p.6 #2 · 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?
When a brand switches from DSLR to mirrorless, they should change the mount. The DSLR mount has to allow room for the mirror, so the lenses have to be placed quite a distance away from the sensor. A mirrorless mount can be placed far closer to the sensor, and there are several advantages to doing so. It also means that providing compatibility with DSLR lenses is easy - there's room for an adapter that puts the DSLR lenses at the appropriate distance from the sensor (lenses will not work properly unless they mount at the precise distance they were designed for). So yes, the distance taken up by the mirror is one of the key reasons for changing mounts. Not the only reason, but a key one.
As for why they made the hole so big - there was criticism of the F mount being a bit too small to allow large aperture lenses, and the contacts for electronic communication - if I remember correctly, there was only one f/1.2 lens for F mount. So there was speculation that the Z mount was made much larger in response. Z mount does facilitate larger apertures. I do think they went a bit far, though :-) One of the problems with making the mount diameter larger is that it means the lenses need to be wider (at least at the mount end), which means heavier as well as bulkier.
Some of the speculation may be unfounded - the Sony E mount was thought to be too narrow to support large apertures for full frame lenses (disparaging comments about it only being good for APS-C lenses), yet Sony produced the excellent 50mm f/1.2 GM - so much for not supporting large apertures (and even larger apertures from third parties).
p.6 #5 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
Tony Ross wrote:
When a brand switches from DSLR to mirrorless, they should change the mount. The DSLR mount has to allow room for the mirror, so the lenses have to be placed quite a distance away from the sensor. A mirrorless mount can be placed far closer to the sensor, and there are several advantages to doing so. It also means that providing compatibility with DSLR lenses is easy - there's room for an adapter that puts the DSLR lenses at the appropriate distance from the sensor (lenses will not work properly unless they mount at the precise distance they were designed for). So yes, the distance taken up by the mirror is one of the key reasons for changing mounts. Not the only reason, but a key one.
As for why they made the hole so big - there was criticism of the F mount being a bit too small to allow large aperture lenses, and the contacts for electronic communication - if I remember correctly, there was only one f/1.2 lens for F mount. So there was speculation that the Z mount was made much larger in response. Z mount does facilitate larger apertures. I do think they went a bit far, though :-) One of the problems with making the mount diameter larger is that it means the lenses need to be wider (at least at the mount end), which means heavier as well as bulkier.
Some of the speculation may be unfounded - the Sony E mount was thought to be too narrow to support large apertures for full frame lenses (disparaging comments about it only being good for APS-C lenses), yet Sony produced the excellent 50mm f/1.2 GM - so much for not supporting large apertures (and even larger apertures from third parties)....Show more →
I pretty much agree with all of this. There were sound reasons for Nikon to develop a new mount for mirrorless. I think Nikon did the right thing in doing so. I have no idea whether they went too far optimal compromises, but certainly they are now producing excellent lenses and bodies using the Z mount.
It is the photographic user community that extends what Nikon was attempting to do with the Z mount into assigning some sort of superiority to the Nikon architecture. This has not been proven out in real world application. All of the brands seem to have mounts capable of supporting extremely fine image IQ. It is just the effort and small compromises that it takes to achieve these results that are slightly different. As examples, the larger Z mount probably does give Nikon the ability to engineer better IBIS. The smaller Sony mount probably does assist Sony in producing smaller and lighter lenses. Choose the compromises that work best for you.
Discussing these compromises is an interesting and fruitful thing to do. Nothing inappropriate about that. Certainly no reason to organize and initiate a "best defense is a good offence" strategy. That is just weak and childish in my opinion, pretty much guaranteed not to produce any meaningful benefit to anyone.
p.6 #6 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
1bwana1 wrote:
I pretty much agree with all of this. There were sound reasons for Nikon to develop a new mount for mirrorless. I think Nikon did the right thing in doing so. I have no idea whether they went too far optimal compromises, but certainly they are now producing excellent lenses and bodies using the Z mount.
It is the photographic user community that extends what Nikon was attempting to do with the Z mount into assigning some sort of superiority to the Nikon architecture. This has not been proven out in real world application. All of the brands seem to have mounts capable of supporting extremely fine image IQ. It is just the effort and small compromises that it takes to achieve these results that are slightly different. As examples, the larger Z mount probably does give Nikon the ability to engineer better IBIS. The smaller Sony mount probably does assist Sony in producing smaller and lighter lenses. Choose the compromises that work best for you.
Discussing these compromises is an interesting and fruitful thing to do. Nothing inappropriate about that. Certainly no reason to organize and initiate a "best defense is a good offence" strategy. That is just weak and childish in my opinion, pretty much guaranteed not to produce any meaningful benefit to anyone. ...Show more →
I'll take it as personal attack, and I don't have any desire to argue with you any more...thanks!
p.6 #8 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
1bwana1 wrote:
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....Show more →
The complete quote is:
"By creating an f/1.8 lens which provides better quality than its f/1.4 F-mount counterpart, 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!"
The Z f/1.8 lenses are indeed smaller and lighter than the F mount f/1.4 lenses, and they provide better image quality at f/1.8.
Nikon is comparing the size to the F mount lenses referred to in this paragraph, not to any lenses from other manufacturers.
Likeways, if Nikon says that the Z mount allows to construct compact lenses with large apertures, they do not make a direct comparison to any other manufacturer. As I said before, not all of the compact lenses even make use of the larger mount, but the 40mm f/2 does, and it is far better than other such "near pancake" lenses for the F mount.
As far as I see, the closest Sony lens is the Sony FE 40mm 2.5 G, which is about twice the money compared to the 40mm f/2.
To be sure,
(a) the 40mm f/2 was probably launched quite a while after that website was published by Nikon;
(b) I would find it ridiculous to run a campaign on lens size if there is only one (or maybe 2-3) lenses that clearly benefit with regard to size;
(c) I see the main advantage of the Z mount not in smaller lenses, but in reduced vignetting and absence of color shift for *large* lenses.
p.6 #9 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
AcuteShadows wrote:
Nikon is comparing the size to the F mount lenses referred to in this paragraph, not to any lenses from other manufacturers.
That is just one of the quotes that I linked to where Nikon was explicite in this regard.
That is however what I have been saying in this thread. But, many people are mistaking Nikon saying that means that the Z mount offers advantages in size and weight to other manufactures mounts. Nikon is not saying that although marketing often leaves that distinction kind of fuzzy. It is that unfactual extension of those statements that I am discussing here. That particular advantage has not proven to be valid at this point.
p.6 #10 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
1bwana1 wrote:
That is just one of the quotes that I linked to where Nikon was explicite in this regard.
That is however what I have been saying in this thread. But, many people are mistaking Nikon saying that means that the Z mount offers advantages in size and weight to other manufactures mounts. Nikon is not saying that although tmarketing often leaves that distinction kind of fuzzy. It is that unfactual extension of those statements that I am discussing here. That particular advantage has not proven to be valid at this point.
It seems to me that we basically agree.
Probably we indeed agree on good number of things.
Maybe people misunderstand Nikon. Maybe Nikon is doing not enough to avoid such misunderstandings, and maybe Nikon is fine with people misunderstanding what the company says.
The size and weight are among those properties of a product that can be most easily checked and compared by customers. So trying to mislead customers in this respect is probably a pretty stupid idea. Then, Nikon is not even making a particular effort to produce small lenses, for the most part at least. Of course, Nikon could make a 70-200mm with an extending barrel right from the start. It chose not to do so for about five years. (The mount is immaterial for the performance of the f/2.8 tele zoom lens.) It could make a 50mm f/1.2 S with a 77mm filter ring, but it opted for a 82mm filter ring. (If anything, the new possibilities offered by the Z mount called for a larger 50mm f/1.2 lens.)
p.6 #11 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
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.
p.6 #12 · 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 →
As for the 14-30 f/4 S, it is correct that this lens would not be possible with the flange distance of the F mount. However, it does not need the diameter of the Z mount.
p.6 #13 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
AcuteShadows wrote:
As for the 14-30 f/4 S, it is correct that this lens would not be possible with the flange distance of the F mount. However, it does not need the diameter of the Z mount.
Maybe, maybe not, but that doesn't preclude the other lenses that *do* need the diameter. Nikon also seems to be on a desire to have f1.2 lenses and they certainly require the diameter. Having said that, the 85 f1.8S seems to also benefit from the diameter. This pretty much proves that the diameter and the shallow depth means that it frees up their design options.
p.6 #14 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
Additionally we’re effectively talking about gen I of Nikon’s engineers having this extra optical design freedom compared to the more restrictive F-mount, and at a time when there’re a lot of pressures to build out a full lens lineup quickly. This is no small feat.
See what they do with gen II products and when the common ‘expected’ focal lengths have already been covered. If we think Z lenses are pretty good now, see how they improve and how the engineers learn to take advantage of the extra flexibility, where possible.
p.6 #15 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
Lance B wrote:
Maybe, maybe not, but that doesn't preclude the other lenses that *do* need the diameter. Nikon also seems to be on a desire to have f1.2 lenses and they certainly require the diameter. Having said that, the 85 f1.8S seems to also benefit from the diameter. This pretty much proves that the diameter and the shallow depth means that it frees up their design options.
Lenses in those focal lengths and apertures absolutely don't require the size and flange distance of the Z mount. This is evidenced by excellent examples of the same FL and apertures from other much smaller mounts. They exist in both AF and MF.
Or did you mean that they could not have been manufactured in F mount?
p.6 #16 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
1bwana1 wrote:
Lenses in those focal lengths and apertures absolutely don't require the size and flange distance of the Z mount. This is evidenced by excellent examples of the same FL and apertures from other much smaller mounts. They exist in both AF and MF.
Or did you mean that they could not have been manufactured in F mount?
You cannot compare *every* aspect of lens design and say they are equal, nor every lens for every situation. *One or two* lenses from a particular manufacturer may be close, but then can they do it for all focal lengths and every wide open aperture, every situation etc? CA, distortion, size, weight, colour, price, required lens elements, all aberrations, bokeh, flare, the list goes on. This is the aspect people are missing and seem to do deliberately. 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.
p.6 #17 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
1bwana1 wrote:
Lenses in those focal lengths and apertures absolutely don't require the size and flange distance of the Z mount. This is evidenced by excellent examples of the same FL and apertures from other much smaller mounts. They exist in both AF and MF.
Or did you mean that they could not have been manufactured in F mount?
‘Absolutely don’t require’ is just an opinion as evidenced by Nikon’s chosen designs which obviously require them. Does that mean it’s the best choice or only choice, obviously not. But good to be able to explore the possibilities via the design freedom to do so.
p.6 #18 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
Lance B wrote:
Maybe, maybe not, but that doesn't preclude the other lenses that *do* need the diameter. Nikon also seems to be on a desire to have f1.2 lenses and they certainly require the diameter. Having said that, the 85 f1.8S seems to also benefit from the diameter. This pretty much proves that the diameter and the shallow depth means that it frees up their design options.
There are several lenses that use the larger diameter of the Z mount. Yet only a few of them (including the 40mm f/2) are smaller than similar lenses from other manufacturers.
p.6 #19 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
1bwana1 wrote:
As examples, the larger Z mount probably does give Nikon the ability to engineer better IBIS. The smaller Sony mount probably does assist Sony in producing smaller and lighter lenses.
According to "official" specifications, Sony a7CR and a7C II claim 7 EV image stabilization vs 6 EV of Nikon Z8 (A7RV claims 8 EV ...).
p.6 #20 · Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
AcuteShadows wrote:
There are several lenses that use the larger diameter of the Z mount. Yet only a few of them (including the 40mm f/2) are smaller than similar lenses from other manufacturers.
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.
