Sony have some of the best lenses ever made, not much of a handicap there..
I don't see future Nikon MF either, but I wouldn't say that it's impossible.
MF is getting so cheap that Nikon might be forced to consider the competition...
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
What if Nikon stuffed a 100mp MF sensor in a Z9 body? ZM9?
- Thread starter MasterOfGoingFaster
- Start date
I don't see future Nikon MF either, but I wouldn't say that it's impossible.
MF is getting so cheap that Nikon might be forced to consider the competition...
Kenneth Almquist
Forum Enthusiast
- Messages
- 274
- Solutions
- 1
- Reaction score
- 213
If you use a DX lens on an FX camera, the camera could allow you take advantage of the full image circle of the lens, but Nikon Z cameras don't.
If you have a DX lens on an FX body, the camera could allow you to switch between landscape or portrait without rotating the camera, but Nikon Z cameras don't.
So if Nikon did build a medium format camera, I wouldn't expect them to allow you to take advantage of the larger sensor size when using FX or DX lenses.
If you have a DX lens on an FX body, the camera could allow you to switch between landscape or portrait without rotating the camera, but Nikon Z cameras don't.
So if Nikon did build a medium format camera, I wouldn't expect them to allow you to take advantage of the larger sensor size when using FX or DX lenses.
shuncheung
Veteran Member
Because those lenses are not limited by a small throat, but some lenses are.
For example, both Canon and Nikon have 85mm/f1.2 lenses, but Sony only has 85mm f1.4. Nikon also had that same limitation in the F mount era: there was never any 85mm/f1.2 or any AF f1.2 lens, until Nikon switched from the F mount to the Z mount.
Both Sony and Canon started mirrorless with a small mount diameter optimized for APS-C. When they moved to FX, Sony compromised to keep the same mount. Canon didn’t want to compromise and once again changed mounts to optimize for FX, but of course existing EOS-M owners are abandoned.
There is absolutely no way Nikon would handicap themselves with an inferior mount again.
cosmicnode
Veteran Member
This is the incorrect size comparison, 44mm is the throat diameter of the "F"mount, the inner diameter for comparison is 47mm
Throat diameter is 52mm, 55mm is the inner diameter.
One problem is the inconsistent sizes quoted on Wikipedia which everyone takes as gospel, here is a link to a article on how to measure the throat and inner diameter of various mounts correctly.
https://photographylife.com/what-is-lens-mount
I believe the dimensions you should be using are those within the ring of electrical contacts which define the max size of rear element, these sizes based on the mechanical components of the mount are are not the size that a rear element can be,and when you fit a lens into them are even smaller, for the Z mount the rear element will be around 42mm max diameter, this from simply measuring the rear of a lens, that's around 14mm smaller than the inner diameter you are using for your calculations. Because of the different way the electrical contacts are on a F mount lens this size is around 39mm diameter.
Mike.
"I say we take off and nuke the entire site from orbit, it's the only way to be sure."
Last edited:
It's doable,
You don't need fast glass like f1.2 when the sensor is getting bigger...
It's fine with f1.8, like the Plena...
You see the pattern?
Nikon is preparing for MF, in Plena (plain) sight. ;-)
If Nikon can offer a MF camera, there would be reason to switch for a lot of people, from ALL camps, from Sony to Fujfilm.
One mount to rule them all...
This topic has been discussed for 20 years btw...
Last edited:
MoreorLess
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 5,633
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 3,481
I can see why Nikon isnt massively keen on 60 MP, you lose video performance and only gain a relatively modest increase in stills resolution.
I think it maybe the case that Nikon wait until the next generation of FF sensors which has a resolution more like 80 MP or perhaps even 100 MP, large enough a difference to differentiate from their 45 MP cameras.
I think it maybe the case that Nikon wait until the next generation of FF sensors which has a resolution more like 80 MP or perhaps even 100 MP, large enough a difference to differentiate from their 45 MP cameras.
Last edited:
M
MCLV
Guest
M
MCLV
Guest
I think a more sensible way would be to develop a 100 MP FF sensor with a very fast readout and effectively decrease base ISO via subexposure stacking. It wouldn't work with strobes but you could get better image quality than MF provides today with continuous light sources.
Last edited:
Stan Disbrow
Veteran Member
Hi,
Bad idea. And such wouldn't interest me for half a second. Nikon is a Small Format maker, not a Medium Format one. I'd stick with the MF kit I already have. Plenty of Gotchas with existing Nikon SF lenses when adapted to existing 100 MP MF bodies.
Nikon would have to make an entire line of MF lenses, and most MF folks would simply adapt other makes of MF lenses to the Nikon body same as they do with the existing 100 MP MF ones.
Now maybe a 100 MP SF sensor. That's a different story. And, will eventually happen. And I might just buy one of those.
Stan
Bad idea. And such wouldn't interest me for half a second. Nikon is a Small Format maker, not a Medium Format one. I'd stick with the MF kit I already have. Plenty of Gotchas with existing Nikon SF lenses when adapted to existing 100 MP MF bodies.
Nikon would have to make an entire line of MF lenses, and most MF folks would simply adapt other makes of MF lenses to the Nikon body same as they do with the existing 100 MP MF ones.
Now maybe a 100 MP SF sensor. That's a different story. And, will eventually happen. And I might just buy one of those.
Stan
AlanWatson
Leading Member
Indeed. In fact that was the reason I gave away all of my DX lenses when I bought the Z7 rather than reducing the initial cost by continuing to use some of them and gradually upgrading: I figured it would be silly to pay for a high-resolution FF sensor and then only using 4/9 of it. So the same would apply here: it would be crazy to pay for a MF sensor and then spend most of the time only using a FX crop (probably reducing IBIS performance too, since you have a larger sensor mass to move around).
Anyway this was all discussed back when the first Z bodies were released. As I recall Nikon quashed such speculation back then, but I guess it's hard to kill an idea.
If sensors were circular throat diameter would become a more serious limitation than it is in practice. Because sensors are rectangular, it's the corners of the sensor that are most affected by this dimension, and the physical parts of the mount can be strategically placed to give more clearance where it matters. To my mind throat inner diameter is the more diagnostic metric.
The first picture in Masunov's post demonstrates this - the mounting tabs and electrical contacts are placed in the spaces between the edges of the sensor and the inner diameter of the mount. In the DSLR era the f-mount placed its aperture stopdown lever in the space at the side IIRC.
The inconsistency of measurement is an error in the OP's analysis.
cosmicnode
Veteran Member
The throat is simply a set of dimensions into which you can mechanically fit a lens and has nothing to do with the light paths from the rear element,
This is simply a mechanical datum for fitting a lens, not a optical datum
Look at the rear of any lens you own to see the diameter that a element can fit into. You can fit a 43mm diagonal sensor inside this 43mm diameter element
There is no way Nikon will introduce a MF sensor without introducing a new set of MF lens, some Nikon lens is has pretty poor corner performance already with the current FF sensor.
And I will place my Pre-order right away if Nikon announces a MF sensor in the Z9 body along with a set of new MF lenses, mainly interested in a few wide to super wide landscape lenses and fast 85-105mm equivalent FL portrait lenses to start with, since I am about to add the GFX 100 myself anyway.
Last edited:
Your last statement makes the most sense to me. The OP is using physical mount parameters to infer optical capabilities, so I used that approach in my comment.
If what you are saying is that the throat diameter correlates most closely with the effective rear element diameter for the purpose of sensor sizing (effective meaning if it were placed at the very rear of the lens), I can see that.
just Tony
Veteran Member
Example please, and include a starter set of 2 or 3 lenses that are approximate counterparts.
--
Wag more; bark less.
Last edited:
Tilt/Shift lenses should work perfectly, though not with as much shift or tilt. And where is my old favorite, the 28mm PC, a fabulous travel lens for architecture and small urban spaces, for mirrorless? I would like to see 18/19, 28, 45/50 and 75/80/90 macro (or micro, per Nikon).
And how about even just one leaf-shutter lens so I don’t have to buy a Hasselblad, or a leaf shutter with lens modules, perhaps a PC, (say 50mm to minimize vignetting by f/4?) for dealing with mixed lighting outside to overpower the shade and color from the sun. 1/250 is far from adequate to do this at a stop that provides pixel-level depth of field outside. I use grazing flash to highlight surface waves and textures, and it needs about 20-25 feet at 10-15 degrees to cover the field at 5-10 feet from subject, where both the angle and the distance substantially reduce the flash illumination.
And how about even just one leaf-shutter lens so I don’t have to buy a Hasselblad, or a leaf shutter with lens modules, perhaps a PC, (say 50mm to minimize vignetting by f/4?) for dealing with mixed lighting outside to overpower the shade and color from the sun. 1/250 is far from adequate to do this at a stop that provides pixel-level depth of field outside. I use grazing flash to highlight surface waves and textures, and it needs about 20-25 feet at 10-15 degrees to cover the field at 5-10 feet from subject, where both the angle and the distance substantially reduce the flash illumination.
Bruno Zarokian
Forum Enthusiast
Not the case. Even the Plena doesn't have a much bigger image circle than needed to cover 44mm (I tested that at some point, can't remember the exact result but definitely not 55mm, more like 50mm max).
Similar threads
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum