p.3 #1 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
AcuteShadows wrote:
The Nikon lens has less (almost zero) distortion, less focus breathing, and less vignetting (especially at smaller apertures). Yes, if Nikon would choose to build a smaller f/1.2 lens, I would in many cases use that. The Nikon has a filter diamter of 82mm, while the Sony has 72mm. Weight is roughly proportional to the square of the filter diameter (the Nikon is a bit longer and a bit heavier relative to the square of the filter thread diameter). Would the smaller diameter of the E mount defeat attempts at reducing vignetting to the level of the Nikkor Z 50mm f/1.2 S, even if it were bigger? We don't know. (At least I don't know.) ...Show more →
I also prefer a smaller lens overall and focus breathing is less of a concern for me since I don't do much videography. But then again I much prefer the Nikon rendering, especially in the transition area. I was hooked on this design language from the 58G, then the 105E just upped the ante. Now the ultra sharp and abrupt transitions is just a bit jarring for my preference. So I guess it sucks to be me haha. AcuteShadows wrote:
The starting point of this discussion was "Why was the larger Z mount necessary?". I would argue it wasn't strictly necessary. But for mirrorless, Nikon needed a new mount anyway - many lenses have rear elements close to the Z bayonet. At the same time, Nikon has made quite an effort to design the new mount system in a way that many F mount lenses work at least as well as on DSLRs, or even better. Having the mount a bit larger is just optimization. So don't expect miracles, even if some Nikon PR would want to make you believe that the Z mount is some miracle invention....Show more →
Agree
p.3 #2 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
swifty168 wrote:
I also prefer a smaller lens overall and focus breathing is less of a concern for me since I don't do much videography. But then again I much prefer the Nikon rendering, especially in the transition area. I was hooked on this design language from the 58G, then the 105E just upped the ante. Now the ultra sharp and abrupt transitions is just a bit jarring for my preference. So I guess it sucks to be me haha.
Agree
I find that interesting, as I much prefer the Sony rendering. The 50/1.2 was one of the only Z lenses so far where I was a bit unimpressed. To be honest, the differences aren’t really that big, but the bokeh on the Nikon is just a touch harsher than the 50GM.
p.3 #3 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
Jman13 wrote:
I find that interesting, as I much prefer the Sony rendering. The 50/1.2 was one of the only Z lenses so far where I was a bit unimpressed. To be honest, the differences aren’t really that big, but the bokeh on the Nikon is just a touch harsher than the 50GM.
I also look find the rendering of the Sony much more pleasing. The bokeh in particular is more pleasing due to the 11 vs 9 aperature blades.
But these are subjective not objective characteristics so a lot of room for individual preferences.
p.3 #4 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
@Jman13 and @1bwana1
Yes I think there's a lot of room for preferences and I think we are also looking at different areas. I prefer the bokeh balls on the Sony 50 f/1.2 in the completely OOF areas actually but I was referring to the focus transition specifically which I feel gives the image a different look and feel. A sharp band of in-focus zone vs a slower transition from in-focus to OOF.
No right or wrongs here, just preferences.
p.3 #5 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
Of course. Both, along with the canon RF 50/1.2L, are among the finest normal lenses ever made.
swifty168 wrote:
@Jman13@ and @1bwana1@
Yes I think there's a lot of room for preferences and I think we are also looking at different areas. I prefer the bokeh balls on the Sony 50 f/1.2 in the completely OOF areas actually but I was referring to the focus transition specifically which I feel gives the image a different look and feel. A sharp band of in-focus zone vs a slower transition from in-focus to OOF.
No right or wrongs here, just preferences.
p.3 #6 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
The larger mount may also be helpful to accommodate smaller pixels in high-resolution sensors.
The performance of small pixels apparently is more heavily impacted by the angle of incidence of the light rays hitting the sensor.
In the extreme corner, and assuming no mechanical vignetting (i.e. the intersection of the light cone and the mount plane is a circular or elliptical disk), the chief ray has the following angle of incidence at f/1.2:
p.3 #7 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
ekam wrote:
You must be blind!
I've used 17-55 2.8 to 24-70 2.8G to 24-70 2.8 VR and the S-Line 24-70 2.8 is smaller, lighter, but also very sharp from center all the way to extreme corner.
Had to sell my 50 1.4G is once I got my D850. Didn't touch a 50mm again until the S-Line 1.2 came out.
Yeh I'm a blind photographer.
And you know for sure that the lens mount had everything to do with the new lenses being sharper because your an optics engineer?
p.3 #8 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
AcuteShadows wrote:
Sony does not offer the quality of the f/1.8 S prime lenses at that price point. (It also does not offer an equivalent to the 58mm f/.95 Noct.)
Nikon Z mount lenses also have minimal color shift, presumably due to low variance in angles of incidence across the frame. I actually don't know about the amount of color shift for Sony lenses, but I would assume it is similar to Nikon F mount lenses, which are inferiour to the Z mount lenses in this regard. (Color shift renders the periphery of a image in a somewhat bluish/turquise tint, which can alter the mood of images, especially landscapes or city/architecture images.)...Show more →
I'm not saying that the Z mount isn't better. I'm just saying I'm not sure it was that necessary. Tough decision for Nikon. Sony has painted themselves into a corner and I'm not sure why they did that. The company that really didn't have to switch mounts was Canon. Not too much wrong with the EF mount.
p.3 #9 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
Why wouldn't we agree on one thing, whatever is discussed here is just the best guess.
Nikon is got 100+ years in this business, with F-mount being born 60+ years ago.
Nikon had enough time to figure out how much "pain" that mount was about in certain circumstances.
Nikon had enough time to think about how new mount should look like, and how big it should be, to accomplish what was impossible, or what was very hard and expensive with F-mount.
The mount isn't something you design and redesign every once in while, it should live for decades, so why not to make it larger.
Only Nikon can answer this question, why and how, anything else is an opinion.
Do we know if Sony designed it for FF, or oversized APS-C mount, applying the same technology like Nikon did with FF.
It was probably too late to redesign it for FF, once they realized they needed it, so Sony just adapted to it.
Canon probably could've lived with same diameter, but they needed to bring it closer to the sensor, anyway.
Canon knew, the bigger mount gives them more flexibility, so why not, they started on blank piece of paper...
p.3 #10 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
Interestingly, the guys from PetaPixel discussed the lens mount issue in this video released this week. Plenty of criticism for Sony in this one. But not when it comes to the Sony lenses, their design and performance.
They labeled the Nikon mount story as marketing "propaganda", as is being proven by the fact that Sony is making lenses that are optically equal, or superior, while being smaller and lighter. They are surprised that people out there are still believing, and spreading the Nikon marketing story. After intensive testing and comparing lenses, they believe the Sony 2.8 "trinity" zooms are the best available in the industry today. Whether that is actually true or not for any individual or use case is arguable of course. However, what is clear is that Sony is competing, and producing lenses of incredibly high quality with their E mount.
In the end it seems that the wider mount doesn't make super high performance "possible", it may make it "easier". Even if on paper it theoretically would enable Nikon to make lenses smaller, it appears by what Nikon has produced so far, they are not doing that. Nikon lenses are in many cases very large, and heavy when compared to the direct competition. Notable in the 2.8 Trinity Zoom offerings for sure.
Enjoy the video. Start listening about minute 14:40. The relevant discussion is not that long so must of you should be able to hold your lunch down long enough to listen to the whole section. I often have to do that while listening to YouTube "experts".
&t=3667s
I am not saying everything these guys say is correct or endorsing their views. I just thought it relevant to this thread.
p.3 #11 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
None of those guys are exactly lens experts Funny story - I have personally witnessed someone in that video try very hard to sell an APS-C lens to someone with a FF camera.
I didn't have time to watch it all but did they address the software corrections baked into Sony RAWs?
Sony has a lot of fantastic lenses but to an extent they can't defy physics - it has nothing to do with marketing. Canon has specifically said they moved to the RF mount from the EF-M mount because they couldn't get the optical performance they wanted out of a 47mm inner diameter. Nikon's lack of lenses faster than F1.4 on the F mount was partially due to it being ~10mm narrower than Canon's EF mount. The larger mounts also have other benefits besides optical performance such as being able to adapt any smaller mount design to it.
A claim like they are making would need to be backed up by objective testing on an optical bench, a large sample size, cover a wide lens range, etc. I don't see any of that presented, not even close. It also goes against statements made from actual optical engineers. If they are going out and snapping some photos of test charts, using a sample size of one, looking at them on the computer and coming to that conclusion, that is really no different than anyone here making a similar statement about whatever lenses they happen to like the best. I like Chris and Jordan as presenters or entertainers but IMO anyway, there are better sources for objective or technical information.
p.3 #12 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
So, you think these two guys know what the future is like, and what we may see, and what Nikon, or any other manufacturer plans are about?
They can say whatever they want, but I still think, Nikon didn't go stupid to make it as big just for marketing purposes, it's got to be more to it.
They're guessing just like all of us..
BTW, I stopped watching these guys couple of years back, they don't bring any new value, as CanadaMark described above, they're just dragging on the surface without getting into the depth of the subject.
Their channel, as some others similar to it, is setup for people with very limited knowledge, they know where the numbers are.
So, they're not those who would convince me on this particular subject, sorry.
These kind of guys would prize anything Sony brings on the market with perfect color.
Then, it takes a few years, until we learn that Sony 200-600mm is actually 200-550mm.
How about that?
p.3 #13 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
One thing Chris and Jordan appear to have missed is that Nikon Z lenses don't require as much vignetting and focus breathing corrections unlike Sony lenses which depend on in-camera or post processing fixes to compensate.
p.3 #14 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
Gary Irwin wrote:
One thing Chris and Jordan appear to have missed is that Nikon Z lenses don't require as much vignetting and focus breathing corrections unlike Sony lenses which depend on in-camera or post processing fixes to compensate.
Some lenses do so more than others in all lens lines. I guess that the PetaPixel guys are concentrating on the end result of the imaging system. What they cared about was that the new 16-35 f/2.8 GM produced images that were technically the best they have seen to date. These days that includes Hardware, Optics, Embedded Software, and Post processing SoftWare.
Like most systems these days, the Nikon lenses also rely on embedded software corrections also. Remember your system relies on software that plays a part in AF/AI, EVF and LCD displays, Exposure calculation, in lens and in body stabilization, sensors, image processors, RAW image filles, JPEG image files, white balance, nonsense color science, battery optimizations, file storage and transfer, the list just goes on. Again, it is the totality of the system that matters. Why draw an artificial line around optical optimizations. It fails to acknowledge the current state of imaging technology, makes no sense, and tastes a bit like rationalizing the mount "propaganda".
Like them I often prefer some attractive aberrations in my lenses that add character. I think most that shoot Leica feel that way to a meaningful extent.
These days it is optimizing the size and weight of my system that takes a high priority for me. One day it may even raise to the level of moving me away from FF systems.
p.3 #15 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
One lens that neither Sony, Leica or any other brands have an answer to Nikon is Noct Nikkor 58/.95.
It is by far the best f0.95 lens I ever own and is miles ahead of Noctilux 59/.95 in term of
correction, sharpness and pretty much any optical performance that you can measure.
The lens really utilize all the space that Z mount offers.
Rendering it is a matter of taste and perhaps Noctilux 50/1 may offer something interesting as an alternative.
When talking about lens mount, we should not count software, and any non optical technology though.
The mount dimension affect only optics. To say Sony E mount offers the same optic performance but require more software correction for focus breathing pretty much proves that there is a benefit to bigger Z mount already and really show that physical size matters in optic.
If we are to accept all the software and AI tempering, we might as well just give up on camera as cellphone AI manipulation pretty much compensate for so many physical limitation of cellphone already.
Where one should draw the line about where tempering with software correction is still within realm of optical performance acceptibility and where it shows the need to compensate for optical flaw with post processing I don't know but I think all the trouble that Sony has to go through to make 50/1.2GM performs in the same league as 50/1.2S does show that Z mount do have some benefits (although Sony has a non optic work around for that). I
But at the end of the day, if I spend a lot of money optical piece of glass, I get a lot more
satisfaction from it knowing that it requires less software manipulation and it is purely physical.
Kind of like the way I would not value a variant of $10000 apple watch as much as $10000 mechanical time piece.
Of course, at the moment, beside focus breathing, I have no idea how much software correction Nikon uses in z mount lens in comparison to E mount lens. May be Nikon requires just as much, may be not. Focus breathing at the moment seems to be the only thing that is easy to see so whatever I said, may not be completely accurate, mind you but only based on what I know so far.
p.3 #16 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
1bwana1 wrote:
Interestingly, the guys from PetaPixel discussed the lens mount issue in this video released this week. Plenty of criticism for Sony in this one. But not when it comes to the Sony lenses, their design and performance.
They labeled the Nikon mount story as marketing "propaganda", as is being proven by the fact that Sony is making lenses that are optically equal, or superior, while being smaller and lighter. They are surprised that people out there are still believing, and spreading the Nikon marketing story. After intensive testing and comparing lenses, they believe the Sony 2.8 "trinity" zooms are the best available in the industry today. Whether that is actually true or not for any individual or use case is arguable of course. However, what is clear is that Sony is competing, and producing lenses of incredibly high quality with their E mount.
In the end it seems that the wider mount doesn't make super high performance "possible", it may make it "easier". Even if on paper it theoretically would enable Nikon to make lenses smaller, it appears by what Nikon has produced so far, they are not doing that. Nikon lenses are in many cases very large, and heavy when compared to the direct competition. Notable in the 2.8 Trinity Zoom offerings for sure.
Enjoy the video. Start listening about minute 14:40. The relevant discussion is not that long so must of you should be able to hold your lunch down long enough to listen to the whole section. I often have to do that while listening to YouTube "experts".
&t=3667s
I am not saying everything these guys say is correct or endorsing their views. I just thought it relevant to this thread....Show more →
There is not doubt that Sony has recently turned out some very nice glass, largely second or third time around. I personally feel some of the very early Z glass was a little rushed and is not as good as it could have been, especially as far as size, weight and handling goes but also some optical aspects. Maybe we will see Nikon also have a second bite at some of these. Regarding these two presenters and Petapixel, Jordan recently gave the nod to the A1 over both Z8 and R5c as the best video camera. Hmmmm. It is worth watching that video to see if it also makes you go Hmmmmmm !!
p.3 #17 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
suteetat wrote:
One lens that neither Sony, Leica or any other brands have an answer to Nikon is Noct Nikkor 58/.95.
It is by far the best f0.95 lens I ever own and is miles ahead of Noctilux 59/.95 in term of
correction, sharpness and pretty much any optical performance that you can measure.
The lens really utilize all the space that Z mount offers.
Rendering it is a matter of taste and perhaps Noctilux 50/1 may offer something interesting as an alternative.
When talking about lens mount, we should not count software, and any non optical technology though.
The mount dimension affect only optics. To say Sony E mount offers the same optic performance but require more software correction for focus breathing pretty much proves that there is a benefit to bigger Z mount already and really show that physical size matters in optic.
If we are to accept all the software and AI tempering, we might as well just give up on camera as cellphone AI manipulation pretty much compensate for so many physical limitation of cellphone already.
Where one should draw the line about where tempering with software correction is still within realm of optical performance acceptibility and where it shows the need to compensate for optical flaw with post processing I don't know but I think all the trouble that Sony has to go through to make 50/1.2GM performs in the same league as 50/1.2S does show that Z mount do have some benefits (although Sony has a non optic work around for that). I
But at the end of the day, if I spend a lot of money optical piece of glass, I get a lot more
satisfaction from it knowing that it requires less software manipulation and it is purely physical.
Kind of like the way I would not value a variant of $10000 apple watch as much as $10000 mechanical time piece.
Of course, at the moment, beside focus breathing, I have no idea how much software correction Nikon uses in z mount lens in comparison to E mount lens. May be Nikon requires just as much, may be not. Focus breathing at the moment seems to be the only thing that is easy to see so whatever I said, may not be completely accurate, mind you but only based on what I know so far.
Personally if I end up with the same result using a marvellous optical designed lens or one that requires to get there by software massaging…I don’t really care. The end result is what counts for me. What affects me every day is the size and weight of the lens and I’ll always go for the smaller lighter lens given end results are the same.
p.3 #18 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
chez wrote:
Personally if I end up with the same result using a marvellous optical designed lens or one that requires to get there by software massaging…I don’t really care. The end result is what counts for me. What affects me every day is the size and weight of the lens and I’ll always go for the smaller lighter lens given end results are the same.
Certainly your view is widely accepted and there is nothing wrong with that. However, it is not the only view otherwise,
we would all be using smart watch or Quartz watch mechanical watches would all be obsolete and long gone.
p.3 #19 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
chez wrote:
Personally if I end up with the same result using a marvellous optical designed lens or one that requires to get there by software massaging…I don’t really care. The end result is what counts for me. What affects me every day is the size and weight of the lens and I’ll always go for the smaller lighter lens given end results are the same.
Agree, that's why I shoot Nikon, no other FF brand offers such a small package like 400mm F4.5 prime, or 800mm f6.3.
As well as 45mp stacked sensor camera for the amount z8 is sold for.
p.3 #20 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
suteetat wrote:
One lens that neither Sony, Leica or any other brands have an answer to Nikon is Noct Nikkor 58/.95.
It is by far the best f0.95 lens I ever own and is miles ahead of Noctilux 59/.95 in term of
correction, sharpness and pretty much any optical performance that you can measure.
The lens really utilize all the space that Z mount offers.
Rendering it is a matter of taste and perhaps Noctilux 50/1 may offer something interesting as an alternative.
When talking about lens mount, we should not count software, and any non optical technology though.
The mount dimension affect only optics. To say Sony E mount offers the same optic performance but require more software correction for focus breathing pretty much proves that there is a benefit to bigger Z mount already and really show that physical size matters in optic.
If we are to accept all the software and AI tempering, we might as well just give up on camera as cellphone AI manipulation pretty much compensate for so many physical limitation of cellphone already.
Where one should draw the line about where tempering with software correction is still within realm of optical performance acceptibility and where it shows the need to compensate for optical flaw with post processing I don't know but I think all the trouble that Sony has to go through to make 50/1.2GM performs in the same league as 50/1.2S does show that Z mount do have some benefits (although Sony has a non optic work around for that). I
But at the end of the day, if I spend a lot of money optical piece of glass, I get a lot more
satisfaction from it knowing that it requires less software manipulation and it is purely physical.
Kind of like the way I would not value a variant of $10000 apple watch as much as $10000 mechanical time piece.
Of course, at the moment, beside focus breathing, I have no idea how much software correction Nikon uses in z mount lens in comparison to E mount lens. May be Nikon requires just as much, may be not. Focus breathing at the moment seems to be the only thing that is easy to see so whatever I said, may not be completely accurate, mind you but only based on what I know so far.
None of those expensive watches can keep time as accurately or reliably as a very inexpensive Quartz watch. Never mind the usefulness of the complications the software based watches can preform. No car without software can match performance. Almost anything we do today is better with software and relies on it heavily. Why relegate camera systems to such limitations. Especially when talking about digital based cameras. Last time I looked Nikon doesn't make an analog Z mount camera.
Given approximately equal IQ results, size and weight are very important to me these days. They affect every second you I use a camera. Nikon is not focused on that it seems.
Funny story - I have personally witnessed someone in that video try very hard to sell an APS-C lens to someone with a FF camera.