The FTZ Adapter

[rodeo_joe1]

but annoying for the other 99% of us.

 

- A bit of a presumption there Andrew; that 99% of Nikon users walk around with a cumbersome QR plate screwed to the camera.

 

I see many, many DSLR users walking around with 'bare' cameras, and a permanently attached Arca plate is the exception, not the rule.

 

I perceive a lot of love for QR plates and L brackets on these fora. In the real world - not so much.

 

Let's face it; tripod use is the exception for most users.

 

I also see little point in trying to reduce the size and weight of camera burden by going mirrorless, only to enlarge that size and weight by attaching an L bracket to the darned thing.

 

Let's also analyse tripod use: Is it used for wideangle or standard focal lengths? Not much!

Is a tripod's major use with long telephoto lenses? You betcha!

So why stick a stupid L bracket or QR plate on the camera body, when it's the heavy lens that needs support?

 

P.S. The very fact that there's a tripod bush in the 'lump' gives the lie to the theory that it's all taken up with actuator motors. Any substantial 1/4" threaded bush and its mounting is itself going to take up a fair volume within the housing

[Andrew Garrard]

To be fair, I often carry the camera around with an L-plate on it just in case, and I don't really want to put wear and tear on the tripod socket. I sometimes remember to remove it before trips - getting rid of several collars/feet and L-plates adds up.

 

Let's face it; tripod use is the exception for most users.

 

Oh yes, it's even the exception for me. But if you're going to stick a thread on the bottom of something and make it asymmetrically stick out of the bottom of the camera, the assumption would be that it's for tripod use. What I don't tend to see is people using tripods but not using some form of QR plate - the arguable exception being some table-top supports that don't really have room for a proper head, and some very portable tripods with the same argument (ZipShot, VTP-787). The average cheap department store tripod still tends to have some kind of proprietary QR plate in it, in my limited experience.

 

Putting the lump on the side would actually have been better. It's a bit less likely to foul the base, it's not a lump under your hand, and it would give you a portrait orientation mount (like my Pentax 645, which has two tripod sockets). And I really hope the Z mount can handle the small amount of extra leverage needed to handle a cantilevered adaptor, if the F mount is holding up.

 

I also see little point in trying to reduce the size and weight of camera burden by going mirrorless, only to enlarge that size and weight by attaching an L bracket to the darned thing.

 

Well, yes, but you've made the thing weigh more than a Df and about twice as much as a D3500 just by sticking the FTZ on it. It's going to have to be the native lenses that make things smaller and lighter, and even then it's not going to make the kind of difference that a micro 4/3 crop factor does. I don't deny that an L plate adds considerable bulk (and squishes my nose), but then there are people asking for a battery grip. Which would, admittedly, solve the overhang problem.

 

Let's also analyse tripod use: Is it used for wideangle or standard focal lengths? Not much!

 

Really? I quite often use a tripod with a wide angle or moderate prime for accurate framing or for longer exposures, and certainly for night shooting. It's also how I typically shoot video, on the rare occasions that I do. Plus selfies (or, more reasonably, group shots).

 

Is a tripod's major use with long telephoto lenses? You betcha!

 

I actually tend to be moving around more with telephotos, and hand-hold them. Sure, the big primes on a Wimberley shouldn't be troubling the camera tripod socket (although I've seen vibration-reducing supports that stretch across both), and I'm not saying I've never used my 200-500 on a tripod, but I'm not sure it's that weird to pair a tripod with something shorter. Pistol grip heads and the like wouldn't really exist if only long lenses got tripod mounted; indeed, most ball heads are a bit iffy once you stick a big telephoto on them.

 

So why stick a stupid L bracket or QR plate on the camera body, when it's the heavy lens that needs support?

 

It's sometimes both, otherwise they wouldn't make L plates and longer lenses wouldn't have collars.

 

So no, it's not always a problem. But it's a problem for shooting video, and for shorter lenses. Basically the cases where we'd expect to see a benefit from mirrorless, since telephoto lenses aren't so restricted by avoiding the mirror box. Not the end of the world by any means, but it feels like a solution should have been possible.

[Dieter Schaefer]

I see many, many DSLR users walking around with 'bare' cameras, and a permanently attached Arca plate is the exception, not the rule.

Then I am an exception too - when I am not using a battery grip on my cameras, then there's an L-plate attached to it. Just in case I need it;) In the case of the Sony A7 bodies: to add that little extra height so that my little finger doesn't dangle freely in space.

 

Let's also analyse tripod use: Is it used for wideangle or standard focal lengths? Not much!

Is a tripod's major use with long telephoto lenses? You betcha!

I am the exception here too - IF I bother to haul a tripod around than it is almost always when using wide angle lenses. When using teles, not so much - though it can come in handy (with a gimbal head) on the rare occasions that I am mostly stationary. Is there an L-plate attached to the camera when I use a tele - generally no. That space is then generally occupied by a battery grip.

 

Making the FTZ stick out past the bottom of the camera it attaches to was a bad move on Nikon's part. Thanks to the tripod mount on the camera being located towards the front of the camera, using QR plates not specifically made for these bodies has them stick out and interfere with the FTZ adapter. For many, the issue will be solved once camera-specific QR plates and brackets become available.

 

Any Z-to-F-mount adapter that will not have the aperture-motor will only work with lenses that still have an aperture ring - and if there may be issues if they have a CPU as well.

 

Nikon could have designed the FTZ with a removal tripod collar - though I am sure they would charge dearly for it. Or they could have made the FTZ base solid and mill a dove-tail into it. Which, of course, would add even more weight.

Edited November 28, 2018 by Dieter Schaefer

[Ed_Ingold]

I also see little point in trying to reduce the size and weight of camera burden by going mirrorless, only to enlarge that size and weight by attaching an L bracket to the darned thing.

An L-bracket adds little to the size and weight of the camera. While its primary purpose is to keep the lens centered on the tripod in the vertical orientation, it also protects the camera on the bottom and one side from bumps and bruises. With RRS L-brackets, the vertical member can be removed for better access to the data ports. It will also slide out of the way to give more clearance for those ports. As a side benefit, the bottom plate has a tripod socket machined into hard aircraft aluminum, if you need to attach a flash bracket or tripod in that manner.

 

Small size and weight are only two entries on the list of attributes for mirrorless cameras, and not the most important for most of us. At the top is probably image quality, primarily through better lenses that don't have to be designed around a swinging mirror. Next might be in-body image stabilization and silent operation, each pushing the size issue further down.

 

There is no law which says you must use an L-bracket, or even an Arca-style plate on the bottom, if it doesn't meet your needs.

 

The lump on the FTZ adapter probably houses the smarts it takes to connect the lens to the camera, for EXIF data and control of the aperture. Any telephoto in need of extra support probably has a tripod foot attached.

Edited November 28, 2018 by Ed_Ingold

[Andrew Garrard]

There are QR plates that allow you to position the socket off-centre - the RRS multi-camera plate, for example. They do tend to have slots rather than holes, and you probably won't get the anti-rotation lip of the plate against the camera, so it's certainly an inferior solution - and even then, I'm not sure how well it'll fit next to the FTZ overhang. Even with that, you can't really put a plate on the FTZ as well, and certainly not if you want room to get a clamp on both of them - some spacer is going to be needed. So it's going to be awkward even with a custom plate.

 

There are G lens adaptors for other formats which simply have a control that pulls the lens's aperture lever around. I suspect the same could be made for Z mount if needed. Getting the AF electronics to work is another matter.

 

I feel obliged to share

...

[Dieter Schaefer]

There are G lens adaptors for other formats which simply have a control that pulls the lens's aperture lever around.

I forgot - and I have one of those floating around here somewhere.

[ShunCheung]

I still have an old 300mm/f2.8 AF-S (1996 version) around. I put that and a 85mm/f1.4 AF-S on the Z6 via the FTZ. Their apertures behave the same way: composition, AF, and metering at the selected aperture from wide open to f5.6, but it wouldn't close down beyond f5.6 until capture time. Edited November 28, 2018 by ShunCheung

[Dieter Schaefer]

Shun, I wonder if the behavior depends on the d8 "apply settings to live view" parameter. On the Sony A7II, with the live view settings applied (ON), the camera will focus at the set aperture if wider than f/5.6 and revert to f/5.6 if the set aperture is stopped below that value. With the parameter off, it appears that the aperture stops down only at the moment of exposure and that AF is performed wide open until the aperture is slower than f/5.6 - when f/5.6 is used for AF.

[ShunCheung]

Shun, I wonder if the behavior depends on the d8 "apply settings to live view" parameter.

Didn't bring my Z6 to work today. I need to put some tape over the EVF so that the camera doesn't use the live view mode and also change the d8 setting to see whether the behavior changes or not.

 

Sorry, I noticed that I am still typing D6 instead of Z6.

[mike_halliwell]

Regarding QR plates.

 

I guess most people put them laterally on bodies and longitudinally on lenses?

[mike_halliwell]

I still have an old 300mm/f2.8 AF-S

When you try it on the Z6 again, how's the big bird with the bent beak, sorry, the IBIS?....:)

[Andrew Garrard]

When you try it on the Z6 again, how's the big bird with the bent beak, sorry, the IBIS?....:)

 

Can we check our terminology here? There are two conflating technologies: there's "moving the sensor around to compensate for single-frame camera shake" (which has a small range of movement and helps individual frames) and there's "move the image capture area around the sensor to compensate for multi-frame wobble" (which has a larger area and helps video). The latter is arguably "electronic VR" (and is selectively supported by the D850 in video mode), but I'd argue it's "image-based"; the sensor-shift version is different.

 

Do you mean the video version, Mike?

[Andrew Garrard]

Is anyone hearing anything about a 3-rd party working on a replacement/alternative mount adapter?

 

Coincidentally, reports are that Kipon is working on an adaptor with an AF motor. Novoflex and Shoten also have some adaptors.

 

Regarding QR plates.

 

I guess most people put them laterally on bodies and longitudinally on lenses?

 

Yes, as far as I know, though adaptors exist for turning through 90 degrees. I have a cheap long lens support on order that's shown clamped sideways to the bottom of a D5 (with a tiny plate); I doubt it's very stable like that, but then I'd be clamping to a lens foot that's "the right way round" anyway. Longitudinal on the body would give a narrow plate that would allow sideways wobble, rather than running the full width of the base; lateral on a lens would make the lens plate very wide.

 

Edit: Mike, are you asking because there appears to be a new longitudinal plate launched for the P1000? It's supporting the lens as much as the camera, though.

Edited November 29, 2018 by Andrew Garrard

[ilkka_nissila]

I suspect we're a couple of years from there being enough coverage with either native Z lenses or sufficiently modern E aperture F-mount lenses (and with some expected overlap) that it makes sense to remove the aperture lever - or to put it another way, there are still too many lenses with aperture levers that are useful, and I'd still like the option to toggle between wide open and stopped down with a manual lens.

 

I just don't see an E only adapter because there are so few E lenses (in terms of volume) vs. G lenses around. I imagine Nikon could allow open aperture viewing as a user choice, to optimize signal-to-noise ratio of the EVF and AF with some cost in AF accuracy (due to focus shift). I think this could even be provided via a firmware update.

 

Many people largely stopped buying expensive Nikon lenses and started buying Sigma Art etc. equivalents which are to my knowledge, all G type (not E). While I am sure Nikon still sell a lot of lenses I think they lost a lot of sales to Sigma and maybe Tamron. Also the E type 24-70 and 70-200 zooms have gotten a lot of criticism for the significant price increase. This is why I don't see an E only adapter as commercially viable. There would still need to be a tripod mount if the purpose is to mount some intermediate size lenses (that don't need a mount when used on a DSLR, but with the extra torque subjected to the camera bayonet due to the presence of the FTZ adapter, may benefit or need to be mounted from the adapter). There will be quick release plates and L brackets that are made to fit the FTZ and the Z6/Z7 cameras, obviously, by the usual suspects (Kirk, RRS, numerous Chinese manufacturers, etc.)

 

Though if Nikon ever update the 14-24 to one with less field curvature, I'll be saving more urgently than my current NAS. The big superteles have long lives, and I'd need quite a financial windfall for my 200 f/2 not to be in my bag for some time. (Or I get poor enough that I need to sell it.) E aperture has always felt like it's mostly a benefit to the third parties who already needed electronic apertures for the EF mount.

 

... but as far as I know, third parties haven't started to make E lenses for F mount yet, or have they? Most make G lenses.

 

If you need to avoid field curvature, I can recommend the 19mm PC which is outstanding in that respect, and produces surprisingly close to perfect results even wide open.

 

Anyone taking bets on whether we'll ever see a dSLR (I imagine in the D3x00 range) without an aperture lever? It's another way of cutting costs and weight (and selling more expensive lenses). So is mirrorless, although it's a fairly close-run thing if you're comparing with a DX pentamirror - the D3500 is already lighter than an Eos M5 and smaller than a Z 6.

 

This is not really feasible since most of the modern, inexpensive Nikon lenses are G, not E. Also the f/1.8 primes, f/4 zooms are G. The 200-500/5.6 is an exception, though. "Ever" is a strong word, but compatibility with the F mount lenses is a key asset of Nikon's. If they give that up and make their most common lenses incompatible, they will lose a lot of sales.

[ilkka_nissila]

Does the FTZ have a tripod thread in the base?

 

Yes.

 

Although the Z6 and Z7 are robustly built, I still think there are lenses with which mounting the adapter to the tripod head is the best option for optimal balance and safety for the mount.

 

Of course, one needs QR pieces that fit the new equipment, but I am confident that there will plenty of suitable pieces available that are made to be compatible with both the Z bodies as well as the FTZ adapter.

[ilkka_nissila]

Is anyone hearing anything about a 3-rd party working on a replacement/alternative mount adapter?

 

While not impossible, I think this could be a very tricky thing to do, considering how much difficulty third party adapter makers have had making electronic connection between F mount lenses and Sony E cameras.

 

However, once Sigma starts to make Z mount lenses, they will have good knowledge of both Z and F mount protocols, and could potentially pull it off.

 

I would definitely go for an adapter that did not have all those motors but instead featured drop-in filters (like they did it with the new Canon).

I am completely phasing out all my non-AF-S, mechanical aperture glass

 

But there are a lot of lenses that don't have E type equivalents.

 

A drop in filter would alter the optical system and might change image quality, if it is not factored in the design.

 

And whatever happened to the vertical grip for this thing? Is it even in the works?

 

There is allegedly going to be a battery pack, which is not a vertical grip, i.e. it doesn't have replicated controls or comfortable shape for handling. I think it's main purpose will be to provide extra battery capacity, rather than improve handling for vertical shooting. It might be meant mainly for video applications, where one is always shooting in horizontal orientation. I don't believe the camera has the connections at the base to make a vertical grip with controls.

[Andrew Garrard]

... but as far as I know, third parties haven't started to make E lenses for F mount yet, or have they? Most make G lenses.

 

The 85mm Sigma Art (at least) is E-aperture equivalent, as is the latest version of the Tamron 24-70. I'm sure others are two, those are just ones I know about. Since the third parties have to support electronic apertures to work on EF mount, I assume E aperture support is less hassle for them than trying to add a mechanical lever just for Nikon.

[Andrew Garrard]

There is allegedly going to be a battery pack, which is not a vertical grip, i.e. it doesn't have replicated controls or comfortable shape for handling. I think it's main purpose will be to provide extra battery capacity, rather than improve handling for vertical shooting. It might be meant mainly for video applications, where one is always shooting in horizontal orientation. I don't believe the camera has the connections at the base to make a vertical grip with controls.

 

I don't believe there are connections on the base; I don't know whether there are connections inside the battery compartment, if a grip contains an insert - if you can get the battery grip cover out of the way, that's arguably a better solution in terms of exposed connectors.

[mike_halliwell]

Do you mean the video version, Mike?

Nope, for stills. I want to attach my non-VR 500mm f4 to a Z6 and see how the stabilization works.

 

Initially for stills, but maybe a video burst for frame grab/super-res too.

 

And yes, I saw that QR for the P1000, interesting idea.

[Andrew Garrard]

Nope, for stills. I want to attach my non-VR 500mm f4 to a Z6 and see how the stabilization works.

 

Ah, okay. Convenient though the acronym is, is "IBIS" actually the preferred name for that? I'd like to ensure we're consistent before we all get too used to the terms. (I've not read the manual yet - what does Nikon call it?)

[BeBu Lamar]

Ah, okay. Convenient though the acronym is, is "IBIS" actually the preferred name for that? I'd like to ensure we're consistent before we all get too used to the terms. (I've not read the manual yet - what does Nikon call it?)

Nikon call it Vibration Reduction so it's still VR.

[Andrew Garrard]

Nikon call it Vibration Reduction so it's still VR.

 

Yes; I just had a bit more of a rummage through the Z7 manual. "Electronic VR" is the video one. The other one is described as "in-camera VR", and in the specs as having "5-axis image sensor shift" (although presumably three of the "shifts" are actually rotations). I don't mind following Nikon's convention (I can never remember which of Nikon or Canon mis-spell flashgun), I just want to know what we mean!

[mike_halliwell]

...and the one in the lens is VR.

 

Except it's really OIS...;)

 

So, there's Electronic, Mechanical and Optical VR.

 

PS. If you put Electronic VR into the Nikon site search box you get NO hits!

[ShunCheung]

Shun, I wonder if the behavior depends on the d8 "apply settings to live view" parameter. On the Sony A7II, with the live view settings applied (ON), the camera will focus at the set aperture if wider than f/5.6 and revert to f/5.6 if the set aperture is stopped below that value. With the parameter off, it appears that the aperture stops down only at the moment of exposure and that AF is performed wide open until the aperture is slower than f/5.6 - when f/5.6 is used for AF.

On the Z6, Custom Setting d8 is about applying the color and brightness settings to live view.

 

[Andrew Garrard]

...and the one in the lens is VR.

 

Except it's really OIS...;)

 

So, there's Electronic, Mechanical and Optical VR.

 

PS. If you put Electronic VR into the Nikon site search box you get NO hits!

 

Ah, but isn't OIS a proprietary term? Sigma are OS, Tamron is VC, Nikon are VR, Canon is IS, but I think someone is OIS. Ah, remembered, Panasonic. (Although their FAQ entry says "optimal image stabiliser", which is funny.)