This is how Nikon can keep the F-mount in future mirrorless

This will allow old F-mount lenses and newly developed lenses for mirrorless with short flange distance to be used on one camera.

Even lenses with different flange distance if needed.

When the lens it's recognized the camera may move the sensor as needed.

As well will allow mounting lenses from other systems with adapters when the sensor it's mooved in front close to the mount.

The biggest challenge of such a camera will be the movement of the mechanical shutter in front of the sensor.

mugen said:

This will allow old F-mount lenses and newly developed lenses for mirrorless with short flange distance to be used on one camera.

Even lenses with different flange distance if needed.

When the lens it's recognized the camera may move the sensor as needed.

As well will allow mounting lenses from other systems with adapters when the sensor it's mooved in front close to the mount.

The biggest challenge of such a camera will be the movement of the mechanical shutter in front of the sensor.

Click to expand...

I would call that an "insuperable problem" rather than a "challenge" ;-)

I really do not see the need to change the mount. Today the D850 provides some stunning results with an existing lens line up, even with wide angles, right in to the corners. So, what is to be gained? The Sony experience proves that the size and weight differential is not a real benefit. Folks want a substantial body to handle the lenses that FF requires. Nikon would be better off leaving the mount and flange distance as they are. It can then continue to improve its existing lens line up and provide both DsLRs and Mirrorless cameras. The working pro or hobbyist will appreciate the ability to easily switch tools, depending on the need and benefits of each system.

I think it wouldn't be a good idea. One reason for some to get a mirrorless would be to have a slimmer body. This is nullified with such mechanism. The problem can just be solved with an adapter in order to adapt an F mount lens. Also it would be preferable to avoid the moving parts as already the lens is moving to aquire focus. Think what can happen if also your focus point is moving. Luckily though the focus on mirrorless in on the sensor.

Also the Contax AX mechanism shown was a try to have AF with usage of manual focus lenses back at 1996.

morinor said:

Also the Contax AX mechanism shown was a try to have AF with usage of manual focus lenses back at 1996.

Click to expand...

Yes, the same can be used here with the old MF Nikkor lenses.

The biggest advantage of such a camera will be keeping the F-mount support, but the variable flange distance will allow development of new wide angle lenses benefiting of the advantage of short flange distance.

We can see how this is used in lenses like Sony 12-24 and Laowa 10-18mm full frame lens for E-mount announced recently.

Given that a lot of more experienced photographers investment is in lens rater than bodies then any DX/FX mirrorless offering must either have the same depth of body as today or offer an adaptor for Nikon lens. The adaptor does not have to be that complicated as all its doing is offering electronic connection and extending the front of the camera.

Moving to mirrorless does not necessarily make any lens smaller or lighter so its purely down to the depth of the camera body.

mugen said:

This will allow old F-mount lenses and newly developed lenses for mirrorless with short flange distance to be used on one camera.

Even lenses with different flange distance if needed.

When the lens it's recognized the camera may move the sensor as needed.

As well will allow mounting lenses from other systems with adapters when the sensor it's mooved in front close to the mount.

The biggest challenge of such a camera will be the movement of the mechanical shutter in front of the sensor.

Click to expand...

Seems like an overcomplicated solution that may introduce more problems than it solves and is not well future-proofed.

This seems to be solving a technical problem of "how do I preserve the lens mount" rather than the photographic problem of "how do I use my F-mount lenses?"

Also, is Nikon's primary goal to be compatible with lenses of the past or lenses of the future?

If Nikon wants to take advantage of fewer moving parts or a short flange distance or larger mount diameter for both camera & lens designs, it should release a new mount. To solve the problem of F-lenses, it should release an extension tube. This is the simplest, most straightforward solution.

If Nikon does not want to take advantage of the above, it should continue with F-mount.

They Could also use the Sensor for Ibis and also for focusing with Low Energy consumption.

mugen said:

When the lens it's recognized the camera may move the sensor as needed.

As well will allow mounting lenses from other systems with adapters when the sensor it's mooved in front close to the mount.

Click to expand...

I posted a joke about such a concept on April Fools day here this year.

I had no idea it had actually been a thing at one point

haha

MrScrooge said:

MrScrooge said:

When the lens it's recognized the camera may move the sensor as needed.

As well will allow mounting lenses from other systems with adapters when the sensor it's mooved in front close to the mount.

Click to expand...

I posted a joke about such a concept on April Fools day here this year.

I had no idea it had actually been a thing at one point

Click to expand...

No it could be an idea, but it has also its practical usage that it seems to have failed. This is though smarter than a talking camera. :-D

avalvo said:

I really do not see the need to change the mount. Today the D850 provides some stunning results with an existing lens line up, even with wide angles, right in to the corners. So, what is to be gained? The Sony experience proves that the size and weight differential is not a real benefit. Folks want a substantial body to handle the lenses that FF requires. Nikon would be better off leaving the mount and flange distance as they are. It can then continue to improve its existing lens line up and provide both DsLRs and Mirrorless cameras. The working pro or hobbyist will appreciate the ability to easily switch tools, depending on the need and benefits of each system.

Click to expand...

+1. Took the words right out of my mouth. I couldn't agree more.

But . . .

I bet Nikon will regard the "great mirrorless quake of aught-18" as an opportunity for both profiteering and modernizing their lens mount.

Profiteering? You bet. Introducing a new mount is a way to get a certain segment to just re-buy all of their Nikon gear. Why introduce a new body, alone, when you can use the hoopla to pull new lenses out of everyone's wallet, too? You know people out there who'll love it. They'll be here, arguing red-faced about what a great privilege it is and how "worth it" the experience has been to buy their Nikon system all over again.

Modernizing? Nikon famously skipped biting this bullet the way Canon did when autofocus became a "thing" in the late 80s, and it has been left ever since with a narrow-throated, mechanically-belabored hodge-podge of added standards and incompatibilities. I have a strong hunch Z-mount will clean out all the cruft and be even more future-oriented than Sony's FE mount, which is actually a little small for its evolution into fast-aperture, full-frame professional gear. And the price we'll pay: adapted F-mount lens performance will be lackluster. Slow / limited AF on the latest F-mount lenses, no AF compatibility at all with screwdriver AF-D. See point one, above, regarding Profiteering.

Yes, I am being cynical. And that perspective allows me to see "mirrorless" as a "movement" that's louder than it is numerous: however noisily some people bark and howl on the internet, sales remain flat overall. I think bean counters at both Canon and Nikon see it that way too--but it doesn't mean they won't leverage the barkers' and howlers' noise to try and extract some money from the rest of us. Every time some plinker here foams at the mouth that "mirrorless is the future!" they are offering Nikon and Canon free advertising cover to introduce new products that cost much more, but don't much push the performance bar. "The future!"

Don't believe me? Well, consider that DPReview had to write a whole editorial about whether they liked the new, amazing, crowning Sony A7.3 better than the 4.5-year-old Nikon D750, and in the end the author couldn't conclude upon a definitive answer. Is the Sony A7.3 the "new" D750? The best Dan Bracaglia can say is, "maybe." And for all that hand-wringing, did the A7.3 actually replace the D750 as DPReview's top recommended $2000 camera? Nope. Need another example? I would refer you to DPReview's recent look at Canon's M50. "Definitely" a "Maybe?" if ever I saw one.

Brace yourself, friends. Because that's what we're going to get from both new Canon and Nikon mirrorless options. Will they push the bar? On your wallet, definitively yes. On performance? I can already read the DPReview editorial opinion article: "Maybe?"

it opens the Option to distiguish Nikon from the competition, because not only lens adjustment Options which are Standard today can be realized, but also sensor adjustment Options as a new toy and selling argument. it alsow would be wise to have several Options for on how fast the cam should move the sensor ...

BR gusti

Option 1 - A new mount with a smaller flange distance. But would need adapters if you want to share lenses across DSLR and mirrorless bodies.

Option 2 - Keep the mount, accept the camera being thicker than the competition; which is actually no bad thing ergonomically. Trim is as far as possible though. New lenses can be built which extend the rear element into the space created by the mirror box, allowing new pancake lens designs.

The main thing they need to get right is a smart UI with touch screen, taking full advantage of the technology. E.g. let me move the focus point on the fly in video, with the touch screen. Let me touch two points which I want in focus and let the camera select the right settings to get the right depth of field. It could even focus stack in camera. Or you could select the highlight area and the shadow area and let the camera do smart-bracketing automatically. I should be able to all of this via my smartphone as easily as on the back of the camera.

Their risk is that, if they have a new, incompatible lens series for their MILC cameras, then, the cots of going MILC is the same for all vendors. That is, I have a bag full of F mount FF lenses, so, right now, shifting systems is the cost of new lenses plus a new body. But, If I stay with Nikon, upgrading is "only" the cost of a new FF body.

But, if I want to move to a Nikon FF MILC, and, have to change all my lenses as well, then I may as well consider ANY FF MILC, and, Nikon may not win in this case.

Various computer manufacturers faced this problem with performance upgrades that involved CPU's with compilers that were not backwards compatible..

ihasa said:

Option 1 - A new mount with a smaller flange distance. But would need adapters if you want to share lenses across DSLR and mirrorless bodies.

Option 2 - Keep the mount, accept the camera being thicker than the competition; which is actually no bad thing ergonomically. Trim is as far as possible though. New lenses can be built which extend the rear element into the space created by the mirror box, allowing new pancake lens designs.

The main thing they need to get right is a smart UI with touch screen, taking full advantage of the technology. E.g. let me move the focus point on the fly in video, with the touch screen. Let me touch two points which I want in focus and let the camera select the right settings to get the right depth of field. It could even focus stack in camera. Or you could select the highlight area and the shadow area and let the camera do smart-bracketing automatically. I should be able to all of this via my smartphone as easily as on the back of the camera.

Click to expand...

There seems to be this common misconception regarding the mount's relationship to ergonomics. The mount does not have much if anything to do with ergonomics.

Case in point:







Mounting the lens further forward is in fact worse for general ergonomics, since the weight of the lens is held further forward. It would be the same ergonomics for adapted lenses as a DSLR, since the lens is held in the same position.

Also, this is a pancake lens (for Nikon F):





This is not a pancake:



These lenses were designed before retro-focal techniques we see in wide angle lenses today. They don't remove restrictions the mount creates; they tend to have very poor vignetting; and they don't work as well for digital sensors.

beatboxa said:

ihasa said:

Option 1 - A new mount with a smaller flange distance. But would need adapters if you want to share lenses across DSLR and mirrorless bodies.

Option 2 - Keep the mount, accept the camera being thicker than the competition; which is actually no bad thing ergonomically. Trim is as far as possible though. New lenses can be built which extend the rear element into the space created by the mirror box, allowing new pancake lens designs.

The main thing they need to get right is a smart UI with touch screen, taking full advantage of the technology. E.g. let me move the focus point on the fly in video, with the touch screen. Let me touch two points which I want in focus and let the camera select the right settings to get the right depth of field. It could even focus stack in camera. Or you could select the highlight area and the shadow area and let the camera do smart-bracketing automatically. I should be able to all of this via my smartphone as easily as on the back of the camera.

Click to expand...

There seems to be this common misconception regarding the mount's relationship to ergonomics. The mount does not have much if anything to do with ergonomics.

Case in point:

Mounting the lens further forward is in fact worse for general ergonomics, since the weight of the lens is held further forward. It would be the same ergonomics for adapted lenses as a DSLR, since the lens is held in the same position.

Also, this is a pancake lens (for Nikon F):

This is not a pancake:

These lenses were designed before retro-focal techniques we see in wide angle lenses today. They don't remove restrictions the mount creates; they tend to have very poor vignetting; and they don't work as well for digital sensors.

Click to expand...

Re ergonomics, what I am saying is that for most shooting, the body thickness is a bit irrelevant; by the time you put in a decent sized grip to help when shooting with large heavy zooms or fast FF primes, the body thickness is fairly irrelevant to a lot of people. As your pictures suggest.

And I'm not saying lenses like THAT one SHOULD be made, just that they COULD be made to sit within the mount, IF that was helpful. I have no idea whether this is the case; the manufacturer's seem to have little problem making lenses with a normal flange distance. But I keep reading that the reduced flange distance opens up new possibilities for lens design.

ihasa said:

Re ergonomics, what I am saying is that for most shooting, the body thickness is a bit irrelevant; by the time you put in a decent sized grip to help when shooting with large heavy zooms or fast FF primes, the body thickness is fairly irrelevant to a lot of people. As your pictures suggest.

And I'm not saying lenses like THAT one SHOULD be made, just that they COULD be made to sit within the mount, IF that was helpful. I have no idea whether this is the case; the manufacturer's seem to have little problem making lenses with a normal flange distance. But I keep reading that the reduced flange distance opens up new possibilities for lens design.

Click to expand...

(Assuming most people shoot with large, heavy zooms & fast FF primes. Some people don't, and so you should end up with diverse body styles).

It was implied that you were making the suggestion, since you spent more time explaining and judging option 2. This indicates either bias or or that #2 is more complicated or both.

Manufacturers have no problem making lenses within the bounds of the flange distance they're working with. But they do have problems making lenses beyond these bounds. It's tough to compare something to something that can't exist. But we have lenses like 50mm F/1.0, a bunch of F/0.7 lenses, compact wide angles, wider lenses, etc. Well, not Nikon.

The other possibility that reduced flange distance opens up is ability and flexibility in adapting lenses. Not just "adapt" but also to use the adapter to add features. Real life examples include:

• Rear ND filter that works on any adapted lens. But really, could be any drop-in rear filter. No need to match filter threads:
  
  Loading…

  www.dpreview.com
  (Think Nikon 14-24mm F/2.8...)
• Ability to tilt-shift any Nikon lens on a mirrorless body:
  
  Loading…

  www.adorama.com
  (Again, think 14-24mm F/2.8)
• Ability to autofocus any manual-focus lens on a body:
  
  Loading…

  www.thephoblographer.com
• Ability to use the full image circle & exposure on a crop sensor mirrorless
  
  Loading…

  www.metabones.com

In this sense, there are new possibilities when adapting lenses as well. These above things likely won't happen by keeping the mount.

mugen said:

This will allow old F-mount lenses and newly developed lenses for mirrorless with short flange distance to be used on one camera.

Even lenses with different flange distance if needed.

When the lens it's recognized the camera may move the sensor as needed.

As well will allow mounting lenses from other systems with adapters when the sensor it's mooved in front close to the mount.

Click to expand...

The good old Contax AX. You ever seen one in the flesh? They made a D5 look small. The AF also wasn't very effective. Clever engineering, though. As a way to instantly remove any advantages of a mirrorless camera, it would be good.

mugen said:

The biggest challenge of such a camera will be the movement of the mechanical shutter in front of the sensor.

Click to expand...

Don't see why, the AX solved it quite well.

However, given that the F mount is beginning to creak at the seams and is intrinsically very poorly suited to mirrorless, not just because of the register, a much more sensible solution is a brand new mount with an adapter for F mount lenses. I don't see why there is any advantage in a native F mount camera over that.

beatboxa said:

Manufacturers have no problem making lenses within the bounds of the flange distance they're working with. But they do have problems making lenses beyond these bounds. It's tough to compare something to something that can't exist. But we have lenses like 50mm F/1.0, a bunch of F/0.7 lenses, compact wide angles, wider lenses, etc. Well, not Nikon.

Click to expand...

The F mount in its latest form will, just, do an f/1.0 lens. The thing that was stopping it, was the mechanical stop down lever, but now with the E lenses, that has gone. The absurd design of Nikon's contact block needs a complete overhaul, but there are feasible designs which would work. It would also need some modern manufacturing techniques at the back end, rather than the traditional tube mount, which in turn would probably necessitate internal focussing. The other thing is that it does put some constraints on the design of the lens, which larger mounts wouldn't have, but the clear area at the back is just enough to provide for an f/1.0 exit pupil.

--
Tinkety tonk old fruit, & down with the Nazis!
Bob