also weight. If the D40x had a larger buffer and Exposure Delay mode, I would strongly consider it. Leica makes lenses for the F mount, and they have no AF at all -- so if I were to buy a camera specifically for use with them I wouldn't even want an AF motor.

[Peter_in_PA]

Darius writes...

 

"There are too many incompatabilities. EOS does not have this problem, period."

 

No, Darius, that is most decidedly not true. If you buy a BRAND new EF-S lens, you can

NOT mount it on your BRAND new EOS-D5 for instance, and you might damage the mirror

if you do as I recall. Canon has two current standards, EF and EF-S. Yes, you can mount an

EF lens on a Digital rebel, but you can't mount the EF-S lenses on your EOS-D5.

 

So their situation is, imho, far more convoluted than Nikon's. And more potentially

confusing. Nikon's is simple... You can mount any AI lens on any Nikon DSLR, that's any

lens made in the past... what... thirty or more yeart... Period. You can meter with any AF

lens on any Nikon DSLR. Period. You can only autofocus AF-S lenses on the D40 series.

That sums it up. If you mount a DX lens on a full-frame camera, it will most definitely

work, it just won't look very good, what with the strange vignetting... That will be obvious

as soon as you look through the viewfinder, won't it.

 

And now... let the beating of the deceased horse commence!

[trex1]

You just summed up my whole point! The F mount is to all intents and purposes dead,

isn't it? Just as the other poster said, all EF lenses are compatible with all EOS bodies,

period, with the exception of the EFS lenses on a few older DSLRs. With Nikon you have all

kinds of lenses that will not meter, or focus or mount with all kinds of bodies, you have

bodies that will not meter or focus all kinds of lenses, it's a bloody disaster.....

 

Now, having said this, the only reason my knickers are in a twist is because I like Nikon.

Really, better than all the other brands, and I actually really dig just using an F4. The F4 is

the camera for me, it mounts any old lens you can find and meters and focuses them too.

But when you start talking about digital cameras the whole game just falls apart.

 

There are too many incompatabilities. EOS does not have this problem, period. And they

have a full frame DSLR, end of story. Nikon is left with a puzzle board where the pieces lay

scattered across the floor, and probably would not fit together anyway.

 

This is a huge mystery to me. They used to really have their asses in gear. It must have

been a change at the top or something.

[lazy_sod]

As there doesn't exist any "EOS-D5", you can't mount ANY lens on it. ;->

 

More seriously, you'll have to be quite brutal to damage the mirror on a EOS 5D or another full-frame EOS by trying to mount an unmodified EF-S lens. But some people modified e.g. the EF-S 18-55mm by removing parts of the protective plastic at the rear of the lens in order to make it fit an EOS 10D, D60 or D30. Mounting _that_ on e.g. the EOS 5D could indeed be harmful, and may even be risky on e.g. the 10D.

 

Neither EF-S nor DX lenses aren't really useful on full-frame DSLRs, so it's no big deal if you can mount them or not. In an emergency, e.g. when the battery is depleted, you may get away with using a DX lens on a film SLR, but I doubt someone would want to use an EOS 5D as a back-up for a "cropped" DSLR.

 

Nikon also had "their" EF-S lenses: The IX-Nikkors, which only fit the Pronea APS SLRs. But even though the APS-H image circle is larger than Nikon's DSLR sensors, the IX-Nikkors can't be mounted on Nikons SLRs. Luckily, they aren't very desireable lenses anyway...

[albertdarmali]

In my opinion, the beauty of Nikon lens range is, you can still mount affordable, good quality used lenses from ages ago and still get excellent results with them. (eg. AI, AIS lenses).

 

That allows people with limited budget to still be able get excellent image quality (provided they know how to use them).

[lazy_sod]

To Albert: That's right, and you don't even need a Nikon camera! You can mount the old Nikkors on Canon SLRs with an inexpensive adapter, and still get metering, something you can't on e.g. a D80. The same goes for old Olympus and Pentax lenses, except that they can't be mounted on a D80 at all. (You can do it with Contax lenses as well, but AFAIK they're hardly affordable.)

 

But all is not well - you can't get both metering and focus confirmation for those lenses with one affordable camera. :-(