AcuteShadows
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off
|
 Re: Why was the larger Z mount necessary, exactly? | |
Steve Spencer wrote:
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.
I think Nikon has followed a pretty clear but somewhat different strategy from other manufacturers. I am not sure it is a better strategy, but I think it is a defensible strategy.
For their S lenses (i.e., professional lenses) they have generally not followed a smaller lighter design philosophy and this is especially so the higher level the lens is that is offered. They have, however, offered a wide range of S lenses with smaller apertures that although not small are not especially big either. These S lenses include the 20 f/1.8; 24 f/1.8; 35 f/1.8; 50 f/1.8; 85 f/1.8; 400 f/4.5; 800 f/6.3 PF; 14-30 f/4; 24-70 f/4; 100-400 f/4.5-5.6. The higher the level of the lens, however, the larger they seem to become, so the f/1.2 primes and the fastest long lenses, and even the f/2.8 zooms are all pretty big compared to the competition. For professional lenses small and light just does not seem to be a major priority and they offer smaller lenses in this category by going with smaller max aperture. Said simply for these professional lenses top IQ is a priority over small and light.
For their non S lenses, however, Nikon offers some very small and light options that are quite competitive with the competition on small and light. If you look at the roadmap they even have a whole category of lenses called "compact primes." They only have a few lenses in this category at this point but they are very small and light. The cooperation with Tamron has also brought a number of small and light f/2.8 zooms to the table and brought the 17-28, 28-75, and 70-180 f/2.8 to the table with a Nikon badge. As Nikon added these lenses they also seem to care more about having small and light fast zooms lenses than about getting Tamron's most recent and highest quality lenses. The recent 180-600 f/5.6-6.3 zoom seems to fit in this category as well. It is a lens that is very competitive on size and weight, a non-S lens with quite decent IQ but not optimized IQ either (note the omission of the best lens coatings with this lens). So Nikon is putting together a pretty broad set of the lenses that are not their professional or best lenses, but are meant to be small and light. Said simply small and light for these lenses is a priority over top IQ.
So, it seems that for Nikon as they have developed the Z mount they are offering small and light lenses, but primarily at the non-pro level and if they offer smaller pro lenses it is by reducing the max aperture and not designing the lenses to be small for the aperture they are. This may well be a reasonable strategy. If pros in general are a lot less concerned with the size of the lenses and if when they want small they are generally fine with just using smaller max aperture lenses, then it is actually a really smart strategy. if, however, there are a lot of pros that want small pro lenses, then they will probably lose many of those pros to other mounts. At the non-Pro level, however, I think Nikon is doing a reasonably good job competing on size and weight and in time they will have a very competitive set of lenses. They obviously still need some development of these lenses, but they have made excellent progress with small light non-Pro lenses in the last couple of years.
So, I don't think it is as simple as Nikon doesn't design for small and light, but rather that small and light is a low priority for Pro lenses and a high priority for at least some non-Pro lenses. I think we see this strategy to some extent even in cameras. If we think of Z6, Z7, Z8, and Z9 cameras as pro level cameras, then we again see that size and weight is a lower priority and especially so at the highest level Z9. In contrast the non-Pro Z5, Z50, and especially Z30 are much more competitive on size and weight.
So, I would not say that size and weight isn't something Nikon cares about, but they seem to care about it a lot more for their non-Pro cameras and lenses than for the Pro cameras and lenses and it seems to be a very low priority for their highest level Pro cameras and lenses.
I generally agree. However, I would point out that not all of the small, non-S FX lenses make use of the larger diameter. The 40/2 does, and the 28/2.8 appears to use the larger mount to a limited degree. For many of these smaller lenses, maybe it's weight that becomes the limiting factor, thus leading to smaller optical elements that have a smaller diameter.
|
