Re: Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly?
1bwana1 wrote: AcuteShadows wrote:
Can you provide a statement from Nikon saying that the Z mount specifically makes *smaller* lenses possible? I haven't found one.
I actually attended multiple events put on by Nikon on release of the Z system. They were constantly propagandizing the advantage of the Z mount in producing a smaller, lighter camera system. Including smaller bodies and lenses. Nikon has frequently said that the big Z mount, and short flange distance makes it possible to design fast lenses smaller.
In this Nikon video the Nikon Optical Engineer makes similar claims multiple times. He even says that the big Z mount makes producing wider aperture lenses possible. Of course we all know that this is not true as evidenced by other manufactures making such lenses at fractional sizes to the Z lenses.
&t=305s
In practice Nikon has not chosen to follow the smaller/lighter path for their own reasons. Their Z mount cameras and lenses tend to be on the larger size in respective categories when compared to the competition.
Leica makes a 50mm 0.95 Noctlux lens that only measures 2.9" X 3.0" for it's very small mount. The lens weighs only 1.5lbs despite being milled out of heavy brass.
The Nikon Noct measures nearly double at 4.02" X 6.02" and weighing an incredible 4.4 lbs.
Both lenses are manual focus.
Other manufactures make M lenses that are very fast and small also. It is because the leica system including sensor design makes this possible.
As I have been saying all along, the big sizes of lenses are really more about AF/Stabilization/Electronics that optical design. This was proved many years ago. I have also said that I believe Nikon will be able to design small, light, high performance Z mount lenses when they decide to do it. The sizing of the Z mount was a choice not a requirement. It doesn't limit what Nikon will eventually choose to produce. It is a fully competitive mount. It has yet to prove that it is a superior mount.
The Nikon engineer in the video says the smaller flange distance makes smaller camera bodies possible. He does not talk about it making smaller lenses possible. In fact, he says that the choice of the lens diameter was a tradeoff between accomodating optical designs and trying to keep lenses small. So he actually implies that the larger mount means larger lenses. (It's not clear whether he only talks about the diameter of lenses, or about both diameter and length.)
The Noctilux 50mm f/.95 has only 15 % light transmission in the corner, while the Nikkor 58mm f/.95 S Noct has almost 50 %. The Noctilux, by todays standards, must be regarded as a character lens, while the Noct may, in extremis, be used as a repro lens.
Aug 31, 2023 at 11:28 PM
Previous versions of AcuteShadows's message #16330865 « Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly? »
