p.5 #1 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
Just Wednesday night I was shooting the Super Blue Moon rise over the San Diego skyline. There were about 40-50 photographers there as part of the club outing.
The guy a couple of positions away from me was shooting a Z9 with the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 S lens. I was shooting my A1 and 70-200 GM II. The size of the Z9 setup was almost comical. It was so big and heavy. He is not that big of a person. That size extended to the gear he had to use to carry it. A big strap system, and backpack. The tripod he needed to support it for the long exposure was also big and heavy. If you didn't know the Z9 by looking at it you would think he was shooting a big old legacy DSL like some others were.
I was able to walk up with my Sony kit on a light strap, a light travel tripod, and a TC in my pocket. I also had my M11 in my windbreaker pocket. His setup gave him no additional capabilities when compared to mine. Certainly no advantage in IQ.
Look, I get it. Cameras that are big, looking and feeling like legacy DSLR cameras appeal to certain types of users. There seem to be a good number of those in the Nikon user base. Nikon looks to be monetizing this group. At this event it seemed to also have a correlation to age. So, maybe that is a smart strategy for Nikon in the short term. The DSLR and Nikon users were by and large the old guys. The young guys and women mostly were shooting small non Nikon mirrorless systems. That is clearly the future.
The question posed in this thread is why Nikon choose to go with the big mount. It seems clear that this is so far not providing advantage in optical quality, nor size and weight for Nikon users as the Nikon marketing says. Maybe, someday it will. We will see. But based on what other manufactures are doing, the large Z mount was not a requirement to achieve optic superiority. It was a choice that has not so far provided clear advantages in their products when compared to other manufactures. I will say that as far as optical quality it does appear to be providing better IQ that the old Nikon F mount lenses. Possibly, this is the point drove Nikon into making the change. But that is not the same as the competitive advantage that Nikon users seem to be extending it to. I guess this may be why some are seeing it as primarily a marketing and propaganda tool.
p.5 #3 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
1bwana1 wrote:
The tripod he needed to support it for the long exposure was also big and heavy.
You don't need a big and heavy tripod for that camera and lens combo. If he used a big and heavy combo, he did so because he wanted to. If he used a Z9, he did so probably because he bought it before the Z8 was available. Also, a Z6 would do for that purpose. Today, he maybe would buy a 70-180mm f/2.8 lens.
I still don't get why you are mixing fact-based contributions to the discussion with snarky comments about Nikon users that get screwed by Nikon, and I don't see any advantage in doing this.
p.5 #4 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
AcuteShadows wrote:
I still don't get why you are mixing fact-based contributions to the discussion with snarky comments about Nikon users that get screwed by Nikon, and I don't see any advantage in doing this.
I am not saying Nikon screwed anyone.
As I have said, there are many people especially in the Nikon user space that like big DSLR like cameras.
I am not saying Nikon even made a mistake. It may in fact be the right choice by Nikon to focus on this customer base first.
I am not saying that Nikon isn't making great equipment. The Z9/8 cameras are excellent, as are the Z mount lenses.
I am not saying that Nikon is unable to make small high performing lenses with the Z mount. Only that at this time this doesn't seem to be their focus. Others agree and have posted numbers that back this up.
I am not even saying that Nikon is purposely misleading the industry by saying that the large Z mount enables them to build better, smaller faster lenses. I think I clearly suggested that what Nikon may be saying is that the Z mount enables them to more easily design such lenses when compared to Nikons own legacy F mount. The switch to mirrorless gave them a good opportunity to switch mounts. I said that It may be Nikon's user base in social media spaces like this one that extend that into Nikon saying that this gives them a competitive advantage. And so far this has not been shown to be true.
I didn't even say that Nikon switched to make more money by getting its users to buy another set of lenses as other have said.
Yes, I find the Z9, and the Z8 (close to my old Nikon DSLRs) to be too large for my taste when there are other smaller, lighter solutions available. Whenever I see such a setup it looks comical to me these days. personal preference that I have a right to express.
Most importantly I have tried to answer the OP's question about the requirement (technical?) to switch mounts. My opinion is that there was no requirement and that Nikon did so as a choice looking forward to Nikon's future business model.
p.5 #5 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
1bwana1 wrote:
I am not saying Nikon screwed anyone.
As I have said, there are many people especially in the Nikon user space that like big DSLR like cameras.
I am not saying Nikon even made a mistake. It may in fact be the right choice by Nikon to focus on this customer base first.
I am not saying that Nikon isn't making great equipment. The Z9/8 cameras are excellent, as are the Z mount lenses.
I am not saying that Nikon is unable to make small high performing lenses with the Z mount. Only that at this time this doesn't seem to be their focus. Others agree and have posted numbers that back this up.
I am not even saying that Nikon is purposely misleading the industry by saying that the large Z mount enables them to build better, smaller faster lenses. I think I clearly suggested that what Nikon may be saying is that the Z mount enables them to more easily design such lenses when compared to Nikons own legacy F mount. The switch to mirrorless gave them a good opportunity to switch mounts. I said that It may be Nikon's user base in social media spaces like this one that extend that into Nikon saying that this gives them a competitive advantage. And so far this has not been shown to be true.
I didn't even say that Nikon switched to make more money by getting its users to buy another set of lenses as other have said.
Yes, I find the Z9, and the Z8 (close to my old Nikon DSLRs) to be too large for my taste when there are other smaller, lighter solutions available. Whenever I see such a setup it looks comical to me these days. personal preference that I have a right to express.
Most importantly I have tried to answer the OP's question about the requirement (technical?) to switch mounts. My opinion is that there was no requirement and that Nikon did so as a choice looking forward to Nikon's future business model.
"Nikon looks to be monetizing this group." Maybe this is just everyday marketing speak. To me, it sounds like saying that Nikon is screwing these people.
p.5 #6 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
AcuteShadows wrote:
"Nikon looks to be monetizing this group." Maybe this is just everyday marketing speak. To me, it sounds like saying that Nikon is screwing these people.
No, all that means is Nikon is giving its existing customers what Nikon thinks they want in a camera system rather than prioritizing acquiring new customers. Doing this is often best for a company and its user base. Nothing negative in this at all.
p.5 #7 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
1bwana1 wrote:
No, all that means is Nikon is giving its existing customers what Nikon thinks they want in a camera system rather than prioritizing acquiring new customers. Doing this is often best for a company and its user base. Nothing negative in this at all.
Yet in the context, that phrase seems to say that Nikon is not telling those customers the truth, encourages their irrational behaviour, and makes money out of it.
p.5 #8 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
AcuteShadows wrote:
Yet in the context, that phrase seems to say that Nikon is not telling those customers the truth, encourages their irrational behaviour, and makes money out of it.
Maybe that says more about your reading, not my writings as you added a whole context that was not intended.
Do you think Nikon is misleading by omission? I don't.
p.5 #9 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
1bwana1 wrote:
Maybe that says more about your reading, not my writings as you added a whole context that was not intended.
Do you think Nikon is misleading by omission? I don't.
Not by omission, but possibly by flat out lying to people: "so far not providing advantage in optical quality, nor size and weight for Nikon users as the Nikon marketing says"
p.5 #10 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
AcuteShadows wrote:
Not by omission, but possibly by flat out lying to people: "so far not providing advantage in optical quality, nor size and weight for Nikon users as the Nikon marketing says"
Earlier you asked where Nikon has ever said that the Z Mount enables them to make lenses small (compact). So, here is a quote copied directly off the Nikon Z mount marketing website. It makes some clear claims about advantages that the Z Mount offers.
"By creating a mount with a large inner diameter and short flange focal distance, compact lenses can be designed that allow more light in, to hit the sensor. Using the latest in design and optical innovations, NIKKOR Z lenses are able to deliver improved low-light performance and edge-to-edge detail in both stills and video."
This is one of the definitions of "compact" from the Oxford dictionary.
something that is a small and conveniently shaped example of its kind.
I will leave it to you to decide whether you read this as misleading. As I pointed out it doesn't say more compact than other systems mounts, but you can see where people who want to read it that way may do so.
In another page on the Nikon USA website they post an article that explicitly says this:
" If I had to boil the benefits of the Z lenses down into one sentence, I would say, ‘lenses that are providing the image quality expected of ultra-fast and exotic lenses, all while being smaller and easier to carry around."
Here is yet another quote from Nikon's marketing on its own website:
"Nikon is providing an unprecedented level of quality while allowing the wider apertured-lens itself to be smaller and lighter. The best of both worlds!
Again you decide whether this is misleading or not. Is it marketing like this that leads people to say some of the unfactual statements regarding this that they do? I think likely, but it is not my style to label people or companies as lying. You do as you please in this regard.
What is very clear at this point is that so far many Nikon Z mount lenses are not smaller nor lighter than many comparable lenses in other mounts. Even though those mounts may be significantly smaller than the Z mount. Does this make you wonder what else Nikon may be less than precise with in their Z Mount marketing? I will leave it to you and each of us to decide this for themselves.
p.5 #11 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
Well, in the end Nikon didn't lie in that they were really convinced that the Z flange could allow designing smaller, faster and superior lenses.
Then, they failed to achieve such achievement
p.5 #12 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
This thread is exhausting. I can see it only coming to an end if we all all agree that the bigger mount was not necessary. Then and only then I hold a slight glimmer of hope that the endless and imo needless back and forth might end.
However, If we look at it from what Nikon had produced up to then in F mount, it is clear that everything they said is factual.
Wide zoom lenses. Both significantly lighter and better than F mount counterparts. The 2.8 24-70mm is also indeed much lighter and better than its F mount counterpart.
As far as this Nikon shooter is concerned, they demonstrated what they said the mount is capable of for what I consider to really be Generation 1 of Z mount lenses.
If we want to say that they meant OR said in relation to the competition, then I'd like to see the evidence.
p.5 #13 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
Nikon has the Z mount as its future-proof foundation for optical design - in robotic and consumer ILCs for video and stills. And they keep stating their emphasis on video as much as still imaging.
In this interview, the Nikon engineers confirm their design concept is to prioritize optical performance in the S Line Z Nikkors, versus their more compact Non-S line options.... Thus the Z System offers photographers wider choices.
The shorter 16mm deep throat and 55mm gape allows the design of very fast lens - to f0.6 in theory. This facilitates high optical quality edge to edge - eg the f1.8 and f1.2 Z primes perform optimally wide open compared against f1.4 F-mount primes, which are typically shut down for sharper images;
Minimal Vignetting thanks to wider gape and shallow throat;
4 bayonet claws to improves mount strength with shorter rotation throw;
Wider mount enables improves IBIS, by providing more space around the sensor;
Improved AF communication protocol, which is not only more energy efficient, but it is in fact essential for precise focus control and smooth exposure in video;
With cross mount adapters, the Z Mount is the 'Universal Recipient'. Conversely, Z Lenses cannot work on other camera mounts
p.5 #14 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
SiMuMe wrote:
Wide zoom lenses. Both significantly lighter and better than F mount counterparts. The 2.8 24-70mm is also indeed much lighter and better than its F mount counterpart.
Comparing Z mount to F mount is like comparing apples to oranges.
*ALL* MILCs bayonets "must" be (necessarily) closer to the sensor. The point is: which advantage a bayonet mount even closer to the sensor does bring? Is that important to have a larger bayonet diameter?
Meaningful comparisons must be done with other MILC mounts.
Is the 14-30/4 S (89x85, 495 g) smaller & better than the Canon RF 14-35/4 L IS (84x100 mm, 540 g)? It's more compact, by a quite small margin, but the Canon i) has more range and ii) has in-lens stabilization (IS).
Same holds for RF 24-70/2.8 L IS (89x126 mm, 900 g) vs Z 24-70/2.8 S (89x126 mm, 805 g), which doesn't have VR/IS.
Is the Z 50/1.2 S (90x150 mm, 1090 g) smaller & better than the Canon RF 50/1.2 L (90x108 mm, 950 g) or the Sony FE 50/1.2 (87x108 mm, 778 g)? It could be better (I don't know), but neither smaller nor lighter for sure.
The only rationale I see is: NikonClio64 wrote:
With cross mount adapters, the Z Mount is the 'Universal Recipient'. Conversely, Z Lenses cannot work on other camera mounts
p.5 #15 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
Steve Spencer wrote:
I don't think we actually disagree. I said Nikon provides smaller S lenses by making them with a smaller max aperture but not that they don't offer smaller lenses at all. That said even the f/1.8 primes while smaller are a little bigger than at least their Sony competitors. I will just report weights to keep it simple, but size differences are similar:
In the case of the f/1.8 primes I would argue that the differences in weight are small and there are probably few photographers who find the f/1.8 primes so heavy that they can't use them because of the weight. Without doubt the smaller bayonet (of Sony and others who use a small diameter mount) allows and makes it practical to make lenses that are physically smaller and lighter. But the small lens mount also tempts Sony to make very small camera bodies and when a large-diameter lens is mounted on such a camera the gap between grip and lens outer barrel is sometimes so narrow that some users cannot comfortably hold them, myself included.
It is a different situation with longer lenses where many traditional lenses are too heavy to comfortably hand-hold. And with lenses such as the 400/4.5 and 800/6.3 Nikon does offer very lightweight options that are high quality for the weight, focal length and maximum aperture (especially the 400/4.5) and I would argue that weight reduction is more important in long lenses than in the f/1.8 primes. In my opinion these lenses show that Nikon does care about the weight of their professional lenses where it really matters, but they don't use weight as the sole optimization criteria.
If the objective is to make a camera and lens that are as small as possible then obviously Sony has the edge here. But is that the objective? For me it is important that the camera and lens form a combination that is as easy to handle as possible and has enough space for sufficient controls to achieve the tasks that the photographer has in an efficient and practical way. Most camera bodies are too small and have too few physical controls for efficient use, in my opinion and practical experience. This is true of many Nikon bodies as well, those that are smaller than the Z8 tend to have way too few physical controls, necessitating frequent menu dives when changing between different types of subjects.
So where Nikon and Sony do make similar lenses the Sony lenses are a bit smaller.
Examples of Nikon lenses which are similar in specs to Sony lenses and the Nikon lens is a bit lighter:
Nikon 180-600 1955 g without tripod mount
Sony 200-600 2115 g without tripod mount
Nikon 100-400 1355 g without tripod mount
Sony 100-400 1395 g without tripod mount
Of course if one just picks pairs of lenses one can support a variety of arguments.
For their pro lenses it seems that Nikon has prioritized excellence in optics over reducing size and weight or at least it looks that way when comparing with similar Sony lenses.
In the case of shorter focal length lenses (<= 200mm) Sony lenses tend to be smaller and lighter weight, yes, but not at longer focal lengths of comparable specs. But this doesn't mean Nikon doesn't consider weight important. The design criteria are dependent on the specific case and can vary, depending on what they are trying to accomplish. But I doubt that in any situation do they increase weight without trying to achieve something that they wanted by making those choices.
Whether one lens is cheaper, smaller, lighter, sharper, has more even image quality, richer colour, less flare etc. all those things are in the control of the designers and any one pair of lenses cannot be used to prove something about the superiority of a lens mount over another. The lens mount is just one part of camera system design that the engineers make and it comes with advantages and disadvantages. Those decisions are made with expected lifetime of a system of several decades in mind (in the case of the F mount, about 70 years and counting). While the Z mount can limit the smallest size of the camera and the smallest size of lenses possible, I would argue that making the smallest lenses even smaller is not really an important objective except in very specific cases (such as mounting a camera on a gimbal stabilizer, pocketability of a camera (which is IMO a lost cause as even the smallest ILCs are too thick for comfortable placement in a pocket with most clothes, and probably it can also damage the gear if forced), mounting a camera in a concealed location for remote use etc.) and in most cases the smallest and lightest Z gear is small and light enough. Where weight has been a significant limitation to real-world use cases is long focal length lenses and there has been huge weight reductions accomplished by Canon, Sony and Nikon in this area over the past two-three decades. Some might also say the f/2.8 zooms are too heavy and all the big three manufacturers have accomplished weight reductions in those lenses compared to their own previous offerings. It's more a trend that the newest lenses are probably among the lightest as well, subject to differences in priorities such as focus breathing (which ironically enough Nikon seem to have placed highest priority while Sony attempt to address such issues in software correction which crops into the image to maintain angle of view when focus is changed). For Sony and Canon this may not have been a priority in their photography lenses because they also make cinema lenses and want to keep that market to some extent separate from the photo lenses. Nikon doesn't make a separate cinema lens line and tries to address video needs in their main line of Z lenses. I think this is a smart long-term play and users will be grateful for it over time, for the money saved not having to "upgrade" cameras or lenses to get minimized focus breathing.
Back to the original topic, potential and partially realized advantages that Z mount had for Nikon:
1. Lower CA
2. Easier to illuminate corners of the image
3. Less pressure on the mount when using heavy lenses
4. More freedom in optical design and other engineering
5. Can potentially make the camera thinner
6. Space for the sensor to move (IBIS moves the sensor making problem 2 above worse)
7. More freedom for lens movements (when the Z PC Nikkors arrive)
Personally I consider the lens mount an internal decision the manufacturer makes to best achieve their objectives in the camera system design and it's not really something users should be concerned about. As users we are mostly concerned about the performance of the system in our applications and the lens mount is just one small piece of design which can affect performance in the background but it's not really something that we need to evaluate. How well the system works for us is determined by applying it to practice, and not so much theorizing about whether some aspect of the system design is smart or not.
p.5 #16 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
Ripolini wrote:
Comparing Z mount to F mount is like comparing apples to oranges.
[snip]
The only rationale I see is:
While your points are factual, for me it is worth taking into account
1) the timeline in which these new lenses and new mounts were conceived
2) who Nikon would have been designing these lenses for.
3) Nikon's history with the F-mount
--
1) I don't care enough for Sony to know their lens catalogue in detail or to even compare it to Nikon's BUT I'd like to think that Sony was the only reference that Nikon had in as far as products already at market. Canon was just like Nikon, non-existent. What did Sony have between 2016-2018 when some of these early lenses would have been conceived? I don't know if they had better lenses than the ones they have now(talking specifically about the smaller than expected for the focal length GM lenses), if they did I think there would have been less reason to have made the current iterations.
2) My opinion. Nikon needed something better than what F-mount offered because the future was not in that mount but at the time Nikon had a very complete system that Nikon users to this day are very happy with.
It is not a sin to compare Z mount to F mount. F is where I've been for most of my photography life and what I would compare Z to in terms of what Nikon offers me. Therefore, I gave three examples that are clearly better compared to past Nikon products that I have access to, you'd prefer that I compare to mount systems I don't care about, and have never used. Uhm, nope.
3) I suspect Nikon designers looked at history and recalled how restrictive the F mount had turned out to be in the past few decades and vowed never again. Again, I am happy that it is sufficiently different to anything that exists in the market. I have said before that I'd prefer for Nikon to make more unique products than all the me too's. Uniquely chubby does not yet offend me.
p.5 #17 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
Nikon had to convince people to swap their Nikon DSLR cameras for the upcoming new Z bodies.
That's why they made the advertising video linked before. They added a sort of "hype" by claiming how better their Z mount was, by using larger diameter and shorter flange-to-sensor distance.
At that time, a not negligible number of Nikon users opted for Sony MILCs (I know several of them), and so Nikon had to invent some "magic" about the Z-mount: better than F-mount (of course, as many decades of Leica M history clearly shows) and, most important, better than concurrent MILCs mounts. I understand their marketing policy; it was probably effective, and worked.
Now after several years, we have several FF MILCs producers, and *all* of them produce excellent, fast, lighter (than DSLR siblings) lenses thus demonstrating that the advertised advantages of the larger (and closer to the sensor) Z-mount is not that necessary from a technical standpoint.
p.5 #18 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
It was always my understanding from the start, that both Nikon and Canon's move towards a larger mount was due to allowing for lens design that would promote superior edge sharpenss in the optics along with eliminating possible chromatic aberration issues and such. It's the equivalent to what happens when putting a FF lens on a DX camera. it is allowed to be concentrating on the central portion of said lens eliminating errors that occur further out in the lens optics. Having owned both Canon RF as well as now some nice S glass for my Z9, I have to say I think the Nikkor's are even superior at the outer portions of the lenses. My 100-400 and 24-120 S lenses are essentially perfection (or I just got good copies).
p.5 #20 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
Not that I'm interested in, but just for fun.
Why wouldn't we start a thread like, "What are actually E-mount shortcomings, compared to Z and R mounts", to reverse things a bit, and to dig into it, rather than endlessly argue about super smart moves from Nikon and Canon, like beating a dead horse.
For example, why is Sony stabilization so poor compared to competition, as one reviewer calls it joke in recent video?
Is it because of tiny mount, or Sony just doesn't know how to do it, after 10+ years?
Or, why is Sony 200-600 (12.52" long) 50mm shorter at 600mm zoom than Nikon 180-600 (12.4" long), as per same reviewer.
Is it because of tiny mount, or there is something else here.
Or, why so many Sony lenses have focus breathing, then they introduced software correction to it.
If Nikon does it, OMG, internet would go crazy, but Sony does it, it's a smart move, some would comment.
Someone said long time ago, offence is the best difference.
Doesn't constant attack to this matter about Z-mount size from some people here reminds to it?
