« Phase One XF IQ4: 150 Megapixels | Main | And Then There Were Three? »

Friday, 31 August 2018


Feed You can follow this conversation by subscribing to the comment feed for this post.

I LOVE flange distance! Nothing excites me more.

I skipped ahead to the comments. I'll read the entire article later.

[Do I detect a whiff of insincerity? --Mike]

Re: "Other Lenses" ... Just thinking that Nikon might want to lay claim to a letter of the alphabet sooner rather than later. Sony has A mount and E mount (but muddies that up with "FE"). (And, of course, they're all Alphas and use 'A' in their camera model names). Canon uses EOS, but has EOS-M and their new mirrorless system is rumored to be called EOS R. Nikon, itself, has F mount (in DX and FX) and the old Nikon 1 mount (in CX) and uses 'D' on DSLR names (and Z, now). Olympus uses E extensively for various camera models and Panasonic likes 'G'. Sony also uses G for high end lens designations (the old Minolta 'G' lens updated to be GM or "G-Master") while Canon uses 'L' (and Nikon just puts gold rings on theirs). Pentax has K (and has used Q - they've probably ruined Q for anyone else). Fuji is all about the X. I'm not even going to go look up all the letters Sigma, Tamron and Tokina use. I suppose, though, that Nikon will simply not give the "other lenses" a designation (reserving the designation 'S' for its higher end lenses). That would be a lot easier than trying to pick a letter from what's left.
Maybe they should take a page from Zeiss' book and come up with seemingly meaningless names, like Touit, Batis and Otus.

But the bad news for Nikon is that there is going to be more mirrorless FF competition:

Perfect. In about 5 years or so I can retire the D750 and go for the middle of the road Nikon Z camera and some compact primes. I'll need IBIS by then I'm sure. A nice compact 28/50/85 combo and life is good.

Perhaps it is possible that some of those "other lenses" will have an image circle that only covers APS-C, and that there will be some smaller cameras with a smaller sensor and the big lens mount.

Maybe we should stop following news about the latest gear here and come back in three years or so.

Ho-hum! I'm sick of tedium inducing Nikon news. I'm waiting for Canon's Full Frame Mirroress to be announced. Now that would feed my G.A.S. fire 8-)

So not all Z lenses will be massive; some will be for the masses. This is good news.

Nikon needs to send a contingent of engineers to Sam Amato's Italian Deli in Omaha. It is the home of the finest pancakes on the planet and if there's anything these cameras scream out for it's some nice pancakes.
By the way I recommend one of their ricotta, blueberry cakes with a side of home made Italian sausage. Sounds strange but it's ambrosia.

[Do I detect a whiff of insincerity? --Mike]

Just a bit of puckishness this morning.

The reduction in flange distance in micro 4/3rds cameras enabled me to play with old lenses. REALLY love old lenses. Not an easy fascination to explain, especially to spouse-type people. At the same time, my pragmatic side sometimes takes over, forcing me to ask, "Why the hell do I have all these old lenses? (And cameras?)"

We humans often don't make sense, do we?

I wouldn't listen to Bobn2, he's a well known troll on dpr forums infamous for his equivalence "entertainment".

Of course Nikon will make some low cost lenses. Samyang, Tamron, Sigma, Tokina et. al. will be jumping in soon. As soon as they do you will hear about Nikon's plans.

Re: flange distance and throat diameter. Sony actual got it sort of wrong for some extreme edge conditions*. The flange distance is a little too short and the throat diameter is a little too small. If the exit pupil is too big or far away the flange will actually cast a shadow on the sensor.

For example if you are making a $1 500mm tilt shift lens out of dollar store reading glasses, or other less esoteric but harder to describe scenarios treating the a7 as the back of a view camera you may encounter this problem.

Of course the a7 sensor and micro-lens package itself is pretty constrained by its design to a limited range of exit pupil sizes and locations that is actually more limiting than the flange design.

The Nikon flange design looks like it might be less sensitive to exit pupil size and location. If Nikon is really going to get all the performance out of it's 58mm f/0.95 S Noct the sensor design will be less optimized for a specific exit pupil.

All products are defined by compromises, trade offs, and optimizations. Nikon has made some interesting choices apparently giving up for example small size and optimum sensor sensitivity with slow lenses of a specific design for the ability to take advantage of really fast lenses. Other flexibility may be a side benefit.

* I live for extreme edge conditions, just ask the programmers that used to work for me.

All the years following the computer industry have made me think is that what matters is the gear I have now and the gear I can buy more or less immediately. Everything else is uncertain and doesn't help me getting results.

I for one read the entire post. Good description of the flange distance thingie.

I too am pleased about this. And I have decided that it has been my frequent bitching over the last few years about lens sizes which swayed them.

If that advertising picture of the new Z lenses is to scale, that f/0.95 Noct lens will be big bruiser. Wow. The Leitz Noctilux was big, but this thing will be the Bismarck of lenses.

Like Sony, who released the original A7 with a set of 3 'Zony' lenses, 35mm, 55mm, and 24-70/4, that were $800-1200, then 3 years later released a couple (now 3) of FE budget lenses.

Nikon needs to re-release their ‘amusing lens’ three lens combo that had a too short a run about 2 or 3 decades ago.

The “fella from Kentucky” speaks very clearly and easily understood by this Englishman who has no accent himself (haha!) but I have no idea what you mean by he “speaks very plain”, plain speaking being quite a different thing in proper English ;-).

[I mean he speaks with directness, expressing himself frankly and without apparent artifice. --Mike]

As a 14 year old English boy on holiday with his parents at an English seaside, many, many, years ago, I remember getting a huge crush on a beautiful girl about my age who was also staying there.
I never spoke a word to her partly because of my innate shyness but also because she clearly didn’t speak English.
After she left, I mentioned to my parents that the German girl had seemed very nice.
Not German, they corrected me, Scottish!

I really enjoyed that video and found him easy to understand despite his accent. That gentleman is a very bright guy. Also impressed with his ability to write backwards! ;-)

[I mean he speaks with directness, expressing himself frankly and without apparent artifice. --Mike]
He does indeed. Having looked it up I see that is the US usage whereas for us plain speaking implies bluntness bordering on rudeness.
Just for the record, I was not picking away at your description — I find it tiresome when occasionally commentards do that and anyway I like the many, many peculiarities of English, both native [ ;-) ] and international.

Speaking as a Scot, I have to say that John Higgins doesn't have a thick accent. Try to find an old Aberdeenshire farmer speaking doric and you'll find the true meaning of unintelligible...

The video of the Nikon engineer was pretty informative. Over the years I‘ve heard talk about the limitations of the F mount (mostly in the context of adapting lenses), but this piece illustrated it nicely.

And that guy speaks English WAY better than I speak Japanese! Also noticed that he pronounced “Nikon” as we do in The US, with the long I — N”eye”kon.

Comedy skit about Scottish accents and a voice-controlled elevator:


The comments to this entry are closed.



Blog powered by Typepad
Member since 06/2007