-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Rumor: New mount for mirrorless
- Thread starter rhlpetrus
- Start date
bobn2
Forum Pro
Yes, but I suspect that Nikon will not offer the adapter, for all kinds of company culture and commercial reasons. Third party adapters would depend on Nikon releasing the protocols for the new mount, or reverse engineering.They could because Sony has made the specification and protocols for e mount available to any device make who wants them.. this is why so many smart adapters are available.I think it's incorrect anyway looks like this mount is large enough for the E mount to fit inside, and 2mm is fine for an adapter. Actually, it's much the same as an E mount to mFT adapter, which is possible (I have one)
I wouldn't suppose Nikon will offer its own adapter, but it should be possible to engineer.
--
Tinkety tonk old fruit, & down with the Nazis!
Bob
Also, strictly, the opening of the E mount was at Sony's discretion, and is formally only extended to lens and accessory makers, not necessarily to camera makers. Still, Sigma has such an arrangement and makes cameras, but it may be that Nikon would have to make lenses in E mount to take advantage of Sony's generous free licensing offer.
--
Tinkety tonk old fruit, & down with the Nazis!
Bob
bobn2
Forum Pro
That's quite a contentious statement.
The Sony zooms look to be a decent range, although similar in size and cost to the Nikons.
The primes are an odd mishmash of big and expensive, and not particularly compact or fast or inexpensive. There's nothing like the range of prime choices, below 100mm, let alone above.
michaeladawson
Forum Pro
You mean Nikon won't offer adapters for other brand lenses, right? Just making sure I understand because I certainly think Nikon will release one for their F-mount lenses.
It will be interesting to see what they will do with an adapter. The N1 adapter was disappointing. There's really no reason I can see that an adapter shouldn't have full functionality in comparison to a mirrorless body that they would release with F-mount.
People have opined that an adapter might be lacking aperture lever support, as an example. That could be possible, but my response would be that they might not put an aperture lever in a mirrorless F-mount body either.
I think a potentially bigger issue would be whether the sensor has been optimized for a very short register. In that case it could be possible that you may get slightly lesser IQ (mostly towards the edges and corners?) with adapted lenses. But I suppose that could play the other way as well... If they don't optimize the sensor for very short register the z-mount lenses may have some IQ issues at short focal lengths.
Very true. Having left Nikon for Sony, I will say that there are certain Sony mount lenses that take a back seat to no one. There are still gaps in the lineup but if rumours are true, some of those gaps will close this Spring. For my needs, I have all my bases covered.
Good question. I think Nikon starts out with an adapter for F-mount "G" and "E" lenses (maybe not "D" lenses which require a focus motor in the camera body).... and maybe they even include the adapter with the new mirrorless bodies until they get a native lens collection going.
There are TONS of Canon users on Sony because the adapters for Canon glass are pretty rock solid. Nikon adapting seems a bit more hit-or-miss.
It’s a bit more complicated than that.
The primes are very comparable, or slightly smaller, than lenses of similar overall quality.
So look at the 50/1.4 for example. Optically top notch.. better than the Nikon 50/1.4. And heavier than the 50/1.4. But the best 50/1.4 for Nikon is actually the Sigma ART—- which is bigger and heavier than the Sony.
Meanwhile, for 1.8 primes... the Sony 50/1.8 is similar in size, price and quality to the Nikon 50/1.8— The Sony 55/1.8 is much more expensive but optically far superior while still being small. At 85/1.8... the Sony is actually a little cheaper than the Nikon, similar size, and optically superior (I’ve used both lenses. The Nikon is great but the Sony is brilliant).
And there are plenty of choices, fast and less fast, from about 25mm to 100mm. Under 25 and over 100, Sony is a bit lacking in primes.
Clayton1985
Veteran Member
I would add the 16-35 f4, 16-35 f2.8 to the list of better and/or not available with Nikon. I don't know that anyone would buy the Sony lenses just to mount them on a Nikon mirrorless camera but if they already own them they might not want to give them up until better options are available.
cosmicnode
Veteran Member
I have read in other threads that Sony mirrorless lenses need power to focus even manually, If you make a adaptor 2mm thick where can you put the circuitry, chips and contacts to operate the lens, is this simply wishful thinking?
bobn2
Forum Pro
The contacts don't occur within the flange (unless you have a Pentax. With modern chip-scale IC packaging, there is room for circuitry within a stainless steel sandwich if wanted, or else it could be in a bulge at the bottom, outside the flange area, as most smart adapters have.
Alex Permit
Senior Member
Doesn’t the IBIS mechanism go in the back of the sensor? Why should a short flange distance be an issue?
cosmicnode
Veteran Member
If the mount was also a small diameter, with some lenses, specifically long fast lenses which have the rear elements a considerable distance inside the lens tube, the metel or plastic making up the lens mount bayonette may obscure the corners of the sensor when the mount has a short registration distance (don't forget the bayonette of the lens mount will protrude into the mount by around 5-6mm further reducing the distance to the sensor from the rear of the lens) esecially when ibis is moving their corners even further away from the centre of the optical path from the lens. look at previous photo's of the Sony E mount in this discussion you can see that the mount covers the corners of the sensor, and that is without the material of the lens mount itself
--
Mike.
"I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure."
Last edited:
But it's even more complicated than that! In the sense that a lens is a package of attributes - size, speed, cost and optical performance.
For me, with any reasonable brand post 1990 prime lens, the optical performance is secondary. I'm interested in people, events and travel; not landscapes-on-a-tripod so I can admire edge sharpness on a huge print.
The "technical" quality-limiting attributes for my photos are shutter speed and iso, and DoF control. I've rarely ever looked at a photo where the optical performance was an issue (except perhaps bad flare occasionally). If the composition and focus was right, the issue will be noise or lack of DR at high ISO, or some subject motion due to low shutter speed. Therefore compact fast primes are more important to me than optically perfect primes
Exactly. The point is there's no one person's set of priorities which are a universal truth. I want a good 50 1.4 for the speed and compactness. The Sony one and the Sigma ART are ludicrously big for a 50, like the Leica SL 50 1.4.
The Nikon 50 1.4 is both cheap and compact in comparison and there's nothing more I need from it optically. So whilst for you the Sony 50 1.4 is a win for the Sony system, for me it's the opposite.
My 50 1.8 is an AF-D. About $100 and looks to be half the lengthy of the rather long Sony 50 1.8. The 55 1.8 is nearly 3x the cost of a Nikon 50 1.4. Pointless.
Fair enough. 85mm is probably the one focal length where the two systems are most comparable and if you say the Sony 1.8 is better I'll take your word for it. Ditto for the 1.4. (But, personally, I suspect the optical betterness of the Sony is immaterial to my needs.)
I have a Nikon 85 1.4 AFS, but also an 85 1.8 AF-D. That is really small and works for everything except low light when I want the last 1/2 stop from the 1.4
Not really "plenty" in comparison to the Nikkor line. You've picked some highlights but let's look at 35mm. There's a big 1.4, fair enough. And a very slow 2.8 - nothing in between. Nikon has a big 1.4, a very good 1.8 and a nearly pancake 2.0 AFD.
Exactly, but that leaves 85mm as the most competitive prime length for Sony, and 50mm if optical perfection is your goal rather than (for me at least) the more traditional thing for a 50 which is versatility - low cost/fast/small. Otherwise there are a few other good primes of course, but it's nothing like as complete a system relative to the choices in the F mount.
It's why for me, at least, the "size benefit" of the Sony system is illusory. If I want to carry my big 1.4 primes and 2.8 zooms, the extra few hundred grams of a Nikon DSLR are immaterial. If I want to go compact but still benefit from FF sensor performance and DoF control, I can assemble a more compact fast system with Nikon primes IMHO.
To make it clear these are honest preferences rather than fandom, I will say that I suspect for my needs, the latest Sony AF system is better than Nikon's. I don't care about sports AF tracking, which most reviews go on about. Reading Jim Klasson's blog article about using the D850 and A7Riii for family events, I think the accuracy of the Sony AF system plus the eye detection is something I'd prefer to even D5/D850 AF.
Last edited:
Life recorder
Forum Enthusiast
You could be right.
Alex Permit
Senior Member
It's not a problem for the E-mount, with nearly the same FFD and a narrower throat.
Jim
bobn2
Forum Pro
I think people seriously overestimate how far IBIS needs to move the sensor. I remember people telling us it was impossible on a full frame camera, that was before Sony and Pentax did it.
cosmicnode
Veteran Member
Alex Permit
Senior Member
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum