Weekly Nikon news flash #395

Nikon-Coolpix-W100-compact-camera-3 Nikon-Coolpix-W100-compact-camera-2
→ Firmware ver. 1.1 for Nikon Coolpix W100 camera released.

Nikon to support the 13th FINA World Swimming Championships as an official partner.

Firmware v1.06/13 released for the Odin II TTL flash trigger for Nikon.

→ The new Metz Mecablitz M400 flash for Nikon is now available for pre-order.

→ New Pixel X900 speedlite for Nikon announced (more info available here).

Sigma 85mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art lens for Nikon F-mount now in stock.

→ It seems that Yongnuo will announce also a new 50mm f/1.4 lens.

Press release: Nikon School offers online classes, local seminars and destination workshops for photographers of all levels.

→ Remember the Nikon chocolate camera I reported a few months ago? You can now also buy it in the UK (via PetaPixel).

Lensrentals took apart the new Nikon 105mm f/1.4E ED AF-S lens.

→ The full panel of 10 judges for the Nikon Photo Contest 2016-2017 has been determined.

This entry was posted in Weekly Nikon News Flash and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • fanboy fagz

    that build quality on the 105 1.4 is an embarrassment.. $2200 and it gets you tons of shit plastics and a cheap plastic gear focusing system. as I said. nikon is skimping on quality to recoup costs on the floods at the factory. and you can clearly see it on all of their G prime lenses. all use the cheap plastic gears and the focus is slow. look at any review and all is mentioned. “focus is decent but not fast”


    • fanboy fagz

      thats my 28-70 AFS in the middle picture. first gen swm. lightning fast. shame they went the death of the squeak.

      im curious which lenses have the garbage small plastic motor and which have a real ring US motor.

      btw, got mine repaired from this brilliant guy in Taiwanese. through NR post. thanks for the link peter.


      recommended another french guy who sent him a lens to repair who was very happy.

      • Eric Calabros

        I don’t care about Real or Fake motor, that 28-70 sounds horrible, everyone in the room notice you focused on something, and yet its not even “more durable”.

        • Eledeuh

          There are a few people on here who apparently feel a compulsive need to drown us in endless rants about things they don’t even understand, it gets old, really old.

          It’s always the exact same bullshit, the poster above apparently didn’t even *care* reading the lensrental post. If those people had even a fraction of the knowledge and wisdom people like Roger Cicala have, this little corner of the internet would be a much better place.

          • fanboy fagz

            the numbers dont lie. there was a reason lensrentals posted what they did on that specific lens. the truth is shed. he said some positive things about the lens but a $2200 wouldnt have positive things? the big fail which makes all the positives irrelevant is the cheap motor. they put those cheap motors in the cheap $300 canon 50 1.4. they skimped out on putting the ring motor in the 105. no wonder they restructured the managerial dept and fired off workers.
            cut the crap and dont make excuses for nikons fail.

            goto the 4 minute mark to see the crappy plastic gears


            • Thom Hogan

              Look, Roger is correct: marketing lied. But Roger didn’t use the words “cheap motor.” Indeed, you’re making an assumption here about the 105mm motor that has no basis in fact. You don’t know if its cheap, better than, worse than, longer lasting, shorter lasting, or anything else about how it stands against the older motors used in a number of lenses.

              And those older motors are notorious: if overused or underused they’ll end up squealing (it’s not squeaking, it’s squealing). We’ve been dealing with that for over a decade now. So personally, if the 105mm doesn’t develop some issue of its own down the line, just getting rid of that issue would be a benefit IMHO.

              Finally, this whole bias against “plastic” has got to go. I’ve seen plenty of metal parts that simply don’t hold up. Indeed, are you aware that your transmission in your vehicle almost certainly has magnets located near the drains to catch all the flaking that occurs as the metal wears? Simply put, I’ve seen plastic parts that wear better than metal, metal parts that wear better than plastic. Ditto for strength, rigidity, and return to conformity under impact.

            • fanboy fagz

              “marketing lied”

              and thats a huge problem. who says whatever they do now is the truth. I dont buy into their whole bs lying, skimping and cutting corners, bad qc, overly priced nonsense. thats the problem.

              and it is a cheap motor. not the problem more then those plastic gears . im wondering what other lenses have those plastic gears. probably that $1700 85 1.4g also. they sell those cheap systems in a $300 lens. they shouldnt in a $1500+ lens. you know this too. those motors are used in cheap remote control cars.

              it matters not my car has this or that. but to go ahead and even give part defense to those shitty plastic gears is not right.

              my 28-70 “squealed” the last 6 months of use. and not often. but that fucker worked for many many years of hard work. I cant criticise it for being a first gen. it worked amazingly. im more pissed at nikon for not supporting repair for it.

              sorry but when others are making their lenses more robust (even fuji) like the art lenses, nikon is skimping. the shitty low quality plastic g primes. slower af then the previous gen. the crap quality hood that loses its click lock ability after a short while. dont deny. youve held an 85mm 1.4D and a G in your hand and you know what the quality between them feels like. theres heft and mass and quality with the D lenses. ill take metal over plastic anyday.

              so if you want to compare anything other then photo gear, why then everyone is bashing any smartphone with plastic today? everyone oos and ahhs when the phone is now metal.

            • Spy Black

              “marketing lied”and thats a huge problem.”

              Iwould apply that kind of concern more to the presidency of the US.

              “and it is a cheap motor.”
              Again, how can you succinctly verify this?

              “sorry but when others are making their lenses more robust…”

              The use of metals in this day and age is a marketing shtick, and you’ve fallen for it lock, stock, and barrel. Read my reply elsewhere here to Thom.

            • fanboy fagz

              weird how all the metal ai/s lenses till are alive and working very well. weird how zeiss uses metal and are praised for their build. nikon. shitty tupperware plastic.

              it can be plastic on the outside. but the inside should be MOSTLY metal. especially for a $2200.

              listen enough nonsense plastic/metal/plastic gears. mark my words. this quarter revenue will be their worse ever. watch and see. theyre going down.

            • Spy Black

              Any Ai lens today is alive because is hasn’t been dropped. Take any Ai lens and drop it to the ground. Let me know how it goes.

            • peter w

              Well, if a lens like 35 F2 ai-s falls, you may end up with a situation in which only the filter ring gets
              dented. Depends on how it falls. Same for the 35 F2 AF-D. If a lens like a 70-200 F4 falls, I am sure all
              will be lost.

              I assume a 85 F1,8 AF-S may have a broken shell, but may survive. Probably needs a check for internal damage.

            • Spy Black

              Are you ready to test out your presumptions? 😉

            • peter w

              Well, I fear to speak with some experience in the matter of dropping smaller lenses. Canon FD is very good at a fall. Most of the times I caught them with my foot, knee, or whatever to break the fall. In that case filters break. I never dropped a lens like the kind of 70-200, thought.
              Once I had an F4 supertele breaking when the tripod collapsed into a moor. I didn’t consider that very funny at that moment. Happily it happened at the end of a great session. And the cost was less than a new lens, even less than the cost saved from insuring the lens.

              Small advice: don’t buy your lenses from me.
              Well, I don’t think any of these – smaller – lenses have suffered much, except for AF-D 85 F1,8 which took some dust on the ground that rotted its AF system. The AF-D is the lens with the lousy and clumsy metal hood which doesn’t protect the lens properly like the modern plastic hoods do, which bent or break on impact. And leave the lens mint. The present 85 1,8 AF-S is too clumsy to hold properly. That’s why I never drop it, I put it away on a table or on the ground before doing something which should be done with two hands free.

            • Thom Hogan

              Guess you haven’t bought any recent Zeiss lenses lately (Loxia, Batis, Milvus, etc.). They’ve gone the same route as Nikon has: mostly plastic outer over metal/carbonate style inner cores (you did notice the various metal barrels in Roger’s teardown, didn’t you? Oh right, you got caught on the lens motor and didn’t read or see anything else).

            • fanboy fagz

              where besides one part did you see metal alloy?
              btw, I have used the lens extensively at weddings. its horribly slow. a nice lens in IQ. not blown away. build is crap. I wouldnt dare buy a $2200 chinese plastic lens with slow af. and you know at weddings we shoot a lot of candids using primes. so our teles get a big workout


            • fanboy fagz

              go ahead and tell me these piece a shit plastic gears will hold up to a pro wedding photographers needs and will work for 8 brutal years. I dare you.
              and btw..we shoot weddings 6 days of the week. not on weekends.

              and just like apple trying to skimp on quality by removing mandatory things, upping prices and giving less. the time has come to say enough! enough of these companies greedy ways to no end. give a person a quality lens for $2200.


            • Thom Hogan

              I’m not going to tell you that they’ll hold up. Just as you shouldn’t be telling me that they WON’T hold up. Neither of us knows. You’re deep into paranoid conjecture at this point.

              As for your new insistence that Apple is a “skimp on quality”, that’s just another assertion based on no evidence. Not my experience at all (other than their software, which needs some dire attention to detail).

            • fanboy fagz

              my brother wanted to upgrade to the macbook pro. from his 2013. he bought the 2015. no magnetic power cable . no sd card slot. smaller battery, no hdmi. and a $400 price jump. my bad. I should have said skimped on features. you have a headphone jack but you cant use your ip7 with it.

            • Allen_Wentz

              Upgrading 2013 MBP to a 2015 MBP indeed was illogical. However the 2016 MBP _rocks_. Four Thunderbolt 3 ports is just spectacular i/o.

            • fanboy fagz

              2016 mbp blows. Huge fail. Watch the 4th q report

            • I agree with Thom, none of us know it they will hold up to your demands. With luck, Nikon did duty cycle testing and knows with reasonable certainty how long it will last. I will say that plastic is often used in place of metal to eliminate the need for lubrication. I have seen industrial robotic applications where the force needed is low and plastic gears are used because no lube is required. This also reduces or eliminates the need for preventive maintenance.

            • Thom Hogan

              I’ve written for some time about Nikon’s poor marketing. If they don’t think that things like just being wrong about something aren’t hurting them, then they aren’t paying attention.

              But again, you’re making assumptions that aren’t necessarily true. Please show me the part number for lens motor Nikon uses and show me a toy maker using the same part. Right. You can’t. Because you don’t know anything about the motor other than what you think you can see in the pictures Roger took (and you’re not actually reading what Roger wrote).

              If you really like metal so much and think Nikon isn’t making great lenses, just buy used, then. But I think your assumptions are just wrong.

              And about that lens hood. Nikon some time ago switched to a bayonet system that lets the lens hood break on impact (as opposed, to say, their old screw in style that doesn’t). Why? For the same reason they have short screws in very key places within the lens and camera: when you drop and swing your gear into a solid, it gives and breaks in such a way that it can be repaired, and more cheaply. Frankly, I prefer it that way.

            • fanboy fagz

              they used to make great lenses. now the truth is shown. theyre skimping on quality and its shown.

              im getting into specifics about quality. some lenses are qualty plastics and others are garbage. the lens hood on the primes are crap. the hoods on the nikon 70-200/24-70 and even my old 28-70 are a much better quality then the thin flexing ones on the primes.

              they make some good lenses. the price performance quality build is way off.

              and stop being an uncle Thom to nikon. they fucked up…again.

            • M09

              let’s not demonize plastic but lets also not make it the king of the hill, if they used plastic is not for better, its for saving (cost, weight).
              All new lens prices are going badly UP
              People is getting fired
              QC is down the WC

              we cannot overturn this with ‘ because they make a better product ‘

              this is not for a better product, this is to maximize the earnings for Bank of Tokio and Japan Insurance (fantasy name of Nikon top shareholders)

              all the big companies of the world would love we to like plastic (many things are fine, many others, not)

              a ‘stressed’ part like a gear in the AF of a lens, (stressed thousand times) is a very delicate part

              even if they tell me, THIS IS BETTER THAN THE BEST METAL, i wouldnt trust them
              they only want your money.

            • M09

              and once you bring the lens for repair, they will tell you, something in there failed, they will not tell you ‘THAT gear couldnt last long’, but hey it wasnt me to put it in there?

            • fanboy fagz

              very sensible post. bravo!

            • Spy Black

              “Finally, this whole bias against “plastic” has got to go.”

              Absolutely. Sometimes you need something in metal, but as far as most camera gear is concerned, plastic is SO much better. Case in point, my all metal Sony RX100 III pocket camera. I’ve drop that camera twice, less than 3 feet to the ground, and both times the camera was dented and damaged to the point of needing to go in for repairs.

              I simply have NO idea how many time I’ve dropped my Toshiba, Fuji, Nikon, Panasonic, and especially Canon pocket cameras, and I just picked them up and kept on shooting.

              Frankly, I think metal should be used in a camera or lens ONLY when absolutely necessary.

            • fanboy fagz

              theres good plastic and theres cheap plastic. hold a 70-200VR2 and see what quality plastic is. then hold a 50mm 1.4/8 gand see what garbage plastic is. hold the hood and see what im talking about. when I first held my friends 85 1.8g I couldnt stop laughing. it looks very impressive. you hold it in your hand and quickly realize its garbage. the 1.8d has better plastic then the G. it comes with a metal hood. it has metal filters unlike the crap plastic on the primes. and look at the innards of the 105 shown…wheres the metal? a $2200 lens and a bit or two with metal ill mention the garbage tiny RC motor with crap plastic gears

              but the bigger problem is the fact they claim ultrasonic motor but include a gear driven motor.

              just like they tried to deny the D600 and the sb900 and the d800 and the d750. all lies.

            • Spy Black

              So you’re implying that all my plastic pocket cameras are/were all made of “good plastic” and a lens like the 50mm’s are made of “cheap plastic”?

            • fanboy fagz

              dont know. not implying anything. never seen that camera. all I know is the products ive used and held. nikons quality is down the shits.

            • Thom Hogan

              No, you’re not implying, I agree with that. You’re ASSERTING. Moreover, you’re asserting based upon photos, not actually having used or held the lens in question. So don’t try to pull that troll-like shift on me.

            • fanboy fagz

              its ok Thom. you can say shit. no one will judge you 🙂

            • fanboy fagz

              all I know is the 50 1.4 afd is better quality plastic then the crap 1.4/8g its the same crap quality as the pos 1.8d and they charge much more for it.

            • Thom Hogan

              And there you go again. You’ve made an assumption that the 105mm uses “cheap plastic” while the 70-200mm uses “good plastic.” On what basis did you make that assessment? And I’m not sure I’d agree with your 85mm assessment, either. The designs of the D and G are different. Like all the recent f/1.4G and f/1.8G primes, the 105mm uses an outer shell. You can bang that all day, break it, and not really affect the internal alignment of the lenses. That wasn’t true on the old D’s, where the outer barrel was part of the inner support system.

        • fanboy fagz

          first gen lens with US motor is a legend and no body can deny it. my lens was made in 2002. its been through YEARS of weddings. years. only 2 years ago did it fail. the next gen ones should be better. but to have a $2200 lens with a piece a shit toy motor inside-for shame! that plastic mechanism gear system will not hold for 8 years of commercial use, let alone 13 like mine. so cut the crap. for shame on nikon

          • fanboy fagz

            https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/b6f9a0647380f1e6ca59ffc00b01aceab196d2706cd5ce85e6dc1989ee5b2375.png this is not a ultrasonic ring motor and it is a gear motor. dont make any excuses for their lie.

          • csmith

            all of these idiots on this forum that don’t even own any of this shit and just sit and argue on forums all day have no idea what they are talking about. i’ve seen most of your photos and they’re terrible. anyway, ‘fanboy f-gz’ you’re right.

            • fanboy fagz

              my photos are terrible youd know what terrible is as it looks like yours.

          • peter w

            “and no person can deny it”
            The way you mix your experiences, assumptions and opinions resembles the way the next president of the United States of America is fooling his public. In a rethorical sense it is both briljant and utterly annoying. It is just impossible to tackle a person who is persistent in his delusion.
            Would this comment degrade me into being a fanboy?
            Rather not a fanboy of fanboy fagz argumentation.

            This with respect for your experience and opinions. And your enthousiasm to share these.

            • fanboy fagz

              Peter. no need to get all flustered and stressed. I dont agree with many others. I simply ignore them. we are allowed to agree to disagree. no hard feelings. just move on. read other peoples comments and reply to theirs. its all good.

              president or not, no person can deny how great the 17-35/28-70/80-200 AFS 2.8 trinity zooms were for their time till the G lenses. they are legends of their time. they are workhorses and delivery amazing imagery in the right hands. they still can. its not called “beast” for the hell of it. its a fantastic lens and has better build then the 24-70g (non vr)

              and I love a good argument. I dont troll for the fekk of me being bored. I like intelligent arguments. im not a nikon fanboy. used to be.

            • peter w

              Fair enough. I like your reasoning here. 😉

              A remark on one of these trinity lenses; i am a happy owner of a second hand 17-35 which is running on its third AF-S motor, according to the first owner. And it appears not the only one to have AF-S motor problems.

              Apart from that, castles are better resistant to vikings, straw houses are better resistant against earthquakes, tents are better for travellers. There are many different qualities. Sometimes, sweating on one of the Alps, I hate my 17-35 and would love to exchange it for the 12-24 on DX. I will not be carrying this 105 along on top of it ;).

    • HF

      How do you know it is garbage plastics? Did you analyse the chemical composition? Plastics have come a long way. Plastic gears are now used in many different areas (http://www.gearsolutions.com/article/detail/6255/exploiting-the-potential-of-plastic-gears, http://www.kleissgears.com/files/2013/6665/9320/GT_Talking_Truth_to_Power_Apr2013.pdf) and can endure much more than you may think. Repeated tests my colleagues did until failure of gear teeth showed 300million up to 1 billion cycles. Enhancing them and tailor-made composition improves them further. Nikon marketing is to blame, however.

    • akkual

      I have dissambled 20y in use photocopier with similar plastic gears in perfect condition. Plastics by default are not garbage.

      • fanboy fagz

        first, your comment is hearsay. and 2nd, show me a lens with plastic gears that was used by a wedding photographer for 8 years straight. otherwise your point is irrelevant. the demand for a moving small item thats stressed in the heat outdoors or in the cold is not the same as a photo copier doing 100 pages of copying. and I highly doubt a commercial photocopier they use in big companies is made anything less then highly durable. in proportion the lens is $2200 as a professional level lens. the equivalent photocopier would cost thousands and be a professional level photocopier that is very durable components wise. the problem is the cheap plastics inside and the cheap nylon gears that will not hold up to extensive use of a pro photog.

        and lets not deflect the main problem. nikon lying they include a ultrasonic motor where its simply a cheap plastic gear motor assembly. thats the bottom line.

    • Aldo

      This seemed a bit relevant… metal isn’t always better.
      Another advantage about organic polymers (not discussed in video) is the shock absorbent properties…which would prove invaluable in the camera world. eg. if you drop a lens mostly made up of metal it would bend and be ruined… but a lens made up of some reinforced engineered plastic ‘could’ just absorb the shock and bend back to its original state (and better prevent the glass from breaking at the same time).

      • fanboy fagz

        its obvious cost and more profit. an ultrasonic motor costs a lot of money to produce. do you think they put that cheap ass motor in 70-200 24-70 14-24? or even the big tele?

        getting to your nice video, these are no where near the same needs. you dont even need full steel. metal alloy is fine. its lighter and quite strong.

        $2200 buys you mostly plastic lens with a cheap plastic gear system focusing system and a big fat lie from nikon.

        youre a sensible guy..you would buy this lens if you had the extra money, now knowing how cheap its made and the af system isnt the better us motor?

        ive used the lens. weight saving, they didnt do so much cause its a fat fuckin thing. rightfully so. but it wouldnt matter if another 150g were added if they used metal alloy on the inside. but leave the plastic insides. the big issue is the plastic gears. the lie. shame on nikon.

        • Aldo

          I mean you could be right on… or dead wrong… as Thom mentioned we have no proof that this motor is cheap (and I agree it looks no different than the motors found in my 3 year old toys). That said the ultrasonic motor being more complex may as well not last as long…. sometimes simplified technology proves to be better in the long run. I don’t know if there is a way to test the motor but by the looks of it you are right… it looks cheap.

          • fanboy fagz

            it looks cheap. but im only asserting. like sir Thomas said. I would expect nothing less then a top end ultrasonic motor in it for $2200. they never skimped on quality years back. there was even a saying “nikon tough” im frustrated with them. I will hate to see them go and theyre not waking up.

    • If you look at the design you will see the coarse movement is done by the SWM mounted in the barrel. The little motor with the plastic gears is only for moving very short distances slowly for fine tuning. There is no need for anything beyond the design Nikon did for this device.

  • fanboy fagz

    that pixel flash looks good but anything more then $175 and ill pass. not worth the extra price over a great chinese flash like a shanny sn600n

    and that metz flash looks like they stole it from a museum. I had a 58 AF2 flash. what garbage. 5 seconds recycle. menu system is horribly slow. never again. crazy price for such a weak flash.

    • fanboy fagz

      ill even say they one upped the godox system. reason I never moved to godox was because the first year they had a recall with many defective batteries not giving half the amount of pops rated and charging was bad but also that u cant use AA nimh batteries in the cavity. only their battery. this pixel allows u to use 6! AA nimh batteries and still get 1.5 second recyle. big plus. they also have a quick locking lever unlike the godox which is the older turn to tighten dial. meh. I hope the price is enticing.

  • peter w

    Perhaps a mention of a new version of Capture One Pro. They arrived at ten. They bring out a new paid version every year now.

    • hje

      seems like they need money.
      Until now I didn’t see any obvious improvements that would justify a new version number. Just tested the new version on a job this weekend. Maybe its all in the details like the new processing engine (do you know whats new about it ?)

      • peter w

        Short answer: no

        Their claim is better colors and improved performance. The engine would be new? With new highlight recovery. And some minor things – for me – like better output control.

        My experience with version 8 and early 9 makes me wait a bit. I saw reports on ‘memory leakage’ which was exactly why I gave up early, trying version 9.1.

        I love what it does to my photos.

        I think a subscription is best choice for people who buy a new camera like every three year.

        • hje

          I love capture one, too.
          Still working with version 9 and not sure if I’ll upgrade or skip.

          Engine is new (or at least does have a new version number too). If you open old catalogues you can manually switch to the new engine.

          If you buy a new camera you can get capture one with a very big discount (in my country up to 50%)

          • peter w

            Discount when you buy a new Nikon camera? Or a Sony / Leaf / Phase One?
            Like to hear how this works.

            I envy the ‘Sony-camp’ for the cooperation Sony has with PhaseOne in software. Which is remarquable in a way, because they also cooperate with Hasselblad in a camera.

            • hje

              Nikon does cooperate with Hasselblad, too. They are using Nikon Flash System 😉

              NX-D is very good in terms image quality, and superior in screwing up your mind with weird usability.
              Would love if Nikon did the same cooperation Sony does with Phase One for Capture One.

              If you buy a camera at Calumet in Germany you get full version Capture One for 160€ instead of 332€ (including taxes). This works with any Nikon D-SLR, Canon D-SLR, Fuji X.

  • animalsbybarry

    Sales continue to drop partly because people are sick and tired of the camera companies that continue to screw us by building proprietary lens mounts
    They force us to buy stuff we don’t want just because the stuff we want does not fit what we have
    People are flocking to much simpler solutions like cellphones
    Now that the industry is transitioning to mirrorless the industry MUST adapt anindustry standard mount !!!!
    E mount is the mount that is most firmly established and should be adapted as the industry standard
    If the industry tries to again force us into proprietary lens mounts for mirrorless they completely and totally deserve to fail and go out of business!!!!

    Also … truly fully functional adapters (Canon and Nikon to E mount) must be desighned built and marketed with the full cooperation of all the manufacturers , and then this that fully comply with the industry standards should be given an industry standard seal of approval!!!

    The camera industry needs to finally start paying attention to the consumers needs

    And we as consumers need to stand together to insist they do !!!
    Not accept and justify thier continued bad behavior !!!!

    • Thom Hogan

      Such an analysis is flawed. Let’s be clear:
      * Mirrorless cameras are at 88.6% of last year.

      * DSLRs are at 83.6% of last year.
      Now plot those two lines out. Guess what? Mirrorless sales don’t equal DSLR sales until sometime well after 2025.

      E mount is not as firmly established as you think. Plot the numbers of m4/3 unit sales against E/FE unit sales. It’s closer than you think, and more like the Canon/Nikon duel in DSLRs. Moreover, Canon is now suddenly making substantive sales in mirrorless with their existing EF mount variation. Thus, you might as well argue that EF should be the standard.

      As for the industry agreeing on a mount standard. Not going to happen. There’s no upside to the industry leaders to do so (that would be Canon, Nikon, and Sony, who own 80%+ of the ILC market). All that would do is enable competitors, in their opinion.

      • Thank you Thom. I have been saying this for a while. Mirrorless/Sony is not (yet) what many people wanted to be. I do believe that Nikon should enter the mirrorless market, but maybe at the end of the day they will end up being the smart ones not to do it after Sony/Fuji/Olympus start cutting their R&D.

        • Michiel953

          Nikon is playing it the conservative way, against a declining market, and decided against heavily investing in a market segment that hasn’t proven itself at all yet.

          Who’s to say they’re wrong?

          • Exactly. Only time will tell who made the right decision. Everything else is just speculations.

          • Thom Hogan

            I am ;~)

            Okay, I’ll agree with the first part: it’s clear they haven’t really put much effort into the mirrorless realm, and that’s a conservative approach.

            But, if you’re going to take this conservative approach, you absolutely have to shore up your walls of defense. There Nikon has a fairly poor record recently. With the DX cameras we’ve gotten lazy updates and an incomplete lens set (buzz, buzz). With the FX cameras we’ve gotten a lot of quality control issues.

            • Michiel953

              The FX lens line-up has gotten a lot of attention lately. That shows us a glimmer of the way Nikon wants to move forward.

              That 105/1.4E…

              Oh well…

        • animalsbybarry

          “YET” that is the key word
          But it will become all that, and the transition will happen
          So NOW is the time we as consumers should be putting every possible pressure on the camera industry to have an industry standard mount
          Waiting for everyone to release thier own proprietary mounts again will be too Kate for another generation of photographers, and by the time the situation is remedied we will all be using lensless cameras and Quanta sensors


          • Yes, like Thom said in 2025… maybe 🙂 or maybe in 2025 nobody will even remember that Sony made cameras 🙂

          • Tony Beach

            The problem with your industry standard proposal for lens mounts is whose ox is going to be gored? If not everyone’s, then the only one who will go for it is the company that doesn’t have its lenses obsoleted, so there’s no incentive whatsoever for anyone to do that.

            As for this being in the consumer’s interest, that isn’t necessarily true either. If you’re a consumer who has already bought into a mount, having all your lenses relegated to needing an adapter and having their resale value diminished accordingly would be undesirable. Again, either the owners of one mount win, or everyone who already owns lenses loses.

            • animalsbybarry

              Canon and Nikon are not yet heavily invested in mirrorless FF
              Part of my suggestion is that if E mount is adapted as a standard ( and even if not )
              That all DSLR manufactures cooperate(share protocols) to facilitate desighn and manufacturing of truly functional lens adapters….whether this is actually made by the cameramakers themselves or 3rd parties is less important than that the adapters become available.

              With adaption of E mount by Nikon for its FF mirrorless it will be a net plus for both Nikon and the rest of the industry

            • Tony Beach

              Even if we assume Nikon has nothing here and Canon only has a little, you are completely discounting m4/3. Also, adapters suck — so for me that’s just a non-starter as far as addressing the universal standard (and it doesn’t address it anyway, it just dodges it).

              As for Nikon adopting the E mount, Nikon has no persuasive reason to do that. It would simply be handing Sony users all of the Nikon E mount lenses without giving them any reason to buy Nikon mirrorless cameras, which would just further solidify Sony’s position in this market sector.

            • Tony Beach

              Nikon has no reason whatsoever to want to do that.

      • Michiel953

        Believers (not having any knowledge of the industry itself) will be believers. Look at the ignorant comments on the (LensRentals teardown) build quality of the 105.1.4E. Pathetic.

      • animalsbybarry

        Assuming your 2026 transition is accurate… that makes now the time to pressure the industry
        M4/3 stantart is fine for M4/3 but a FF standard is also needed, and E mount is most established
        And your “small” drop in sales is still a continuing drop in sales

        An industry standard mount is in the consumers best interest
        Camera manufacturers do not need our help in ignoring our needs and only looking out for what they thing is thier own best interest
        They do need our help to pressure/ convince them to do what is in the consumers and the industries best interests…and that is an industry standard mirrorless mount

        If Conon chooses to go it alone then the rest of the industry should still unite behind a single standard mirrorless mount

        It would then be Canon versus the rest of the industry….perhaps Canon is big enough, strong enough, worshiped and admired enough that going it alone will not hurt them….or perhaps consumers will choose a more consumer friendly standard mount and Canon will suffer the failure they deserve

        It is time for consumers to demand a standard FF mirrorless mount BEFORE we are again locked into proprietary mounts again and toss

        Otherwise it will be time to toss the existing camera industry in the garbage, along with all the very expensive , incomparable equipment we have collected over the years….and go with a new industry that actually pays attention to what the consumer wants
        And it is time for consumers to tell the cameramakers loud and clear we want an industry standard FF mirrorless mount for our new FF cameras

        • Thom Hogan

          Standards may be in the consumers’ interest, but in order for a standard to be created and agreed to you need an organization involved. The Japanese already have standards organizations, and look at how pathetic they’ve been at keeping up with tech: DCF and the other standards they established are pathetically out of date with modern standards. As in decades. And the only reason those were created was to promote interoperability between things like cameras and printers, not interoperability between cameras ;~).

          However, if you want to see what’s going to happen, just go back to the 1990’s in film. The smaller competitors will niche up instead of trying to move forward together; the larger competitors will be happy with their duopoly.

          As it stands right now, Canon is fine shape for whatever the mirrorless/DSLR breakdown is. They’ve established a lens mount that works for them across all ILC. Over time, they can transition efforts from one (DSLR) to the other (mirrorless) as needed, without making their legacy lenses obsolete.

          Nikon does not have this, and as I’ve pointed out, they blew the DX versus FX side of things on top of that. So the question is this: what do you think Nikon will do? The correct answer is what Canon did, in some variation. Nikon is not going to cooperate with Sony, their primary competitor, because Nikon requires cameras to be healthy to stay in business. Adopting the E/FE mount would not help Nikon sell more cameras. It would definitely help Sony sell more cameras.

          Thus, the only one that gains from your suggestion is Sony. So there you have your answer: not going to happen.

          As for throwing things in the garbage, unfortunately we’ve become a society that does just that. You generally don’t get new products if the old ones are still good enough ;~). That’s why the auto makers spend a lot of time on “style” changes. My 11-year old SUV is still highly functional. What’s changed since I bought it? More reliance on electronics and style. Do I need either of those things for my SUV? No.

          • El Aura

            For Canon it is a good strategy to establish a new mount for their (APS-C) mirrorless cameras (what you call: “They’ve established a lens mount that works for them across all ILC”). But for Nikon to do the same would not be a good strategy (you have been very clear in saying that for Nikon a mirrorless APS-C and FF line should use the F-mount and not a new mount)? Why? Because, their adaptor would need an aperture lever actuator?

            • Thom Hogan

              Yes, among other reasons. They can’t really pull off what Canon did nearly as easily, and I’m not convinced that having a deep flange with no mirror behind it is a bad idea (Sigma came to the same conclusion).

              A couple of years ago I went through the full logic of what Nikon could do and what they should pick. Nothing’s really changed other than CX having died. But that’s actually part of their newest problem: with CX obviously dead, any NEW lens mount Nikon comes up with is going to be looked on with suspicion. They would end up starting with a significant marketing friction that they might not be able to overcome, and at this point they’d be so far behind the rest of the mirrorless mounts in terms of lens offerings, that would add yet another friction.

              Frictions are not easy to overcome.

            • El Aura

              CX is dead largely because 1″ is too small for an ILC system, or at least too niche. There is no ‘active’ 1″ ILC system anymore, but there are seven brands with APS-C ILC systems (Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Fuji, Leica, Sigma), five of them with a mirrorless system. And there five brands with FF ILC systems (Canon, Nikon, Sony, Pentax, Leica), two of them with a mirrorless system.

              Yes, there will be questions whether Nikon can make it in the APS-C and FF mirrorless markets but at the same time everybody knows that Nikon needs to succeed in that space to remain a big player. And touting Sigma as an example of how to succeed in the camera market is not a great argument.

            • Spy Black

              CX is dead because Nikon designed a splintered, unfocused, unfinished and deliberately crippled non-cohesive system that is on the one hand simplistic and aimed at non-photographers and casual photographer types, while at the same time integrating professional production features, creating unique optics no consumer would buy or care to afford (think 32mm f.1.2) and accessories clearly aimed at a professional market that never fully come through to deliver their potential. For the most part people were confused and simply didn’t know WTF this system was supposed to be about.

            • El Aura

              CX and NX (Samsung) might have had their own specific reasons for failure, but discounting the sensor size (aka smaller than everybody else besides the ‘toy-lens’ Pentax Q) as a key factor would be an arbitrary exclusion of an obvious commonality. Denying that the rise of the 1″ compacts has dented the appeal of 1″ ILC systems (in a way that APS-C compacts never will) is equally a clear cognitive mistake. On top there is the cost disadvantage that equivalent lenses on smaller systems have.

            • Spy Black

              Nikon had a good head start with N1 before the widespread popularity of 1-inch cameras, by several years. They just blew it by being afraid N1 would eat too much into DSLR sales and deliberately crippling the CX format system. Had they done it right from the start, N1 would be a vibrant format today, despite the rise in popularity of other 1-inch cameras. They may very well could have inspired others to follow in their footsteps and make their own 1-inch ILC systems. N1 holdouts are still hoping for a better swan song than a J6, a truly professional 1-inch, but that hope is fading fast.

            • El Aura

              If this is all about execution, why would Nikon shitcan Nikon 1 instead of fixing what it wrong with it? Nikon has sunk a huge investment into it, has created a significant range of lenses. Surely changing Nikon 1 into something good is much cheaper and faster than creating a new mirrorless system from scratch. All of this because Nikon 1 has a mixed reputation?

            • Spy Black

              I guess you missed the part about them fearing it would eat the sales of their DSLRs.

            • El Aura

              Well, that would apply to all mirrorless products, even more so to APS-C and FF mirrorless systems. According to your logic, Nikon would be even less likely to release an APS-C or FF mirrorless system than to continue the Nikon 1 system because the former would eat into their DSLR sales even more than the latter.

            • Spy Black

              Doesn’t have anything to do with my logic, it’s more history than anything now.

            • BVS

              But they wouldn’t be so far behind if people could continue to use or adapt all their current F mount lenses.

              Considering how current Nikon cameras continue to support nearly all Nikon lenses back to practically the dawn of time, I believe Nikon would continue to support them, one way or another, with any new mirrorless mount.

              From my (admittedly layman) perspective it seems like Nikon has three main choices for FX/DX mirrorless:

              1. Continue to use the F mount with the current flange distance on new mirrorless cameras. All current lenses would work, but maybe lower end cameras could only use E lenses and newer and don’t have an aperture arm. However, going this route would make Nikon mirrorless thicker and perhaps less competitive.

              2. Continue to use the F mount but decrease the flange distance. New lenses would be made for the new flange distance and older lenses would just need a simple spacer adapter. If a new lens would work better with the old flange distance, simply design it to the old spec and build the spacer into the lens.

              3. Develop a new mount (which could be just taking the CX mount tech and making it bigger). New lenses would be made for the new mount and older lenses would need a full-on adapter made by Nikon.

              Apologies if any of this is what you already wrote. I haven’t seen that article.

            • Spy Black

              Although I wouldn’t really know for sure myself, I think #2 may be the only logical solution for Nikon. They’ve stuck with the F mount for so long for the sake of backwards compatibility and consistency with their system, and even though that doesn’t really matter in a mirrorless design, it would psychologically impart the concept of a cohesive whole in the Nikon universe.

            • I actually Like option 2 as well, but the adapter really needs to work perfectly.

            • Thom Hogan

              I’m sorry, but mount adapters are not the answer. Even with the Canon EOS M system I have issues with the mount adapter approach to using existing lenses, and Nikon would have more (due to the aperture activation arm and other legacy issues). Also, look how long it took Canon to get the EOS M up to reasonable speed against that competition, and they’re still deficit on lenses, which is a friction they have to still overcome.

              What you don’t want to do is go from a clear second place leader in one race to being last in another. That’s what Nikon is now faced with.

              Since you seem to not be aware of what I wrote, I’ll tackle your numbered things briefly here:

              1. Once you start putting a hand grip on the camera, the depth of the lens mount area becomes unimportant. Moreover, you can build lenses that extend into the camera.
              2. Not that simple.
              3. This is the most likely approach Nikon would use, but see what I wrote in the second paragraph: they’d go from second place in DSLRs to last place in mirrorless, and they’d need a FULL set of these new lenses to even look remotely competitively to the Canon, Fujifilm, and Sony APS-sensor mirrorless cameras.

            • El Aura

              Nikon has the choice to loose sales quickly with a chance of recovery medium to longterm (new mirrorless mount) or to decline slowly because its longer flange distance puts it at a significant disadvantage in the mirrorless market (F-mount mirrorless).

              I have the impression that you generally see third-party lenses as less relevant than I do. If medium to longterm mirrorless wins out, how many third-party lenses will still be released (or even sold) with a long-flange optical design?

            • Thom Hogan

              I don’t see third-party lenses as irrelevant. Nikon does. And that’s the important part. Nikon expects to control a third of both the ILC camera sales and a third of the ILC lens sales. They’re not going to go into mirrorless saying “it’s okay if we get one-third the cameras, but less than that of the lenses.” That would be a net loss for them.

            • El Aura

              In their short-term thinking yes. But I thought we were discussing what would the best move for Nikon not what Nikon thinks is the best move.

              And I didn’t use the word ‘irrelevant’, I said ‘less relevant than I do’.

            • El Aura

              May I ask what the fricking difference between 2) and 3) is? Any lenses for the new shorter flange distance would use a built-in AF motor and an electronic aperture anyway (any newly released Nikon lens these days has them).

              Thus any F-mount-ness of the mount at the camera for your ‘solution’ 2) would at most amount to having an AF motor and aperture lever actuator in the camera for the sole purpose of driving the existing F-mount lenses without built-in AF motor and electronic aperture. I think you can forget about the AF motor right away. Nikon hasn’t released any mount ‘adaptors’ (essentially TCs and macro spacing rings) that transmit AF power via gears for decades (if ever, third-parties did so 25 years ago). That means only having an aperture lever actuator in the camera instead of the adaptor would make the camera mount somewhat F-mount like.

              Yes, Nikon could make the actual bayonet and placement of electronic contacts on the camera identical to the F-mount. But whether Nikon does so or not is completely irrelevant, you’d need an adaptor anyway to mount existing F-mount lenses. Having the same bayonet and contact location has zero effect, as you will never mount an existing F-mount lens on such a shorter flange distance mount.

  • badwa


  • I cannot believe that people still believe this hoax/click bait/fake news nonsense.

    • animalsbybarry

      People ( at least this people) do not believe this deal is currently going to happen
      But the market pressures that led to this false rumor still exist
      That is
      A declining ILC market that cannot support all current ILC manufacturers
      Product lines that can easily be made to work together
      And Canon still dominates the market
      As long as thes market pressures exist people will continue to wonder ” why not”

      • Keep in mind that Nikon still sales more than all mirrorless companies combined together and Pentax is still around… so yes, Nikon is not going anywhere anytime soon and there are other companies that will go belly up before Nikon does. Bookmark my comment and let’s talk again about it in 5 years.

  • Thom Hogan

    Remember, fanboys are now experts ;~). Experts based upon visual examination of a photo of something they don’t fully understand how or why it is built that way.

  • T.I.M

    You own a Nikon 200mm f/2.0 AF-S and few teleconverters ?
    Congratulations !
    You just got yourself a 560mm f/8 !
    Yes, I did it, I did what everyone always told me not to do !!!!
    I stack a TC-20E II + TC-14E II on my 200mm f/2 !
    (for some reasons I can’t do it with the TC-17E II, impossible to mount it on the TC-20E II, physically imposible)

    https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/fb4cf7c6ca0b2d7467149447d36ca619c6ee82cbd10ab37efb1a46d3bccbc1f8.jpg https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/f8d7fc987150cc152c1b8d2256eace1273658c7a8fd133accbcd75ef1be9eaf2.jpg

    • Aldo

      it looks well balanced 😛

    • Max

      Show some pictures

    • peter w

      I think i’ll choose the Sigma. They offer three more serious options than this one.
      Except ofcourse at F2.0.

  • BayouBill

    Oh my, but you boys DO go on (and on and on and on …)!

  • Back to top