 |
| |
| This site requires new users to accept that a small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondslr.uk after requesting a new account. Thank you. |
| Moderated by: chrisbet, | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
jk
|
My question is really who identified the need for the Z mount and what was their rationale? I have seen the marketing blurb but I am not sure I agree with it. I am not a lens or optical designer but it seems like change for change sake to get a little extra flexibility. https://www.diyphotography.net/nikons-new-z-mount-explained-by-a-nikon-engineer/ "Nikon have gone from having one of the longest flange distances of any camera manufacturer, at 46.5mm with the F Mount to the shortest. The Z-Mount is only 16mm away from the sensor. This helps to minimise distortion from the rear element projecting the image onto the sensor. It also allows Nikon to produce the thinnest mirrorless cameras possible. Side note: It also has the added benefit of allowing you to adapt many different types of lenses to fit & focus on the new Z model mirrorless cameras without corrective diopters that can degrade the image – anybody who's ever tried to use an M42 lens on Nikon knows what I'm talking about. The larger diameter of the Z Mount also allows Nikon to produce lenses with much wider apertures." |
|||||||||
Robert
|
Well the bland answer is the Nikon tech development team chose the geometry to provide what they perceive are the best lens mount they can devise for their new mirrorless Z camera range... However I guess you already knew that. Perhaps the question should be 'What are the advantages and disadvantages of the new Z mount and why was it changed from the long standing F mount so radically'? I am not a lens designer either but I can see several advantages of having a larger hole in the front of the camera body. It reduces the stress on the mount due to handling because a wider base to any connection is inherently stronger, it also makes it more stable, F mounts do tend to come loose due to the high stress the mount screws experience in normal use. A larger, thinner wall tube is lighter and stronger than a small thick wall tube, allowing more room for better focus motors? It allows more room for better electrical contacts, on some lenses, especially on the fast ones, there is very little room for the contacts. Nikon seem to be pushing fly by wire focusing, a larger mount will be helpful for that. Nikon seem to be set to provide faster lenses for a very limited market, it probably makes it easier and cheaper to make the fast lenses if you are able to have large rear elements, which may help reduce vignetting or the need to resort to trickery to avoid/correct vignetting. It ensures users who want to use very specialised lenses have the room to accommodate adaptors for almost anything, which makes the Z mount more attractive to a greater user base. There is a greater tendency to use DSLR's for video work and that can often involve using specialised lenses. The extra depth is also available to incorporate a better X1.4 or X2 tele extender instead of the FTZ adaptor, nothing yet but maybe... I don't see this as a VHS/Betamax situation, most of the camera manufactures have tried to make their mounts individual, in a way it doesn't matter to the user, provided it works. The change to the Z mount was inevitable with the adoption of mirrorless, it provided Nikon with the opportunity to get radical. The FTZ provides a partial solution except for the screwdriver lenses. I am sure there are a wagon load of very good reasons why Nikon chose the size and register depth for the Z's, I am content to look on and admire, use occasionally and leave the real design strategy to those who have devoted their lives to camera and lens design and invested heavily in it. In a way it's fundamental, corporate strategy comes into play, that's way beyond me. I don't see much point in speculating, just get on and enjoy it! |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
Hmm - I wonder if it paves the way for a new larger sensor? |
|||||||||
jk
|
chrisbet wrote:Hmm - I wonder if it paves the way for a new larger sensor?I think that going to a larger sensor is a diminishing returns route. The improvements in sensor technology make it more attractive to go to a smaller sensor, which in turn makes opportunity for a smaller, lighter camera. My Fuji XT3 is not as good as my D500 for BIF and motion tracking but its output is just as good/better for static objects and portraits. Also look at what Jeff and Iain are doing with their Micro4/3 sensor cameras. Robert's technical points about barrel diameter and electronics for AF and VR makes sense. It is always difficult to understand some of the design decisions but this one seems particularly difficult to fathom. |
|||||||||
novicius
|
I remember a long time ago Nikon reps. saying that at Nikon they were Not interested in making medium-format,..even when they practically nearly made the Entire lens line for the Zenza Bronica S2 camera,...and still make lenses for Large format,...just the lenses..Not the camera. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
MF is low volume, '35mm' s high volume, generally Nikon doesn't do low volume cameras probably not with setting up the production line for. All specialised lenses tend to be low volume but much higher price so it remains potentially profitable. The Df hasn't been re-issued, the underwater bodies are no longer made. |
|||||||||
Robert
|
chrisbet wrote:Hmm - I wonder if it paves the way for a new larger sensor?Or a square one? Best of both worlds. |
|||||||||
GeoffR
|
jk wrote: The improvements in sensor technology make it more attractive to go to a smaller sensor, which in turn makes opportunity for a smaller, lighter camera. I have great difficulty with this idea that cameras have to get smaller. I find the D2, 3, 4 series about the right size but I wouldn't mind losing around 50% of the weight. |
|||||||||
jk
|
GeoffR wrote:jk wrote:I somewhat agree with that thought Geoff. However having trodden the Fuji X series road for a while now I see that APS-C (DX) format cameras can yield stunning results. This makes me wonder if DX is not the new FF and micro4/3 or 1" sensors are not the new DX! |
|||||||||
Eric
|
GeoffR wrote:jk wrote:Exactly what I have been banging on about for some time. My hands haven't gotten any smaller....it becomes harder to hold a heavy lens the smaller the grip gets. I just want the camera lighter. Removing the SLR gubbins might have been sufficient? |
|||||||||
jk
|
In my earlier post I forgot to say that if the camera is lighter and the sensor is smaller then I would expect the lenses to get smaller and lighter. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
jk wrote:In my earlier post I forgot to say that if the camera is lighter and the sensor is smaller then I would expect the lenses to get smaller and lighter.Well that's true I suppose. The FP fresnel lenses are a case in point. That said, the 500mm FP is still more comfortable to handhold with the D850 grip than the D500....unless the D500 has the extra battery grip attached. The fundamental problem (for me at least) is that I only have 3 fingers available to hold ANY camera ...as the index finger is occupied on the shutter. If the 'pinky' slips off the grip, I am gripping with only 2 fingers. I appreciate it can go underneath and support the camera vertical weight but it's the grip that better counters the turning moment from a heavyish cantilevered lens. It's also quite interesting (maybe years of holding cameras) that holding ANYTHING with just the 2nd, 3rd and 4th fingers is a lot more secure than the 1st, 2nd and 3rd fingers. My pinky is an integral part of gripping. |
|||||||||
GeoffR
|
I agree with that Eric, I don't like having a finger under the camera, I want it on the grip. Make the camera smaller and I will be looking to add a grip. A pointless exercise in my opinion. It has to be said that DX should indeed allow smaller lenses for the same field of view but Nikon never made a 70-200 f2.8 DX and the 17-55 f2.8 DX is not much smaller, 1cm shorter and 170g lighter, than the 24-70 f2.8. OK 170g is worth having but the absence of a DX equivalent to the 14-24 f2.8 and the aforementioned 70-200, rather negates the benefits. Also the D2X is little, if any, smaller than the D4 and the D500, with grip, is pretty much the same size. Sorry but if I have to carry FX lenses to get the aperture I want and the camera body is no smaller I might just as well have an FX sensor. |
|||||||||
jk
|
I agree that too small a camera actually doesnt work for me either. My Nikon V1 is just such a camera but my Canon G12 is fine as is my Fuji XT3, my D3S is great but heavy, my Z7 is great and not at all heavy.  |
|||||||||
GeoffR
|
jk wrote:I agree that too small a camera actually doesn't work for me either.Given that I said the D3 was the right size for me I can be sure that the Z6/7 would be too small for comfort. A grip on a Z6 would probably make it the right size but Nikon made a complete mess of the grip. I want a camera with a second set of controls, just like the D3, but around the same size and half the weight. I see absolutely no reason why Nikon couldn't produce a Z series camera that does that, even if it does need an optional grip, but it appears the Z6/7 isn't that camera. Given Nikon's normal approach is to put capabilities into camera bodies that won't be required for several years the designers of the Z series have dropped that particular ball. |
|||||||||
jk
|
As you say Geoff, Nikon have made a mess of their battery grips. This is especially the case with the Z7/6 which has a grip that adds two extra batteries at the expense of the internal battery. Also no vertical shutter release or other features. Dooh! I will wait to see what Meike produce. They make good products with more functionality than the Nikon/Fuji equivalent but for half the price. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
jk wrote: I will wait to see what Meike produce. They make good products with more functionality than the Nikon/Fuji equivalent but for half the price. If I were getting a Z camera I would be tempted to give this extension a go...recommended by Chris Hamer..... https://www.ebay.co.uk/i/264404168967?chn=ps&norover=1&mkevt=1&mkrid=710-134428-41853-0&mkcid=2&itemid=264404168967&targetid=595627732953&device=c&mktype=pla&googleloc=9050373&poi=&campaignid=1701291834&mkgroupid=68042092202&rlsatarget=pla-595627732953&abcId=1140496&merchantid=138804939&gclid=CjwKCAjwtajrBRBVEiwA8w2Q8F-3BVl80Y-pVFTvpO5xXMN9VIlLJ1Rq7r8uFJga55AXkr-Ju_rySBoCCR0QAvD_BwE |
|||||||||
jk
|
I want something more like this. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/Meike-MK-XT3-Pro-Battery-Grip-2-4G-Wireless-Remote-for-Fujifilm-Fuji-X-T3-Camera/254396769427?hash=item3b3b3aa493:g:pCwAAOSwAUJdQsGq |
|||||||||
Eric
|
jk wrote:I want something more like this.I suppose if you need extra battery capacity/functionality 'on tap'...it's what's required. Personally I want to retain/maximise lightweight and just add more grip space. It's easy enough to pop in a replacement battery from your pocket, with this type of open frame bracket. |
|||||||||
jk
|
I have one of these on my Z7. It makes for easy attachment to the tripod, adds almost no weight and protects the base and side of the camera. https://www.ebay.co.uk/itm/PEIPRO-Handle-L-Shaped-Bracket-Quick-Release-Grip-Plate-for-Nikon-Z6-Z7-Camera/133153060685?hash=item1f008a774d:g:O6QAAOSwTtJdZUhd |
|||||||||
Eric
|
jk wrote:I have one of these on my Z7. It makes for easy attachment to the tripod, adds almost no weight and protects the base and side of the camera.The Meike one has a larger area for the pinky to grip...but you have to live with the imbalance as a result of the irregular contoured base. |
|||||||||
GeoffR
|
jk wrote:I want something more like this.That is what I would want too, thought ideally it would take a battery like the EN-EL18 rather than the Z series battery. Adding depth to the camera without also adding a second shutter release and command dials seems pointless to me. Another feature of the Z6/7 I could easily do without is USB charging, and with a bigger battery it wouldn't work anyway, I know there will be those who think this essential but the real problem is battery capacity. If the battery is big enough the need to charge and use simultaneously goes away. |
|||||||||
jk
|
I have one of the units as a cheap solution to the problem. https://www.amazon.co.uk/Ex-Pro®-16000mAh-Rechargeable-Battery-replacing/dp/B01BKS8MX2/ref=sr_1_12?keywords=Ex-Pro+Nikon&qid=1576689498&s=electronics&sr=1-12 It is not as good as a battery grip but gives more duration and is adaptable so I can change the battery insert part and use it for my Fuji cameras as well. Downside is the wire. |
|||||||||
Current theme is Blue
| A small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondsl.uk Thank you. |