Nikon is starting to tick me off

[Andrew Garrard]

Electronic bellows are an interesting idea. Having come from Canon, I envy the simplicity of that system's extension tubes. I always worry about dust ingress, though.

 

I found myself using a granite board for chopping at one point. It made me good at sharpening. (I very much went to a rubber board when I started using a ceramic knife )

[mwmcbroom]

I still have the 3 volume set of Nikon Nikkormat Handbook by Cooper put out by Amphoto. Amazing how often it still gets used!

 

Three volumes? I have the Cooper set also, but mine is only two volumes. I have Cooper's (2 volume?) set for Minolta too -- so I've always thought that the Nikon set was just two volumes.

 

About this whole mount switching business -- I was a hard-core Canon FD shooter when Canon decided to dump FD for EF. Like many others I was pretty PO'd about this move. I even switched systems to Nikon a few years later. But it didn't stick. Shortly after I started acquiring Nikon pieces, I also bought into Canon's EOS with a camera and lens and flash for my wife (to take pics of our new kid), but I ended up using it at least as much as she did, probably more. And even though I sold all of my FD stuff when I switched to Nikon, that didn't last either. Several years ago, I began buying back into Canon FD. I even went on something of a buying spree, while picking up maybe like one EF lens?

 

But you know, it wasn't long after I bought that EOS that I realized that Canon had done the right thing. Canon had tried going the AF route with FD lenses -- remember the T80? A colossal flop. So Canon decided to start with a clean sheet of paper, and I think that was a stroke of genius. A physically large, all-electronic mount -- it's paid them dividends many times over.

 

And it's worth noting that Nikon does appear to be introducing a new mount -- their Z-mount for their upcoming mirrorless offering, is what I've read. This will be a different move from the other mirrorless participants, ie, Canon and Sony. Both have kept their SLR mounts for their mirrorless cameras, which makes it simpler to produce adapters so their SLR lenses can be used on their mirrorless systems.

[Sandy Vongries]

OT: that bamboo board certainly will take the edge off those knife in a jiffy.

On the other hand, I can easily sharpen with steel or stone (tho my board is hardwood), and bamboo is great for a variety of spoons, scrapers, etc.

 

And it's worth noting that Nikon does appear to be introducing a new mount

At first, I had a single hard bound volume (gave to a relative) - these are loose leaf that had free annual updates till the EPOI relatonship went down. bought them at the Nikon School they ran for sales people & Pros.

We'll see if it the mount / camera is worthwhile - heavily invested in F mount going back quite a long time.

I was in camera sales when Canon switched - a lot of vexed folks.

[Vincent Peri]

I was in camera sales when Canon switched - a lot of vexed folks.

 

I was heavily invested in FD breech lock lenses. I wouldn't touch the new bayonet FD lenses. When Canon changed the lens mount, that was the last straw. I left Canon, never to return. Instead, I changed to Nikon, starting with a new FE. Now, I have 20 odd Nikon film cameras. Anyone wanna buy some? LOL

[ilkka_nissila]

And it's worth noting that Nikon does appear to be introducing a new mount -- their Z-mount for their upcoming mirrorless offering, is what I've read. This will be a different move from the other mirrorless participants, ie, Canon and Sony. Both have kept their SLR mounts for their mirrorless cameras, which makes it simpler to produce adapters so their SLR lenses can be used on their mirrorless systems.

 

How did you come to such a conclusion? Canon have an EF-M mount for their APS-C mirrorless which is different from the EF mount (and different again from their manual focus film SLR mount). Sony have E mount for mirrorless and A mount for DSLR/DSLT (same as Minolta's AF mount) and Minolta had a yet different mount for 35mm manual focus SLRs. Olympus have the Micro Four Thirds mount which is different from the Four Thirds mount for their AF SLRs and again they had a different mount for manual focus film cameras.

 

Both Micro Four Thirds and Sony E mount have an increased number of electrical contacts compared to their respective (D)SLR mounts. Canon seem to have kept the number of contacts the same.

 

Everyone is using a new mount for mirrorless; though Panasonic and Olympus at least share the same mount with each other.

Edited January 22, 2018 by ilkka_nissila

[JDMvW]

If you use reasonably new camera bodies (and avoid the entry level) then you still get generally good compatibility towards the use of old lenses with new bodies

 

Not my experience. The switch to Automatic Indexing was not smooth for us old timers with many non-AI lenses. There have been other disconformities in the evolution of the "unchaged" F-mount. But if the users are happy, so be it.:confused:

[ilkka_nissila]

This is something that happened in the 1970s, isn't it? I have read that Nikon offered a conversion service to modify non-Ai lenses to Ai, for a time, and I've read some independent repair shops could provide this service even after Nikon stopped offering it. I agree there have been discontinuities but they typically push one to upgrade the camera to use the newest lenses, rather than give up existing lenses (which could potentially be much more expensive). I maintain that in the digital era it makes sense to keep bodies up to date because the image quality and features have been rapidly advancing and one can get better results from older lenses that one could with bodies offered at the time those lenses were brought to market. I'm happy to use a few 1980s and 1990s Nikkors though I don't have anything from the pre-Ai era. Nikon did make a DSLR body which can use non-Ai lenses too, though some love it and some don't.

 

I personally have upgraded bodies to be able to use VR, as well as to access the latest radio based remote flash control system. I gave up on the manual focus F3HP not because of G lenses but to get a built-in spot meter (somehow Nikon was unable to implement spot metering in a manual focus camera). Either which way there is sometimes a necessity to make some changes to implement new features that engineers were not able to predict many years ahead of time. Of course it would be preferable to have perfect compatibility.

Edited January 22, 2018 by ilkka_nissila

[Andrew Garrard]

It does seem that Nikon were less prepared for AF-P than usual - they have a history of having compatible bodies in the market for several years before introducing lens technology that relies on them.

 

Pedantically, Pentax did a mirrorless body with their SLR lens mount. It was, of course, much thicker than everyone else's and didn't, I believe, sell well.

[Sanford]

bob_bill, always bring your own lanyard...

[Dieter Schaefer]

This is something that happened in the 1970s, isn't it?

1977 was the year Nikon introduced Ai. I got into the Nikon system 1979 and never bothered with pre-Ai lenses. The only cameras that had the provision (flip-up Ai tab among others) to mount pre-Ai lenses directly were the single digit F bodies (F5 and F6 only after modification), the FM, FE, and EL2. Those who didn't avail themselves to the Ai conversion offered by Nikon lost the ability to mount those lenses on subsequent "consumer" film SLRs. Having to convert lenses to fit newer bodies isn't unique to Nikon; I remember that lenses for the Rolleiflex SL66 had to be modified to be used on subsequent cameras. And IIRC, the same was true for older Leica SLR lenses once the R bodies arrived on the scene.

 

Canon seem to have kept the number of contacts the same.

Canon requires a minumum of 8 contacts but most L-series and some macro lenses have 10.

[Dieter Schaefer]

lost the ability to mount those lenses on subsequent "consumer" film SLRs.

Correction: one might be able to mount them but one certainly can't meter with them.

[bob_bill]

Sanford, a couple of folks did. Nikon guys. Fuji gave their shoots Fuji lanyards. No big, just apparently Nikon doesn't think Nikon pros are worth marketing.

[rodeo_joe1]

"Both have kept their SLR mounts for their mirrorless cameras, which makes it simpler to produce adapters so their SLR lenses can be used on their mirrorless systems."

 

- An idiotic move when so much more can be done by keeping the camera body shallow and the lens mount of large diameter. Especially when a simple extender tube with electrical contacts could be used to revert (degrade) the camera to DSLR dimensions.

 

My opinion is that Nikon should go back to its roots of providing a truly comprehensive system camera, with accessories for every application. Back in the 1950s a reflex body made perfect sense in this respect, but no longer.

 

The possibility is now there to make a slim, lightweight body with a massive diameter lens throat and extremely short register - completely reversing the error of judgment Nikon made with the dimensions of the F mount.

 

Electrical lens controls make adaptation to earlier G and BIM AF lenses a complete doddle. While allowing a huge amount of lens tilt/shift without vignetting via a new bellows arrangement. To the best of my knowledge, no other manufacturer caters to the product-shooter in this way. Not at the 'affordable' end of the market anyway.

 

If Nikon doesn't adopt a much wider and shorter mount for its (hopefully) upcoming MILC, then it's missing a golden opportunity and deserves to straggle in its competitors wakes.

Edited January 23, 2018 by rodeo_joe|1

[robert_bouknight1]

I agree with RJ, a well engineered new mount that is better than the existing Nikon F and Sony "FE" mount (which is really is a DX design) would be ideal. Nikon would certainly sell certainly more wide angle lens native to a new improved mount, since they could be better/smaller, and eventually less expensive.

 

The new mount should be compatible with AF-S lenses with an adapter at a minimum, this would help sell more bodies since the financial burden for existing Nikon system owners would be lower. I would hope the adapter would provide more complete AF operation than the Nikon One FT-1 did. I have not tried them, but the Sony FE-Minolta and Canon AF adapters are supposed to work generally OK.

 

I would hate to loose screw drive AF lens capability but that would not be a deal breaker for me if other benefits outweigh. Realistically, l only have 2 screw drive lenses left where AF is important, a 105/2/DC and 180/2.8. Maybe there could be a more expensive adapter version that could incorporate a screw drive motor.

[Andrew Garrard]

Rumours do suggest a wide, short mount - I agree that Pentax's addition of their SLR mount for mirrorless was fairly ridiculous, although I sympathise that they didn't have the resources to build a system in a hurry.

 

Nikon does have to build a system to be competitive - but they're entering a game where micro 4/3, Sony and Fuji all have quite complete systems already. The question is whether Nikon can get something together before the other systems obsolete them. They need to do much better than they did with CX to make it work.

[rodeo_joe1]

"..but they're entering a game where micro 4/3, Sony and Fuji all have quite complete systems already."

 

- Agreed, but none of those 'systems' include a miniature version of a monorail front end. Nikon need to add total flexibility to compete in those niche areas where a phone-camera or other rigid body camera just can't cut it.

 

I see potential for a slim MILC to be used like a polaroid back, but with built-in shutter and viewfinder; to be clipped on where it's needed. Whether that be to a long lens, a T/S bellows, macro bellows, ultrawide lens or whatever. An Aptus/'Blad back without the tethering encumbrance or hyped-up cost.

 

And Nikon would definitely have to be present at trade shows in order to put across the advantages of such a system.

 

Oh, yes, and a 16 bit A/D wouldn't go amiss either!

Edited January 24, 2018 by rodeo_joe|1

[Andrew Garrard]

Agreed about 16-bit A/D (although they may be relying on increasing the pixel count so 14-bit is always enough for their sensitivity).

 

Any of the existing mirrorless systems can take an adapted set of bellows. I have an F adaptor for my GF2. These things are needed, but there are more mainstream and field-friendly solutions that need to be in place natively, preferably before Sony get their EF adaptor running at full capability. Nikon have to provide good F compatibility, but need to provide native lenses that have benefits - notably in size, possibly (for wide angles) in quality, probably in speed you can't get from the F mount.

[mike_halliwell]

I guess they could make the new sensor for their FF MILC, errr, square;)

 

An adapter for Nikon FX > Nikon FX MILC would need to be a multiplier of sorts if the flange distance is so much less, or whatever the opposite of extension tubes are!

 

What is the true history behind why photography went rectangular in the first place?

[ilkka_nissila]

The adapter is just an extension tube with electronics in the ideal case, in practice it needs a motor for G aperture control and another for AF Nikkor autofocus, and an Ai readout.

 

A rectangular sensor is more economical when most images are printed/published/displayed as rectangular images. With square you have to throw more image away when you go to rectangular by cropping.

[mike_halliwell]

Doesn't the adapter have to optically 'reduce' the flange distance from Nikon F, ie 46.50mm to something like 18mm for MILC??

 

An extension tube make it longer not shorter....:confused:

 

The oddity is most books are portrait and most screens are landscape.

[ilkka_nissila]

The lens is designed to be mounted at a certain flange distance. By adding an extension tube to the short flange distance mirrorless camera, you effectively create a combination with a longer flange distance that matches the F mount. So then the lens can work as it was designed to.

[mike_halliwell]

Oh Yeah! I was going the wrong way....:oops:

 

Thanks Ilkka!

[rodeo_joe1]

"Any of the existing mirrorless systems can take an adapted set of bellows."

 

- All the macro bellows on the market have a smallish, square profile. This, of itself, presents a vignetting limit to the amount of shift/tilt that could be applied - even if the bellows incorporated front movements.

 

To successfully mimic a monorail LF camera, the bellows need to be tapered (opening out at the sensor end), and front movements need to shift and tilt in two axes. Or at least offer free rotation of both axes.

 

Andrew. I don't get how increasing pixel numbers equates to increasing A/D bit depth. Not the same thing at all.

[ilkka_nissila]

Novoflex make a medium format tilt/shift bellows as well as one which has a pretty large width but is designed for small format cameras. You can remove and replace the front and rear parts to suit different mounts.

 

By making photosites smaller, you can improve dynamic range because the noise from a single pixel ADC causes a smaller effect on the overall image (each pixel occupies a smaller part of the total image area). This is one reason why cameras such as the D8x0 excel in normalized dynamic range measurements at base ISO. When resampling the high pixel count image to a lower pixel count for display or printing, the per pixel SNR improves and you can achieve improved results without actually using a 16-bit ADC.

[Andrew Garrard]

What Ilkka said.

 

Surely the only issue with vignetting (not that I own bellows) is if the bellows block the optical path. I'd have thought the benefit to tapered bellows is that most large format lenses are much smaller than the film plane, so the taper saves space (and possibly reduces light bouncing around). I don't see how it helps in a smaller format.