p.1 #1 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
I never fully understood the physics of why the larger mount was necessary, or at least beneficial, for the Nikon mirrorless cameras.
Why couldn't Nikon have stuck with the F-mount of its mirrorless cameras? Is it because they'd have to find a way to add the distance back (that used to be taken up by the mirror), which would make the camera bodies thicker?
p.1 #3 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
I don't think it was necessary. But doing so offered certain advantages. So, Nikon took advantage of the switch to mirrorless to introduce the new mount. This opportunity was made easier because witha small spacer the older F mount lenses will still work on a Z body.
I think this was an excellent choice that Nikon made.
p.1 #4 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
It gives the optical designers more freedom in designing the lenses. Elements can be placed much closer to the sensor and the light can come more perpendicularly so as to avoid heavy vignetting (that would probably happen if having a narrow throat with short flange back distance).
Nikon themselves noted that they don't need to bend the light as much as they had to with F-mount designs. This results in less chromatic aberration in practical designs.
An example Z-mount lens which I find truly amazing and much better than either of its F-mount predecessors is the Z 24-70/2.8 S. I highly recommend trying it out if you need this type of a lens.
And yes, having a shorter flange-back distance facilitates making a thinner body.
oguruma wrote:
I never fully understood the physics of why the larger mount was necessary, or at least beneficial, for the Nikon mirrorless cameras.
Why couldn't Nikon have stuck with the F-mount of its mirrorless cameras? Is it because they'd have to find a way to add the distance back (that used to be taken up by the mirror), which would make the camera bodies thicker?
p.1 #5 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
oguruma wrote:
I never fully understood the physics of why the larger mount was necessary, or at least beneficial, for the Nikon mirrorless cameras.
Why couldn't Nikon have stuck with the F-mount of its mirrorless cameras? Is it because they'd have to find a way to add the distance back (that used to be taken up by the mirror), which would make the camera bodies thicker?
They wanted to sell more lenses.
Actually, the S primes are excellent and in most cases better than what the had in F mount, so there is something to it.
p.1 #6 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
Max Power wrote:
They wanted to sell more lenses.
Actually, the S primes are excellent and in most cases better than what the had in F mount, so there is something to it.
Sure, but you could also say that that's a function of better/more modern lens design than just the larger mount. Zeiss, for example, makes some F-Mount lenses that are optically superior to many/most Z-Mount lenses....
p.1 #7 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
And these are all manual focus lenses. I do a lot and on a time crunch. I'll take the 50 and 85 1.2 lenses over any Otus or Milvus lens. oguruma wrote:
Sure, but you could also say that that's a function of better/more modern lens design than just the larger mount. Zeiss, for example, makes some F-Mount lenses that are optically superior to many/most Z-Mount lenses....
p.1 #8 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
The other advantage of a larger diameter mount closer to the sensor, is it allows for easier design of high quality and optically fast glass with less falloff and fewer aberrations.
p.1 #9 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
gear-nut wrote:
The other advantage of a larger diameter mount closer to the sensor, is it allows for easier design of high quality and optically fast glass with less falloff and fewer aberrations.
IMHO it was a great decision by Nikon.
Completely agree. Having a wider mount means that you have more freedom to design a lens that may require angles of light to come from wider from the lens to the sensor. It also means that this will assist in possibly making the lens sharper edge to edge and have less CA. The mount face being closer to the sensor allows freedom of design for better wide angle lenses, reducing size and weight due to less glass required. The only reason for the F mount to sensor distance was due to the flapping mirror and as this is no longer required it frees up that factor as a constraint to lens design.
p.1 #10 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
It’s largely about flexibility really.
Answering the second question first. The F-mount is less flexible, particularly with ultra wides. Not that it’s impossible to design good optics but there are more restrictions. It also dictates a larger minimum body thickness due to the flange back distance.
Without the requirement for mirror clearance you can now have optics closer to the sensor plane if the design is appropriate. So a closer flange back facilitates this.
If you wanted larger optical elements closer to the sensor you’d ideally want a larger throat diameter.
And lastly, you’d want an updated communication protocol. The Z mount addresses all of these.
So it’s just extending the whole design envelope but this won’t benefit every lens design of course. It just gives the designers more flexibility.
p.1 #11 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
Lance B wrote:
Completely agree. Having a wider mount means that you have more freedom to design a lens that may require angles of light to come from wider from the lens to the sensor. It also means that this will assist in possibly making the lens sharper edge to edge and have less CA. The mount face being closer to the sensor allows freedom of design for better wide angle lenses, reducing size and weight due to less glass required. The only reason for the F mount to sensor distance was due to the flapping mirror and as this is no longer required it frees up that factor as a constraint to lens design....Show more →
My understanding is that the closer the mount face is to the plane of the sensor the higher the angle of incidence will be at the edges. So this actually works against fidelity at the edges in the Z mount. So, a wider mount helps mitigate this higher angle.
There are other engineering methods of mitigating this high angle of incidence. Leica has a small mount, that is also close to the plane of the sensor. Leica mitigates this in their lens designs, and also in their sensor designs. Leica sensors have a thinner glass layer for this reason. They also design asymmetric microlenses on the sensor glass. This has produced excellent optical results. There are excellent discussions of this technology on line if you are interested in the details.
Once again Nikon choosing a wider mount was the way the Nikon engineers decided to approach their optics. It was not necessary, but is a good approach as demonstrated by the excellent optical performance of the Z mount lens system.
p.1 #12 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
In the past, I think it was Nikon (or may be someone elses, I don't remember exactly) who said that
F mount was too narrow for Nikon to produce F1.2 lenses with autofocus.
They were able to make f1.2 manual focus lens but in AF era, no f1.2 lens from Nikon until Z mount.
However, E mount diameter is only 2 mm wider than F mount but also with much shorter flange distance, and that was enough for Sony to squeeze in a high quality f1.2 AF lens.
Also looking at Noct Nikkor 58/.95, certainly the best IQ from f.95 lens that I ever tried or own and the lens
diagram showed that its rear element really utilizes the larger lens mount and closer
flange distance to the fullest. So I assume there is a benefit there but don't really know enough about
the optics to explain why exactly.
p.1 #13 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
It's probably because Nikon was finally freed from that skinny 1959 F lens mount and wanted to be flexible on any future lens designs, whether really needed now or not. For example, Canon had an 85/1.2 and 50/1 in 1989. Larger diameter lens mounts are also stronger, all else being equal.
Sony has a small mount because the cameras are focused on being small.
p.1 #14 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
1bwana1 wrote:
My understanding is that the closer the mount face is to the plane of the sensor the higher the angle of incidence will be at the edges. So this actually works against fidelity at the edges in the Z mount. So, a wider mount helps mitigate this higher angle.
My understanding is that this should be related to the position of the last optical element. The Z mount just allows more freedom for placement of the final optical element which needs not be (but can be) at the position of the mount face.
Currently I believe the Z mount is the most flexible mount of any 135 format. Basically any lens optical design from any manufacturer for the format is possible to be implemented on the Z mount but the reverse may not be true.
p.1 #15 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
1bwana1 wrote:
My understanding is that the closer the mount face is to the plane of the sensor the higher the angle of incidence will be at the edges. So this actually works against fidelity at the edges in the Z mount. So, a wider mount helps mitigate this higher angle.
There are other engineering methods of mitigating this high angle of incidence. Leica has a small mount, that is also close to the plane of the sensor. Leica mitigates this in their lens designs, and also in their sensor designs. Leica sensors have a thinner glass layer for this reason. They also design asymmetric microlenses on the sensor glass. This has produced excellent optical results. There are excellent discussions of this technology on line if you are interested in the details.
Once again Nikon choosing a wider mount was the way the Nikon engineers decided to approach their optics. It was not necessary, but is a good approach as demonstrated by the excellent optical performance of the Z mount lens system. ...Show more →
Well, *nothing* is really ever necessary, but it did make the *freedom* to design of better optics *way easier*. Making the mount narrower was not going to give Nikon the freedom they desired, it removed basically any constraints that a narrower throat may have imparted. Better to have almost complete design freedom than have to work within constraints which could bring size, weight and price considerations that they didn't need to have. In the end, they were going to change the mount anyway and thus made the mount wider and closer and thus it was a great decision.
p.1 #17 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
Well, mirrorless with an SLR mount makes no sense whatsoever.
You lose a lot of the advantages that mirrorless can have, and lose the advantages of SLR.
Mirrorless:
- Can support wider maximum aperture lenses
- Can make wide angle lenses more compact, higher quality, and cheaper
- Can adapt lenses much better, including SLR lenses from any SLR mount
SLR:
- Optical viewfinder (though of course mirrorless can have a rangefinder style optical viewfinder but so far only Fujifilm offers that with the X-Pro line)
- Battery life (consequence of the optical viewfinder)
You only keep the advantage of the EVF, and frankly SLR could have those as well, if only anyone would have bothered to make a hybrid OVF/EVF.
Mirrorless with SLR mount is kind of the worst of both worlds scenario.
gear-nut wrote:
IMHO it was a great decision by Nikon.
Nope. It was a nobrainer.
Praising Nikon for the mirrorless mount is like praising a brikemaker for adding a motor when they do their first motorbike.
p.1 #18 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
oguruma wrote:
I never fully understood the physics of why the larger mount was necessary, or at least beneficial, for the Nikon mirrorless cameras.
Why couldn't Nikon have stuck with the F-mount of its mirrorless cameras? Is it because they'd have to find a way to add the distance back (that used to be taken up by the mirror), which would make the camera bodies thicker?
If you want to see a mirrorless camera with DSLR mount check out the Sigma Quattro. Uses Sigma’s SA mount, and it was widely panned for its odd looks and lens mount limitations.
p.1 #19 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
The decision to roll with the Z Mount was definitely a no brainer decision IMO. In addition to greater flexibility to design superior lenses, the Z-Mount also has the shortest flamge distance, which allows the greatest flexibility in adapting lenses.
