A little late but... http://nikonrumors.com/2010/02/07/there-is-a-patent-for-a-new-nikon-af-s-nikkor-50mm-f1-2g-lens.aspx

jonnyapple said:
I'm not claiming there's anything wrong with the F-mount, and of course I don't think it will just disappear. Like Niko said, the newer mount would be backward compatible with the F-mount because there's no reason not to make it so.

But what if you could get a full frame 14-24 2.8 that weighs half as much as the current one, takes filters, and costs half as much, too? That is the kind of improvement that I think you might be able to make for wide angle lens design if you didn't have to worry about moving the image from its natural position just behind the lens to where the sensor is currently—3-4 cm behind the lens because the lens has to stay clear of the moving mirror. Telephoto lenses (f>50mm or so) wouldn't change at all because that lens-sensor distance isn't an engineering limitation. In fact, if the sensor size changed, you could have a standard adapter to the new mount for FX and use a teleconverter that expands the image circle to cover the new, larger format.

Powered zoom is not an issue. You can just add contacts to newer bodies on the F-mount and when you have a powered zoom lens it would recognize and drive it.

That wasn't directed at you, I was just wondering if there were any apparent constraints.

Obviously most of us aren't professionals, and can't afford a change, so it'd be nice if the F mount stuck around for say, I dunno, another 100 years or so?

I mean, I'd like to stick old lenses on new bodies. :D

I'm not claiming there's anything wrong with the F-mount, and of course I don't think it will just disappear. Like Niko said, the newer mount would be backward compatible with the F-mount because there's no reason not to make it so.

But what if you could get a full frame 14-24 2.8 that weighs half as much as the current one, takes filters, and costs half as much, too? That is the kind of improvement that I think you might be able to make for wide angle lens design if you didn't have to worry about moving the image from its natural position just behind the lens to where the sensor is currently—3-4 cm behind the lens because the lens has to stay clear of the moving mirror. Telephoto lenses (f>50mm or so) wouldn't change at all because that lens-sensor distance isn't an engineering limitation. In fact, if the sensor size changed, you could have a standard adapter to the new mount for FX and use a teleconverter that expands the image circle to cover the new, larger format.

Powered zoom is not an issue. You can just add contacts to newer bodies on the F-mount and when you have a powered zoom lens it would recognize and drive it.

gelu88 said:
The question right now is what is lacking in the F mount that would require a new design.

It is known that the diameter is too small for a AF-s f 1.2 lens.

Also this mount might not support powered Zooms, which might be important later on.

Thats pretty much all i can think of, I really think the mount will go forward for many decades to come.

That's what I'm wondering too. Are there any engineering issues that make the F mount unusable anyway?

If it's not broken, don't fix it.

Ronin.1 said:
How many people worry about CPM or DOS compatibility on their computers any more? A time comes for everything.

Yes, but it costs me almost nothing to convert my DOS stuff to newer formats. IF you are referring to executable files, then still, it costs relatively little to buy newer versions of most software that people use. My glass costs quite a bit more.

At some point Nikon needs to ask themselves whether backward compatibility of lenses designed for digital capture is really all that important. There is a decent selection of lenses to supply the existing user base for both analog (film) and digital capture. Those with a good selection of F mount lenses would, presumably be able to use an adapter so that they would not need to dump everything immediately.

How many people worry about CPM or DOS compatibility on their computers any more? A time comes for everything.

gelu, I think the main reason it would happen is actually to simplify wide angle design, not go to faster lenses. But I also see it happening to cover larger format sensors. Why? Because eventually you'll push the limits on all the specs and the way to keep selling things is to go to bigger sensors to keep pushing the specs.

I don't see a need either. Not when you have cameras like the D3S that shoots ISO 102,400. I'd rather Nikon work on getting less noise at ISO 102,400 than have to lug around an expensive f.95 or f1.2 FX lens.

I don't get why it would be too small for F1.2, the 50mm F1.2 AI-S works just fine.

gelu88 said:
The question right now is what is lacking in the F mount that would require a new design.

It is known that the diameter is too small for a AF-s f 1.2 lens.

Where is this "known"? I've heard this rumor for years but know one shows why this is so. In fact when nikon designed the 50mm f1.4 they also designed a 50mm f1.2. So it is possible. If you think about it, if Canon can get an f1 from their 54mm throat nikon could get an f1.2 from a 44mm throat.

I still find f1.2 useful at times as there are times that existing light isn't enough to work with those new iso's. While not a big need of something that wide it does have it's use.

I still like the backwards compatibility because I can use ranges that nikon currently doesn't make such as the 8mm f2.8 on my digital bodies. As to longevity I think the f mount could use a few more screws in it before it dies. The aperture ring was already losing attention when nikon cut it and it is still partially compatible with all the cameras today,the f mount has too much going for it so it will not go down without a fight...

My first SLR was a Canon AE-1 back in 1978. I still love that camera, but within a couple years they not only quite making the mount they quite making any lenses for it. As a result, when I was working and decided to get back into photography I went with Nikon (6006, D70s, D700). I have been happier with Nikon based on their compatibility between old and new.

Canon, for better or worse, will never get my business back (not that they really care). I do point out to people though, that a company will often do in the future what they have done in the past and suggest that if you are going to invest thousands into something it might be worth considering.

I would agree with warprints that there is not much need for F1.2 with the newer bodies

I certainly hope the f-mount survives a good while. I agree with gelu88 that there are only limited restrictions on what the mount can do, and no real reason to change (given the large base of lenses out there with the F-mount). F1.2?? Yeah, that was really nice back in the days of slow slide and negative film. Loved my Rokker 58mm f1.2 for low light. But with ISO 400+ and very low noise even up into 1600+, I can do without the added weight, size and expense of f1.2.

The question right now is what is lacking in the F mount that would require a new design.

It is known that the diameter is too small for a AF-s f 1.2 lens.

Also this mount might not support powered Zooms, which might be important later on.

Thats pretty much all i can think of, I really think the mount will go forward for many decades to come.

My bet is on another 50 years. They can always add more lens mounts but the F will still be around. They can kill DX lenses tomorrow though. I wont care if i see that.

See Heartyfisher's fiesty rebuttal in 3...2...1....

Very interesting question. The F mount celebrated its 50th anniversary last year (1959-2009). At the forefront of Nikon's reasoning for not "starting with a clean sheet of paper" as Canon did with the EF mount at the dawn of SLR autofocus, was that Nikon valued the investment that their customers had put into the Nikon system over the then 25+ years that the F mount had been in existence, and did not want to obsolete that investment. They chose rather to adapt new technologies to the existing mount. As Canon surged ahead of Nikon, the decision to not design an electronic mount in the early days of autofocus most probably slowed Nikon's ability to keep up with Canon technologically. For twenty years Canon's market share grew, while Nikon's declined.

I had the opportunity to inquire of a high ranking Nikon official a few years ago when the "G" series lenses first came to market. I asked how the "G" lenses, without a mechanical aperture ring, fit with Nikon's long-standing position of not bringing new products to market that were not backwards compatible with older equipment. I noticed somewhat of a grimace in the face of the official as he searched for an answer that would satisfy the room filled with professional photographers. After a pause, he simply stated "at some point we just have to move on".

Is that time coming for the F mount? Is it time to move on? Perhaps. But if Nikon did not change the mount 20+ years ago in the face of new technologies as Canon did, I doubt that they would now, at least not anytime soon (I hope). But perhaps Nikon has learned from playing catch-up with Canon for the last 20+ years and we may see a totally new mount; one that leads the way in technology as the F mount did 50 years ago.

I hope the F-mount stays for at least the next 15 years but I suspect the lenses will keep on changing such as now all new lenses are AF-S and as technology changes maybe AF-S will be changed to something newer.

Any predictions for how long the F-mount will be around (meaning still in general use for the flagship Nikons without an adapter)?

I suspect it will be when the first mirrorless flagship camera is released, and that will be waiting on a good electronic viewfinder. My guess is 15 years, but the good news is that with an adapter the F-mount lenses would work just fine on the future camera. They probably would still produce telephoto lenses with an F-mount because the design doesn't change much, but for wide angle it would make sense to use the new mount.

Also, do you think they would stick with the same imaging circle or go for a bigger one to accommodate larger future sensors? The issue there would be compatibility with existing F-mount lenses, but they could still work in an FX crop mode (even a square 36mm x 36mm crop mode) like the FX cameras do DX crop.