First lens adapters for Nikon Z already appearing

MP doesn’t know what these adaptors are actually used for. And, anyway, since C&N have brought out cameras where adapters can be used, adaptors are all evil, dontcha know? 😉

Psh not only are adapters evil but all lenses are evil too. That's why I just take off my body cap and let my sensor be exposed for the world. It's the only way to truly capture all the light when you don't have a pesky lens in the way.

Auuuurgh ... I should have read the full text. Yes, gentlemen, it is for cine lenses. Mea Culpa ... a blue adaptor? Jeeez ! Black is fine ...

@Bill_Clinton - I see old habits die hard. Sony released 4 adapters over few years and only on latest bodies with version III of the adapter AF works good enough, though still not with all functionality (e.g. if eye af then 3fps or no eye af at all, slow focus in thelephoto).
Sony might have native adapter but it didn't provide native functionality nor performance.

@arbux you should try it on a9 with latest firmware, it works flawlesly

Yup. Keep in mind that these are 100% manual adapters with no electronics - which means reverse engineering is a matter of busting out the calipers.

In short - they have an extremely competent machine shop guy. :)

Yeah, filmmakers love when their camera's have IBIS. That's why they gave more stabilization in the GH5s.

GH5s's lack of IBIS is due to a technical limitation with the sensor size and mount diameter. And even if many filmmakers don't want IBIS, it's no secret that many do.

Not true. Z and R have all native lenses and adapters. Far different than Sony at the beginning. Thats why Sony have so many adapters.

Brand native, yes, but not mount native - if you want to split hairs - which, this being DPR, you probably _do_ want to...

@mike CH - don't spread misinformation. Sony released multiple adapters over multiple years and only version III combined with latest bodies gives reasonable results. Earlier adaptes had a mirror in them! And even with adapter sony A lenses don't ofer the same functionality as sony FE lenses.

And, pray, what precisely warrants anti-Sony bile in respect of these adapters?

No way, working with those lenses you look for other options if you need that. Steadicam etc, but not IBIS. Cine work is a highly prof world that demands total control, not a sensor shifting around on its own.

Gimbals are terrible compared to handheld, since gimbals have a mechanical, unnatural motion, especially when capturing dialogue and action. IBIS will be great at getting rid of that terrible gimbal effect.

Gimbals are only useful in landscape background shots. They should never be used in capturing action, where handheld will reign supreme.

And IBIS will help with these shots.

Nobody likes Sony cameras though, since they aren't good.

@MILC man
"I've seen nothing like that in any of this canikon milc buzz"
You have seen nothing like that because those cameras aren't even on the market yet, and even if you judge the most part of their lenses old they still have way more good lenses to adapt than Sony had.

Mil man why wont old glass do just fine?

@MILC man
I said "had". How many lenses did the A7 have at launch, before adapters were made? These cameras have available right now hundreds of lenses that work with a propetary adapter, and by the time third party adapters will be released from both systems they will have even more lenses to use.

@MILC man
"no, sony had the laea1/2/3/4 adapters available well before sony ff milc launched, so there were hundreds of a-mount lenses available for use on ff e-mount from the start."
Hundreds?
From BHPhoto:
Sony A mount 68
Canon 221
Nikon 239
So, basically, the A7 at launch was in a worse scenario than Canon and Nikon with their new cameras.

"beyond that, sony already had crop milc on the market for years before they launched ff milc, in fact sony has released something like 24 e-mount milc bodies; they have way more experience with milc than canon and Nikon combined together."
Totally irrelevant to the argument we were having.

Please tell me you're not a fanboy, you starting to sound like one.

@crazyryoga - congrats on proving that you don't know squat about sony, lol

because all of Konica/Minolta a-mount lenses work on e-mount, for example: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_Minolta_A-mount_lenses

beyond that, there were dozens of ff adapters already on the market, well before sony ff milc was released, and that included f-mount, k-mount, fd-mount, leica, contax, m42, etc.

where are all of those adapters for Nikon milc, in particular?

you are way out of your league here.

I'd wager few are using rotten old 1980's Minolta zoom lenses on their A7's. They did so in the beginning with the A6000s out of desperation though, lack of lenses.

@MILC man
Congrats on proving you're definitely a fanboy.

MILC man’s main point still stands - there’s now a large and ever-growing number of cutting edge lenses for Sony milc that offer a definite performance edge over old dslr designs - thousands of reviews and mtf charts are out there to prove this. It’s going to be a long while before Nikon and Canon build a base of comparable lenses. And his other point is hardly a minor one - for example essentially all of canon’s ef library performs better on an a9 than on canon’s own cameras. Who cares what Sony had available when the a7 was first released? What matters most is what is available at this very moment. Which makes all of this BS banter even more ridiculous - the Nikon and canon stuff doesn’t exist and won’t for months/years.

I think the new cameras look great and I’m looking forward to using all of them in the future. But it really takes a fanboy of epic proportions to use non-existent and speculative objects in a comparative argument.

Btw old Minolta lenses are awesome. 😊

@Terkwoiz
"I think the new cameras look great and I’m looking forward to using all of them in the future. But it really takes a fanboy of epic proportions to use non-existent and speculative objects in a comparative argument."
You are talking about the presumptuous guy above right? That's the only fanboy here. I brought numbers and he brought arrogant statements and even personal attacks. Now tell me, how many Minolta lenses are there, tell me a number. And how come old minolta lenses are great and olg nikon lenses sucks? That's bullsh*t.

@ Terkwoiz
"Who cares what Sony had available when the a7 was first released? "
I didn't, but the fanboy above claimed the the new Nikon and Canon don't have the lenses Sony took 5 years to make, and that's a stupid comparison since these cameras are just being intruduced in the market and yet you can chose from more than 200 lenses by using a propetary adapter. So yes, again, these new cameras have more to offer than what the A7 had, simply because of the number of lenses thay can use at launch. It's a fact, either you see it or you are a fanboy too and the argument ends here. Oh and look, they already announced 12 adapters for the Nikon Z. Who would have thought.

I've never been a fanboy, I probably used Sony products for most time than the majority of persons here. People who get attached too much to a brand are simply stupid and childish. It's like fighting over a toy.
Now, if you excuse me, my mom is calling..

Holy sh*t, what a pathetic couple of trolls XD

So, give me Ugly Blue Nikon adaptor ... black and blue papa said mama said Nikon loves you ...

Ridiculous comment. Do you think it will show up in the video?

PL mount adapter locking rings are commonly finished in a contrasting colors, probably because black isn’t the easiest color to see when changing lenses in the dark on a camera often buried in so much rigging that it’s not immediately obvious where the camera ends and the other bits begin.

Also, MTF adapters are no joke; I have one of their PL mounts for Micro Four Thirds, and it’s the most solidly-built adapter I’ve ever used (including several of the pricier common brands like Novoflex, Metabones, and Wooden Camera). In addition to the replaceable, shimmable M43 bayonet, the PL ring is perfectly lubricated, easily removed for maintenance, and, at least with the one PL mount lens I own, is the first adapter I’ve found that locks tightly enough that I’m not constantly worried about accidentally twisting the ring loose when shooting handheld and bracing the lens near the adapter, yet easily loosens without any signs of strain from possible overtightening when, and only when, desired.

It's a homage to Novoflex (colour and price).

guyfawkes: Actually, in many ways, ordinary PLA behaves a lot like aluminum. It's quite strong. The catches are:

1. PLA is not naturally opaque. Either pick your color very carefully (ideally, a black using carbon black rather than dye) or paint to light seal.

2. The layering of the printing process can result in significantly less strength between layers: delamination can happen. The cure for this is to print a little extra hot... which makes spans sag, so there's a need to avoid spans.

3. PLA gets soft around 160F -- so parts can deform if left on the rear deck of a car, etc. There are higher-temp materials, but the best fix I've found is heat-treated "dishwasher safe" PLA; it's rated as good to 212F, and can survive ordinary temperature ranges that don't harm your lenses, etc. BTW, cold is not a problem at all.

The physical specs are easy to reverse-engineer to adequacy. It's the electronic protocols (which can even be encrypted) that are difficult to crack.

Do you read AF, aperture, or EXIF capabilities being claimed here?

Ever heard of industrial super glue?

Ebrahim, you're telling us when we buy Can1kon mirrorless it comes with industrial strength super glue? Cool.

It is no wonder why dSLRs are in downward spiral. FF Mirrorless will go way way way down digging their own graves ... I hope there is an adapter to their coffins.

aww. im sure that you hope that every camera company that you dont own gets buried in that grave too. so edgy.

Because the advantage of adapters is that you can... yes, ADAPT different lenses to your camera. Not only native system lenses, but theoretically any lenses. Using different - that means, removable - adapters.

I don't get it, are you worried that a Nikon FTZ adapter on a Nikon Z7 makes a fragile system for you? Even third party adapters on the less-firm Sony bodies like a Metabones adapters are simply like having a super strong EF mount, I'd imagine the FTZ and Eos R-EF adapters are even better، since they're made by the same people who are making the F mounts on their DSLRs. Only difference is that the mount is interchangeable. Even the highest-end cinema camera are now all shifting towards industrial-grade interchangeable mounts. It's definitely a better option than a Z camera with built-in F mount.

Are adapters cool again? It never was cool before. Hope it never will. Can1kon should make a mount that accepts pre-existiing lenses as integral part of their camera not make their migrant customers buy adapters in different colors. I see there is sky-blue and silver adapters available. I am still waiting for pink ones .... so I can switch from color-to-color depending on my mood swings.

Adapters are super cool. I have a park of M42 lenses which I use or have used with Canon, Sony, Sigma, BlackMagic and Oly. Thanks adapters.

Note from an unbiased Canon user with no axe to grind:

Sony users have an extremely extensive range of E-mount glass that does not need adaptors.

Nikon Z6/7 users have just *three* S lenses and need an adaptor to use Nikon FX glass.

Canon's EOS-R users have just *four* RF lenses and need an adaptor to use Canon EF glass.

Sony’s adapter solutions were widely derided because Sony’s adapters were gimped solutions that either forces the body to abandon hybrid PDAF (LA-EA3) or disable the on-sensor AF altogether and replace it with a whole mirror and AF module (LA-EA4).

Nikon and Canon’s solutions are much more elegant and transparent, supporting most existing lenses without any asterisks.

@quiquae

The LA-EA4 was made to use with the A7R and A7S (LA-EA2 for APS-C), which were CDAF-only. The LA-EA1/3, while not supporting 100% of native AF features at the time (due to processing limitations), still offered DSLR-level features. The A9 is the first E-mount camera capable of full native AF via the LA-EA3.

The only weird thing about these adapters is that the 1/3 did not support screw driven lenses, while the 2/4 did. Then again, Nikon's adapter only supports AF in less than 1/3 of their AF lenses, due to the complete lack of screw drive support (LA-EA3-style only). Only Canon, with a fully electronic mount since the beginning of their AF era, has no mechanical compatibility limitations. Same reason so many of their lenses are compatible with EF to E adapters with equal performance to the LA-EA1/3.

la-ea3 was terrible, slow and didn't focus a lot of sony a mount lenses on my a7. sold it. Got it because the a7 had like 2 lenses on release the kit and 55mm. Didn't want the la-ae4 because it had a slt like the slts dslr.

@BlueBomberTurbo, I think you need to read Sonys own list of notes on what limitations there are for the LA-EA3. and the list of 11 compatible lenses. you can find the information you are missing here.
https://support.d-imaging.sony.co.jp/www/support/ilc/products/ilce9/continuousshooting/en/amount.html
The 1/3 of nikon lenses that the FT-1 supports AF for is 90 lenses.

@BlueBomberTurbo so you wont read Sony's fact sheet, ignore the facts, thats expected of you. 11 sony lenses work on the Sony adaptor with caviats, 90 work on the Nikon adaptor, looks like Sonyboys getting slapped in the face. You should read this Sony post https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/4321292 OH I see you are getting slapped in that to.

@BlueBomberTurbo The discussion is about your comment " The A9 is the first E-mount camera capable of full native AF via the LA-EA3." but still with only 11 lenses. and limitations described by Sony, you are now saying the A9 and the native mount has limited AF and exposure capabilities, that's pretty poor for a modern camera. 11 lenses Sony, 90 lenses plus independants Nikon, but full AF and exposure capabilities at all f stops.

To me it sounds like Vadimka is just talking about the adapters and the lenses that these adapters are made for which are not cheap.

The article says "The lenses the adapters are aimed at are PL, Panavision, B4 and Arri bayonet, so they are intended to appeal to filmmakers and broadcasters."

Lighten up Francis....

Will be interesting if anyone can build an Emount->Z mount adapter...

Nope. Nikon has been streamlining its operations which is why it's now in profit. The only markets it has actually left are problematic ones like Brazil.

Everyone remembers the headline ‘Extraordinary losses from April to December of 2016’.
BUT, you like others missed the rest of the information.
Nikon’s Camera/Photo Division is Profitable and has been Profitable.
Nikon is shutting down or selling off its money losing Semiconductor Lithography business and that’s the reason for Nikon’s ‘Extraordinary losses from April to December of 2016’, but when some people here comment, they forget that part and like to post inaccurate information.

mental illness is a serious problem today

Why would they? Everything they post is a joke.

Ah yes, professional cinema lenses, famous for their AF capabilities...

Not better video AF than the Z7 so far.

I wish I could like Dheorl's comment more than once so instead I am here giving the ol its_a_knife stamp of hilarity

Why go with the amateurs, when you can hang with the pros? Whatever they're paying you to astroturf, it's too much.

Those E-mount bodies sure are really great at AF'ing manual focus cine lenses, aren't they?

@Androole

"Those E-mount bodies sure are really great at AF'ing manual focus cine lenses, aren't they?"

Actually, yes. Just add a Techart Pro, and even cinema lenses can be AF'd!

But a PL mount adapter for Sony is the same price/more expensive....

... because A7III ergonomics, EVF, WR + video suck compared to Z6. It's now the best FF for video, period.
And soon we will see more adapters for Z well build for the 1/3 of this price.

to Mateus1
You even did not try it yourself but already making claims!

Yes, I make claim: Nikon ergonomics is the best, and Sony A7x really suck.
All the rest it's already known.

Future proof. So laughably stupid. Really? The F mount was around for DECADES and I am pretty sure some decent pics were taken with it. I am also pretty sure some decent images have been taken with the Sony A7 range. Yet suddenly the EF mount his no future? SO many morons on here with their fanboy stupidity.

Mateus - You are exaggerating a bit. Most Nikon cameras have excellent ergonomics and reviews so far suggest that the Z6/7 are also very good. Canon also have mostly excellent ergonomics although IMO the EOS-R is sadly a step in the wrong direction. Early Sony a7 series had dreadful ergonomics but current modes are greatly improved, although still have some way to go. Isn't that a more reaistic appraisal?

User - Yes, sadly dpr is overrun with fanboy stupidity. Thankfully there are also a good number of commentators making realistic and constructive criticisms too.

This news may shock you: Nikon's video is better than Sony's :)

Because you can use over 300 Nikon lenses instead?

Rensol: *I've* tried it. As far as I can tell at this stage, Mateus1 is correct. Z6/7 is superior to Sony ergonomically, the video looks good, and it'll work with all the Nikon lenses I've tried, the earliest being from the 1960s.

I quite like Sony products, and the Zeiss connection is a plus for stills, but as a professional stills *and* video guy, if I were in the market for a do-it-all camera, I'd be waiting in line for the Nikon.

I still hate the back focus button, mind...

One reason the Z cameras and this adapter will appeal to film makers: 10-bit, uncompressed 4-2-2 video through the HDMI port.

False. The output over HDMI is uncompressed. The bitrate is dictated by whatever codec and compression level you choose to record in your external recorder.

... and neither of those cameras you mention are full frame...

Ummm no. It's possible to send uncompressed down an HDMI but the camera is not outputting and uncompressed signal. It's a 10 bit 422 signal. 422 means it's compressed. Chroma subsampling is a form of compression. I mean even ProResRaw isn't actually RAW. You would have a lot more information in a PRXQ.

Also, who cares if they're not full frame. The BMPCC has been used in several Marvel movies, and you don't get anyone that's like "Oh, I can tell that shot was done on a smaller sensor." The Full frame vs smaller sensor conversation pertaining to video is for beginners and youtubers.

Out of smoke

Dr Blackjack - I fear you are absolutely right, but I like to dream :)

Canon lens + Nikon body + Sony sensor... who would have thought.

Elonlukatski - No that would be ridiculously expensive and the advantages of the Nikon Z7 body over the no-so-good EOS-R body are not huge enough to justify it. For the moment I'll just continue with my Canon DSLR bodies and hope that Canon bring out a better mirrorless while I'm still alive!

Elonlukatski - Yes, I intend to try an EOS-R when I next get to a photo store.

I'm sure it will prove interesting, especially to see what the quality of the EVF is like. But I think it's extremely unlikely that I'll buy one, given the single card slot, lack of AF toggle, very slow burst with C-AF, and seemingly awkward ergonomics.

I think I'll just have to wait until Canon bring out a "mirrorless 5DSR" with a better sensor than the current 50MP version.

Uncoy - I agree that Nikon put more of their essence into the Z7. I've shot Canon DSLRs for years, but I don't like the EOS-R at all - it comes across as a failed experiment in ergonomics, and a prosumer device rather than a serious tool. Sony cameras have by far the best specifications and performance (for stills) but they just don't feel "right" in my hands.

If I was desperate to join the switch to mirrorless I just wouldn't know which brand to go for at the moment.

Luckily my Canon DSLRs do just about everything I want them to do - although I really do wish Canon would pull out their corporate fingers and produce a sensor that matched that in the Sony a7Riii.

Canon FD flange focal distance is 42mm. Nikon Z is 16mm. You can expect an adapter to be about 26mm in length. The Cine Arri PL mount mentioned above has an FFD of 52mm, so the adapter is a good 10mm longer than Canon FD.

You can look up the FFD for your adapting lens mount and subtract 16mm from it to get an approximation of the adapter size:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flange_focal_distance

The shims supplied have nothing to do with wobble or mount tightness. They are supplied to adjust the total length of the adapter, making infinity mark and distance scale usable on cine lenses.

Loose fitting Metabones? Really? If there's one thing you can say about the Metabones , is that they are on the tight side. I have four of them and they are all nice and tight, even with a EF 70-200 f2.8 L II.

You pay $20,000 - $40,000 for an Arri PL lens and you are concerned about the price of this adapter?

@techjedi

Good chance the majority of users would rent those lenses, not buy.

And Nikon's video spec on the Z6 and Z7 is basically the best for a FF Mirror-less camera, especially the Z6.

Does that mean all operations will be manual... focus, exposure, etc.?

I am not familiar with cine lenses or adapters; hence the question.

That's the most fanboyish thing I've ever heard.

You know what these adapters are for, right?

MTF Services' adapters for Fuji (if they make them or were to make them) would probably look exactly the same...

Amd holy crap Britain made something? 😂😂😂

Jeeeez, does nobody know what a cine lens is? Like if you've ever seen a PL lens then you would immediately understand the design of this adapter.

barrym - Ever heard of Benbo tripods - some of the best and most versatile tripods in existence?

Made in Britain and not to be confused with the similarly named Benro products (also very good) that are made in China.

"The z series. Suck at video" ha?

Solid enough to bolt an oil pipeline together...