NikonClio64
Offline
• •
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 p.7 #1 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly? | |
Lance B wrote:
I don't see how the term "the Z mount *CAN* allow lenses to be made smaller and lighter" morphed into "the Z mount means *ALL* lenses will be made smaller and lighter". It is about flexibility and less constraint which allows Nikon the freedom to design lenses that can encompass more benefits with way less drawbacks. Also, better IQ just doesn't mean central sharpness, we are talking negligible CA, lower distortion, better edge to edge sharpness just to name a few benefits that the Z mount allows designers to address. Both Canon and Nikon adopted a wider mount and shorter flange distance for that reason.
The 14-30 f4 would never have been able to be made if F mount in the size and weight that it is. The 14-24 f2.8S is smaller, way lighter and has better IQ than the F mount version. The 24-70 f2.8S is much smaller, lighter and much better IQ than the F mount version. The 24-120 f4 smaller, lighter and way better optically. 24-70 f4, small, light and an optically very good lens - but no F mount counterpart. The point is, it was made to marry with the small, light Z6 and Z7 at time of release to show the advantages of the Z mount in making it possible to have small light cameras. The 400 f4.5 arguably would never have been made in F mount - ridiculously light, small and superb IQ. ...Show more →
Lance B wrote:
I am not sure what you are actually getting at. However, I will restate what I have already said, "There is *NO* doubt that having a wider mount and shallow mount depth allows freedom. This is indisputable, it's just that whether they utilize it all the time and want to utilize it for a particular design is another matter. Better to have the ability and not always require it than to not have the ability and require it.".
No one here is an actual lens designer. The Z mount was designed by lens designers to allow for design freedom. The fact that both Nikon and Canon went with the larger diameter and shallower depth should tell us something - they could have just used a shallow depth but they *didn't* and there is a reason for this. I guarantee if Sony had their way again, they would have chosen a wider mount as well as the shallower depth. It may not be necessary in many lenses to not have a wider mount, but I bet in some lenses they would have liked to have had the option for design freedom and that freedom can take on many aspects. ...Show more →
Agree with @Lance B I cannot see any reliable comparisons trying to compare lenses across systems - guessing at the why's and wherefores of complex optical features in schematics of distinctly different optics for different mounts is unlikely to reveal much if anything about why Nikon arrived at the Z mount (!)
I ignore all such arm waving, as one who has invested centrally in Nikon glass and I'm very definitely not going to any other camera system, besides adding selected Z Nikkors to my excellent F-mount system :-)
Those seeking technical answers about the Z Mount have the answers in interviews from Nikon engineers. Nikon's senior engineers have emphasized the advantages of the Z Mount are to "prioritize overwhelming optical performance". As you rightly point out the Z mount enabled its symmetrical design of the 14-30 f4S, so it avoided the huge bulbous front element of a Ultrawide with a retrofocus design.
In the wider context, the Z Mount facilitates the distinctly symmetrical designs we see in many S Line Nikkors, including the U-Wide zooms, which are in fact designed smaller, according to Akihiko Obama:
"...The Z-mount is actually a great contributor to the downsizing of the camera, of the mount itself, and in pursuing high-performance optical functions, as well as enabling the filter attachment."
https://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2019/03/29/mount-wars-z-mount-really-does-help-lens-design-and-af-nikon-tech-interview :
"...The biggest consideration by far was what the large diameter and short depth would do for optical quality, in terms of center resolution, corner-to-corner sharpness, reduced shading (vignetting), reduced optical aberrations and improved AF coverage. My impression was that huge-aperture capability was something that largely came along for the ride....."
In yet another Interview - senior Nikon engineer, Fujiwara San emphasized :
https://dc.watch.impress.co.jp/docs/interview/1239336.html
"From the standpoint of optical design, the shorter the better, so the optical designers demanded that it be made shorter. It gets harder. We had to make the body cover thinner and thinner, which made it difficult to ensure rigidity. After careful consideration of the need for space for a mechanical shutter and the thickness of the cover glass of the image sensor, we came to the conclusion that 16mm was the ultimate solution.....
......In the case of the Nikon Z mount, we chose a mount with a large diameter because we prioritized overwhelming optical performance, but other companies have adopted a smaller mount that can appeal to its compact size and light weight to compete with single-lens reflex cameras. I think"
The designers of the pair of Z Macros also emphasize improved features in several areas of their designs:
https://qicai.fengniao.com/536/5365367.html
Edited on Sep 03, 2023 at 02:14 PM · View previous versions
|
).