Nikon’s upcoming mirrorless camera rumored to have a new Z-mount with 16mm flange focal distance

Nikon's patent drawing showing a new lens mount design with different electronic contacts location (not sure if this is the rumored Z-mount)

Some interesting rumors from CES - Nikon's upcoming mirrorless camera is rumored to have a new Z-mount:

  • Designed for full frame mirrorless cameras
  • External diameter: 49mm
  • Flange focal distance: 16mm

Keep in mind that "Z-mount" may not be the final marketing name, but I believe the dimensions are right.

For comparison, here are the dimensions of the Nikon F and Sony E mounts:

Nikon F-mount

  • External diameter: 44 mm
  • Flange focal distance: 46.5 mm (more info on flange focal distance can be found here)

Sony E-mount:

  • External diameter: 46.1 mm
  • Flange focal distance: 18 mm
This entry was posted in Nikon Mirrorless Camera and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Michael Laing

    Now the question is, is it worth waiting until Nikon release the this mirrorless camera and hope the specs are up there with the D850, with improved video AF (and get a F mount adapter) or just say to hell with it and buy a D850?

    • Markus

      Buy a D850 imho, it’s a masterpiece and the best camera around.

      • Michael Laing

        I probably will. The reason I might weight though, is I come from a video background and whilst I have been out of the industry for 10 years, I am tempted to come back in, in a limited way and a Nikon mirrorless with decent video ability might be useful.

        I know a lot of people will say Professionals don’t use autofocus, to rack focus and I have manually focused for years and a good AF system makes life so much easier.

    • TurtleCat

      One is here now, the other is unknown. If you need a D850 now get it now. The other will still be there for later. Myself, I wouldn’t wait unless I knew for sure it would meet my needs and would be delivered relatively soon for sure.

    • Nyarlathotep

      Get the 850. The first one will probably not be a low volume, pro level camera. Plus the lens options will be limited, forcing you to use F-Mount adapters for a long while.

      • Michael Laing

        Well Nikon have said it will be a professional level camera when it is released. I would take my time to upgrade the lenses, if I did go to mirrorless (if at all). I should have bought the D850 already but as I have been out of the business for a while and am only just getting back in, I have been given orders that I am not allowed to buy it until, I have done enough jobs to cover the camera cost + living.

        • Eric Calabros

          Nikon never said that

          • Nyarlathotep

            Exactly, Nikon hasn’t said anything, this is all rumor, probably much to Nikon’s chagrin.

          • Michael Laing

            I stand corrected but it was implied, with the interview given by Research & Development Manager Tetsuro Goto by Chinese publication Xitek.

            Tetsuro suggests that when Nikon release a full frame mirrorless camera “So far there is no professional using their products” and later “If we were to introduce a mirrorless camera, we would not be like them [Sony, Olympus, Fujifilm], such as pushing out a lot of models. We will lock in customer’s main requirement to introduce a new product.”

            Now with the Sony A7Rmk3 many would argue that Sony have created a professional level full frame mirrorless camera and if Nikon are going to create a single model, they would probably want it to be a higher end model to begin with and then maybe they would then want to filter down much of that technology into a more consumer level version. Now I know I am just speculating here but that would be my guess.

            • I think when Mr. Goto gave this interview he was no longer employed by Nikon (he was retired already).

            • Michael Laing

              Thank you for clarifying.

            • Thom Hogan

              Correct. And he said that he felt that a professional mirrorless FX camera is what Nikon should produce first. At the time he said that, my sources say Nikon was going to do the opposite (DX mirrorless first). Since then, there appears to have been much internal discussion at Nikon, and I don’t know what happens first now.

            • Robert Falconer

              I think the arrival of the A9 has to have given Nikon some pause. If for no other reason than the idea of a consumer electronics company stealing any of their photographic thunder (ostensibly at a pro level) — whether real or perceived in the eyes of the public — has to now be seen as a clear and present danger.

            • Thom Hogan


              I wasn’t expecting to be impressed by the A9, but even with only the 100-400mm to get me usefully past 200mm I found it more than usable. And it now appears that Sony has addressed at least two of the smaller focus issues I found with a firmware update.

              Sony is a real contender now. And they’ve already delivered most of the <200mm lenses needed and even transitioned all their video to the mount.

              Nikon's only defense at the moment is F-mount DSLR. That's a good defense short term, but long term Nikon has vulnerabilities now they didn't have before.

    • I seriously doubt that the new Nikon mirrorless camera will be announced to compete with the D850.

    • Both

  • Not too happy about a new mount but obviously it was necessary. Looking forward to seeing more.

  • SmarterEnu

    Not a thing Nikon has come out with in stunning new technology since my D7100 that would make me ‘upgrade’. The cell phone folks compete with massive product changes. Nikon, Canon, Sony just hype us with out of date obsolete tech that is inferior to my S8 SAMSUNG. A full frame 40mp body has only a marginally better image than my D7100. Certainly will not get me on the mirrorless yahoo bandwagon.

    • Eric Calabros

      I appreciate your effort to come here to keep us informed

      • RC Jenkins

        lol. All I got out of it was “I have reached the peak of my abilities with a Nikon D7100. But somehow, everyone else is a yahoo.”

        • Nyarlathotep

          Haha, that is a pretty good take away.

        • Lol:) he doesn’t care about a new camera and he had the urge to come here and tell us that. That’s ok as long as it’s done civilized.

          • Nyarlathotep

            Some people just feel the need to tell everyone about all the garbage floating around in their brain, with convictions no less. They might as well post: I like cats and you need too; I need new shoes, you should buy some now, unless you are dumb; I think we need less donkeys on the planet, you best agree or you are a rookie rube; I won’t buy oranges today because they are too acidic and no one else should be allowed to either; the sun is hot, bork bork bork, melon, Christmas tree, french fry, moose-onion.

            • PhilK

              Bork Bork Bork hahahahahaha..

    • Allan

      OK, I’ll bite.

      What type of photography do you do? What are you looking for in your next camera or lens purchase?

      • Nyarlathotep

        I really hope he/she says BIF. That’ll be perfect.

      • Ric of The LBC


        • Allan

          Hi Ric of The LBC. 🙂

          • Ric of The LBC

            Hey Allan, WAZZUUUUP

      • Don’t bite, I see where this is going 🙂

        • Allan

          You’re right.

          It probably doesn’t hurt to give people the benefit of the doubt. The next comment usually is very informative.

          Great topic, Peter. Awesome work on your part. Thanks.

          • I really see nothing wrong if people are happy with their smartphones for taking pictures. This doesn’t mean Nikon should not announce a new mirrorless camera. Linking those two ideas in one sentence is problematic 🙂 I am obviously not a fan of mirrorless cameras at their current stage but I am 100% for Nikon announcing one.

          • I should correct myself – I have been using a mirrorless camera for a very long time, even before mirrorless was a thing (Leica) so this is probably why I see no added value in a new mirrorless camera (for me personally). Between my Leica M10 and Nikon D850 I just don’t see why I need to buy into another system, even if it is from Nikon. Of course this is just my situation and understand that other people have other expectations, especially if they are purchasing their first digital camera.

    • TurtleCat

      You forgot the sarcasm tag…

    • Bob Thane

      Because going from a cheaper or older phone to a newer phone, the image goes from unusable to pretty decent and everyone notices that difference. When you go from an already great camera to an even better camera, you won’t notice it as much unless you’re shooting at a level where you need that extra quality.

      Like if your car has a maximum speed of 50 km/h and you buy a car that goes 100 km/h, that’s a big upgrade. But if you have a car that goes 200 km/h and you buy a car that goes 400 km/h, it doesn’t really matter unless you’re a race car driver. It’s at least as large an upgrade, but for day to day use it’s not any better.

    • Have you tried the D850? You should if you want a real upgrade from your smartphone and D7100.

    • If you dont see the difference between a smartphone and DSLR, you definitely don’t need a new camera. Save your money for the next smartphone that will come in 3 months.

  • Bohemian Rhapsody

    now all they need are lenses and a camera to go with it

    • Allan

      lol. Good one.

  • catinhat

    So, if this is an all new lens mount, why would anyone care that it is a Nikon? Very nice mirrorless cameras without the F-mount have been around for a long time. Pretty much the only critical thing that makes a Nikon a Nikon is the lens mount.

    • Nyarlathotep

      Some would rather stay in the Nikon eco-system. Hopefully Nikon produces a top-notch adapter for F lenses to “Z” mount. Sure it isn’t ideal, but it would be a stop gap until their lens catalog is fleshed out for “Z” mount. The upside is Nikon has the AF secret sauce so their Z mount sensor would hopefully perform well with F mount lenses.

      • It should be possible to produce an F to “Z” adapter that gives the same optical performance with F mount lenses as that achieved on a native F mount camera.

        The short flange distance will allow much better wide angle lenses that don’t have to be retrofocus.

        • Nyarlathotep

          In a perfect world, yes, but tolerance in manufacturing will lead to some flex in the mount plane. It is hard enough to get one mount as close to perfect as economically reasonable, but adding a second mechanical connection makes it more complicated by many factors.

          Also, differences, if any, in the optical glass thickness that sits on top of the sensor, will impact IQ. Maybe Nikon keeps it the same, maybe not, but modern, digital era lenses within each system are tailored to focus with a given thickness of optical glass on top of the sensor.

          • RC Jenkins

            This is true; but what’s interesting is that a mirrorless design naturally accounts for this.

            In DSLR’s, tolerances make a much bigger difference because the distance to the AF module’s plane can be slightly off of the distance to the sensor plane. A main reason we have the Fine-Tune option on DSLRs.

            However, since mirrorless cameras focus on the imaging sensor, they naturally correct for these tolerances, wherever they may be.

            There are a few exceptions–for example, an adapter that’s slightly too long could prevent infinity focus–but most lenses are able to ‘focus past infinity’ for this very reason, making this a non-issue. 🙂

            As a result, in practice, AF accuracy can often actually be increased on a mirrorless system, despite the fact that the lens was designed for a DSLR. (AF accuracy not to be confused with AF speed). We see this in real life–where AF is more accurate in live view, including on the latest & greatest like the D850:


            Another exception you correctly referenced is in how ‘loose’ or ’tilted’ the mount / adapter is. This is harder to correct for (can be corrected with things like IBIS or adjusting the adapter or mount); but I believe this won’t be too big of an issue with well-produced adapters. Frankly, I’d rather have it in the adapter with some method of calibration rather than in the actual mount or lens–much easier to fix.

            • Nyarlathotep

              I really hope Nikon engineers and manufactures the mount right. It would really be a shame if Nikon assigns the job to a junior designer and pay us lip service with an adapter that only works fairly well.

              That is a good point, since the mirrorless with rely on sensor based PDAF and CDAF. I guess this was more of an issue with mirror based PDAF.

            • mohammad mehrzad

              yes, mirrorless does account for small tolerances in flage distance, however, the optical glass thickness is another story.

              if I remember correctly, lensrentals uses some optical glass for their olaf system when testing Sony EF lenses. and they have said that without the glass for some lenses, the results are worse.

              pure speculation on my part:
              thicker / thinner optical glass on sensor will probably be needed to design smaller less complex ultrawides with their rear element closer to the sensor. so we would either not get those small light ultrawides on the new system or our current 14-24s and other ultrawides would not be as nice on the new system.

            • RC Jenkins

              I believe what you’re referring to is this:

              And you’ll see that it has several conclusions that infer that this shouldn’t be a major issue.

              One is that it’s caused by the difference in stack thickness, not the stack thickness itself. The only system with a major stack thickness so far is micro four thirds. Individual cameras & sensors all have different stack thicknesses, but they’re all generally similar–around 2mm, including both DSLRs & mirrorless.


              Another is that the effect seems to practically disappear by about F/2.8–which is the max aperture of the 14-24. A difference of 1mm only begins to be noticeable by F/1.4 or faster.

              So this appears to be a non-issue.

            • mohammad mehrzad

              I actually went back and had a look. Lensrentals did 3 articles on the subject:

              another article at a later date which is actually interesting can could affect future focal reducers
              and also, in the 24-70 E VR test, they mention that the optical glass is required

              but the jist of it all is that it should not matter much, unless you are using leica fast lenses or other fast lenses designed for film and also m4/3 lenses.

            • RC Jenkins

              Correct–it should not matter much unless you are using lenses designed for a different sensor thickness–which are pretty much only Leica & m4/3.

              That argument about lenses not adapting properly forgets that every sensor has a different stack thickness–but the thicknesses are almost always around 2mm. This means that a lens will work differently on a D810 or D850, not just mirrorless & DSLR.

              Everyone seems to be scared over nothing. DSLR lenses will work better on a mirrorless camera than film lenses work on DSLRs–but nobody complained about having to buy all new lenses then…

    • Bob Thane

      If it did use the F mount no one would care that it was mirrorless, since it would be much bulkier and unable to adapt lenses.

      • catinhat

        Did you see the size/weight of the 24-70/2.8 for the E mount? The lenses are still large, but the body is smaller, so the balance and handling may actually be worse.

    • Allen_Wentz

      “Why would anyone care that it is a Nikon?” Because there is more to a camera system than simply being a “lens mount.”

      • Ric of The LBC

        Less filling

      • catinhat

        It better be! Because it it came up with the F-mount, they would automatically have a pool of likely customers. Without it, they are running into the headwinds of competing against companies with years and years of experience with mirrorless products and fully developed lens lineups.

    • I will be able to answer that question after Nikon officially announces the camera. Right now we don’t know what is it going to be. By the same logic why would any company announces anything – 99% of the products already exists anyway…

  • thorne

    a wish list with some background :

    used Nikon since starting photography with a tool other than a bridge. D3, D700, D800e and D810, had to abandon DSLRS’s for one reason : portability. The crucial point for a photography enthousiaste, who does portraits, street scenes, exclusive documents and so on, who is non specialized into a kind of “production” photography (fashion, macro, sport …), is to be able to photograph very often and in different circumstances. Nikon gear proven to be so enjoyable to use (ergonomically), sensors are very brilliant almost every time since D3, so if the portability is there, the view finder is inspiring in its use, the solidity of package is present, practicability of battery charging cycle, and for me, a first 35mm f2 native lens with nice autofocus, I’m sold for their Z system. since a couple of years, using x100t and leica M. the non FF on x100t is the reason making me choose Leica in some cases (portraiture mainly and FF makes difference in that arena) and the non autofocus on leica makes me grab fuji x100 (when out shooting imprédictible environnement). Nikon has that potential of giving both and beyond. Never knew why couldn’t consider sony alpha system to date.

    • Amabird

      I think what mirrorless can achieve is making it less intrusive when shooting around. I heard a lot of good stuff about Fuji is how it makes people want to carrying it everyday.

      Nikon FF mirrorless will be good time for D600/610/750 or APS-C user which is new without many lens burden and thinking of upgrade.

      I’ve started to feel the limitation on D600 after more than 5 years of usage and I love every bit of it. It just I’m hesitating to bring out sometimes due to the weight.

  • Bengt Nyman

    16 mm flange distance. That’s even shorter than Sony A7… using 18 mm.
    Good for size, yes, but bad for corner IQ. Unless of course Nikon makes the move to a curved sensor for simpler, shorter and lighter lenses.

    • RC Jenkins

      …unless Nikon comes up with the novel idea of simply moving the rear element of an optical design that doesn’t work outward.

      Small flange distances are good for corner IQ, not bad.

      • Bengt Nyman

        Sure, you can shorten the flange distance and lengthen the lens as long as the flange opening is large enough.
        BUT NO, too short a distance between the rear element and a flat sensor degrades corner IQ. Ask Sony, they know.

        • RC Jenkins

          Sony’s E mount is less constricted than Nikon’s F. Anything you can do on Sony E, you can do on Nikon F. The reverse is not true, however.

          And Nikon Z will be less constrained than either.

          You are confusing topics.

          • Bengt Nyman

            You don’t know what you are talking about.

            • RC Jenkins

              LOL, riiight.

              You don’t realize that “rear element” is different from “flange distance.” There’s no law I’m aware of that says a rear element has to align to the mount. So if you have an optical design that involves a rear element 44mm away from the sensor, but you have a 16mm flange distance, you can just put empty space between them & voila.

              There’s a reason that you can plop on an adapter with no optical elements and no loss in image quality onto a Nikon F lens and put it onto a Sony body, but not the reverse.

              A 44mm throat & 46.5mm flange distance is more optically constrained than a 46mm throat & 18mm flange distance.

              You can tell you don’t have a clue since your response to me was backwards, when you’re describing lengthening the flange for some reason.

          • Bengt Nyman

            You don’t know what you are talking about

          • Bengt Nyman

            You are wrong.

          • Bengt Nyman

            Listen RC Jenkins, what gives you the right to erase comments just because you don’t like them.
            You are dead wrong about the issue above

            • RC Jenkins

              Listen Bengt Nyman, which comments did I erase? I didn’t erase anything, and I have no idea how I possibly would erase them.

              I’m not wrong about anything in this discussion. You are so wrong about this.

              You think a 44mm throat diameter 46.5mm in front of the sensor is less constrained…
              …than a 46mm throat 18mm in front of the sensor.

              Please explain how.

            • Bengt Nyman

              You erased two of my comments in a row, where I said that you don’t know what you are talking about.
              This is not a question about the size of throat diameters. It’s a question about unfavorable light angles and subsequent loss of IQ in image corners in the case of extremely short distances between the rear element and the sensor.

            • RC Jenkins

              I didn’t erase anything, and I don’t have the ability to erase them. You are just incompetent at using the internet (and basic geometry, apparently).

              I (and likely others) see several comments in a row from you:

              Let’s do it this way. Suppose the following are two different mounts, for different cameras, with the same sensor inside. The top is the flange, where the lens attaches, and the bottom is where the sensor is. The right is a smaller flange distance, same throat.


              Now, we add 2 lenses. One lens is designed for the longer flange, while the other is designed for the shorter flange:

              For the lens designed for the longer flange, I can easily add an adapter with no optical elements to fit it onto the shorter flange on the right. Because (again!!!!!!), rear element distance is different than flange.

              Explain how I would do this for the lens designed for the shorter flange distance.


              This is basic geometry you should have learned in primary school.

            • PhilK

              Those photos look like a crappy example to me. 😀

            • He cannot erase any comments.

            • Fly Moon

              Why do you think a user can erase or delete another user comment? Only a site Admin can do that!

            • He has a few hours to clean his mess or he will be banned. I am not even sure why I am so nice.

            • Davo

              You have too much patience my friend. But kuodo’s to you.

            • Bengt Nyman

              Peter deleted unknowing to JC. Great forum management !

            • I deleted your comment that contained profanity.

          • Bengt Nyman

            Asshole !

          • Bengt Nyman

            Listen guys, don’t argue with RC Jenkins, he is god.

            • RC Jenkins

              You’re just confused because you’re being visited by light angels.

          • Bengt Nyman

            It’s not a matter of throat diameter, it’s a matter of light angels.

            • RC Jenkins

              Light angels? From heaven?

              So I suppose you do think there’s some magic involved here.

          • Bengt Nyman

            I am reporting you to Nikon, RC Jenkins !

            • RC Jenkins

              Please do, and post a screenshot of the conversation here for everyone to enjoy. I’d love to see that. 🙂

            • lol, is he for real? I hope he doesn’t report me 🙂

            • Report for what? Why would Nikon care what you have to say?

            • Bengt Nyman

              I am sure they don’t. As a Nikon NPS I feel they might want to know that Nikon Rumors are spreading fallacies.

            • If this your first day on the Internet? Are you for real? Go ahead and report me to Nikon. I dying to hear their answer.

          • Bengt Nyman

            Yes, you are confusing topics RC. It’s not a matter of flange opening it’s a matter of light angels.

        • RC Jenkins

          @NikonRumors:disqus admitted to erasing a single profane comment from you.

          For a reason.

          And RC absolutely understands the difference between lens mount opening and overly divergent light angles (and between angels & angles).

          Bengt still does not understand the difference between a lens’ rear element and a camera’s flange.

          • Bengt Nyman

            Bengt is a physicist and designed cameras and lens mounts for Star Wars. Chances are that RC has some catching up to do.

            • RC Jenkins

              RC is an actual University-accredited Physicist, who offers proof.

              Bengt Nyman doesn’t know simple geometry, as seen below.

          • I have him a second change. I usually don’t do that. If he doesn’t clean his comments by tomorrow, he will be banned. Cursing other readers was never ok here. It is up to him now.

      • Nyarlathotep

        Not true for wide angle lenses and fast glass. These applications tend to have light coming in at more acute angles to the sensor. Acute angle light tends to produce more CA and vignette. That get worse as the rear element gets closer to the sensor.

        • António

          Did you also consider the possible sensor’s light gathering capabilities to correct those problems?

          • Nyarlathotep

            Yes I agree, you are correct. The issues can be corrected in varying degrees of efficiency, as the light becomes more acute and it becomes more difficult to correct. Sony has done a lot of development on sensors designed to accommodate and it seems to pay off. And Nikon excels at engineering such things, but with all corrections comes compromises, right?

            • António

              Sure but that’s just a part of the all bunch of compromises in the process that allow us to get a digital photography and what really counts is it added value to the final image and we’ve to wait and see because this is far from being a free bet for Nikon.

              On the other end, we’ve also to consider that sometimes the patent registration includes measurements that may not be exactly the ones shown by the final product.

        • RC Jenkins

          (see below)

          Be careful in confusing flange distance with distance to the rear element–these are not the same.

          A rear element can always be at the flange or further from the flange; but the reverse is not always true.

          So if you have an optical design that expects a sensor to be 44mm away from the rear element, you can always design the lens for this, even if the flange distance is 16mm. However, if you wanted an optical design with a 16mm rear element, you may not be able to do this with a 44mm flange distance.

          You’re correct that CA can be worse with harsher angles, but these harsher angles aren’t a given for the above reason.

          Vignetting is usually improved with a shorter barrel, not made worse.

          • Nyarlathotep

            Agreed, to a certain degree, you can push the rear elements away from the sensor within the lens housing. A lot of that flexibility depends on the diameter of the lens housing and avoiding mechanical vignette.

    • RC Jenkins

      So now you changed your post due to how wrong you are.

      And you are not being blocked. You had one comment deleted because it was a single profane word. Stop acting like a paranoid schizophrenic or a poorly behaved child.

  • Ric of The LBC

    Top post of 2018

    • AYWY

      The actual announcement post should surpass it. CP+ hopefully.

    • Nikkor300f4VR

      We should drink soon.. 😉

  • DeNo_F49F

    That’s cool. I think Nikon isn’t looking to knock off any of Sony’s market share, just make sure to keep their own. A lot of people complain about Nikon mirrorless being non-existent. So this would shut that up. I hope the do come out with one and it’s sick !! I will definitely purchase one. Though I won’t be an early adopter lol.

  • Bengt Nyman

    Too short a flange distance becomes a question of unfavorably divergent light angles. Ask Sony, they had a hard time coming up with acceptable pixel optics for the A7…

  • Bengt Nyman

    Just testing to see if I am still being blocked.

    • Bengt Nyman

      As you can see above guys, RC and Peter deletes and puts back comments as they please.

      • Nyarlathotep

        Yes, we can see, you can’t follow the rules of the forum, then proceed to blame the moderator for your indiscretions.

        • Bengt Nyman

          I follow the rules when I want to, but not to be forced to accept fallacies from anybody. RC does not understand the light path between the rear lens element and the sensor except for the trivial part about the size of the flange opening,
          Peter both deleted and added back comments trashing the thread without first informing anybody.

    • RC Jenkins

      Wrong. Sony “solved” this by moving the elements outward for existing optical designs. In other cases, they came up with new optical designs that take advantage of the less constrained mount.

      Here’s a diagram for you:

      Note how the elements are simply further in front of the flange when compared to the DSLR version of a similar lens.

      Stop posting nonsense repeatedly in an effort to bury your B.S. further down.

      • Bengt Nyman

        Fuck you idiot !

        • You were complaining earlier on why you were being banned *but temporarily). I think that you have nothing to complain about given your latest comment.

          • Bengt Nyman

            Agreed. I don’t mind being blocked. I thought better of Nikon Rumors than this. RC Jenkins has no idea what he is talking about.

            • You are obviously not blocked yet, but if you use profanity one more time, you will be.

            • RC Jenkins

              No, you have no idea what you’re talking about.

              Let’s recap the exchange:

              Your original comment was that the shorter flange distance means that the only thing Nikon can do is produce a curved sensor.

              I disagreed and said that Nikon could additionally move the rear element of the lens further away from the flange & sensor. It took a few posts to convey this simple idea.

              You argued with this idea several times, conflating the lens mount with the rear element. I had to really break it down for you to comprehend this basic concept.

              You went back and changed your posts, and now you’ve changed your argument to say that they can also move the rear element further.

              And now you’re trying to save face. On the internet. Because you’re embarrassed and your temper and ego won’t let you recognize how wrong you were.

              Looks like somebody missed nap time. Weird because you seemingly slept through your optics class.

            • Bengt Nyman

              Sony did not change their lens design, they added individual pixel optics. Your are wrong but you can not admit it.

            • Nyarlathotep

              Dude, Peter has been more than fair, given you fair warnings, which he is not obligated to do. Don’t blame or scapegoat Nikon Rumors when the issue is your inability to act civil. Sack up and admit when you have erred.

            • Bengt Nyman

              Agreed. When I insult somebody it’s because they deserve it. I don’t mind the warnings or being blocked. But I do mind JC guessing and spreading technical fallacies on the forum.

        • I already warned you after you first insult. If you don’t delete this comment in the next few hours, you will be banned.

          • Bengt Nyman

            Peter, I don’t care. You have an amateur like RC misleading readers on the forum.

            • Obviously you don’t care, so you are gone. I will not allow people like you to disturb our discussion. You obviously have some issues you need to work on. Have a nice day!

            • Nyarlathotep

              Damn straight. But you better watch out Peter, the NPS Police are coming ;P

            • He is going to report NikonRumors to Nikon because he disagrees with a comment made by a reader. Is he for real? And I thought I’ve seen it all over the past 10 years…

            • Nyarlathotep

              I know, I am constantly amazed at how frequently someone display some new, inscrutable behavior. Some peeps have crazy, fantasy notions about how the world works. Maybe the dude is 13, socially inept, a broken adult, and/or off the meds.

              Either way, Nikon might get a good chuckle out of his email, if it ever even makes it to a human, and then it will swiftly make it into the round file.

            • Nyarlathotep
            • Lol 🙂

    • Bengt, your inability to see both sides of a point make you extremely annoying to converse with. Just in case you are also this way in real life, and are wondering why people dislike conversing with you in person.

      Here’s the thing- your point about light angles is completely valid. A shorter flange distance creates this opportunity. And you’re right, Sony has designed their pixel lenses to better accept light from angles. Then again, that’s something that EVERY sensor maker is interested in, not just the ones with extremely short flange distances. Better pixel lenses in general.

      But, you’re blind if you can’t see that the easiest solution to the problem is to just move the glass back away from the sensor, for any lens which desires extremely sharp corners. You even mention that this is an option.

      Also, another option is to just design the optics to shoot light straight at the sensor even in the corners. Have a look at the optical formula of the 12-24 FE, and you’ll see that the light path is obviously exiting the rear of the lens at a “not bad” angle.

      So, have fun being argumentative and vindictive. It’s a fantastic way to be unproductive and un-liked in life.

      • Bengt Nyman

        “But, you’re blind if you can’t see that the easiest solution to the problem is to just move the glass back away from the sensor,”
        Of course, making the lens longer which is not a good solution.

    • Bohemian Rhapsody

      I am very impressed, that somewhere out there is always some whiz who is smarter then Zeiss engineers with decades of experience in lens making ..

  • Fernando Costa

    If Hasselblad XCD mount medium format as only 20mm Falange
    distance. Nikon can make a 16mm for a full frame camera it’s mainly the same equivalence or so. I think Hasselblad and Nikon are top notch brands, they know what to do I hope 🙂
    I’m waiting for my D850 to arrive ordered it last December, it will make great pair with the upcoming Nikon Zmout Mirrorless in the upcoming years, just don’t make it to small, 😉 like a toy Sony.

    • Bohemian Rhapsody

      You want mirrorlees camera , styled like a DSLR but not too small like a Sony ?
      Good luck

      • The GH5, G9 and E-M1 II are styled like DSLRs and are not too small like a Sony.

        • Fernando Costa

          Yes Panasonic are bigger then Sony and have a smaller sensor, it’s valid for Nikon to reopen the rangefinder tipe câmera like Nikon S, and every one is ok, imagine 4 models 2 aps and 2 fullframe, one fullframe profissional tipe, work horse like D5 or D850 and one like a Nikon S and same for the aps one like D500 and one like rangefinder.
          Maybe nikon will restart the history like they did with D1
          And start from the top with Z1 killing de Dx line
          I think D5s will be the last flagship as we know…

  • Nikon at least has learned from its competitors to design a mount that allows its cameras to adapt lenses from competing mounts but not vice versus. I don’t really care if the first bodies and lenses are obscenely overpriced as long as they have a halo effect, which means not having stupid flaws like borked video or lousy connectivity.

  • Carleton Foxx

    So I better not buy that D850, right?

    • Nyarlathotep

      If I were in the market for a new body, I’d pick the 850 up without the slightest hesitation. This mirrorless rumor, assuming it comes to fruition Q2 or Q3 this year, will take a number of years to gain traction and the large retinue of native lenses it would need. In the mean time I would get some serious miles out of the most excellent 850.

      But to each their own, my needs are not yours. So as they say, let your conscience be your guide.

      • RC Jenkins

        Agreed. We don’t know anything about the cameras that go along with this mount. Could be a high-IQ camera like the D850, could be a low-end model, could be something in-between, could be something different.

        We also don’t know when.

        Might as well get a D850 if you need it; and then sort out the mirrorless camera when it’s time.

        • That was the problem with the Pentax K-1. Pentaxians were clamoring for everything from 12 megapixels to 50 megapixels, and Pentax knew they couldn’t afford to deliver 2-3 full-frame bodies, only one. So they picked a number, (36) …and some folks were thrilled, while others were likely disappointed, knowing that it’d be a good long while before Pentax ever made another full-frame camera. (And even then, it might have the same sensor)

          I think Nikon has the resources, compared to Pentax, to deliver 2-3 FX mirrorless bodies within the 1st year or 1.5 years, however. And they’re likely to make one high-end and one low-end camera.

          If they do have the resources for two cameras within the 1st ~1.5 years, without a doubt one will be a high-speed, 20-24 MP sensor, and the other will be a high-res, ~45 MP sensor.

          • Allen_Wentz

            Nikon could deliver ten bodies if they wanted two.

            • Well, yeah. The reference was to them breaking into an entirely new market, which is what the Pentax K-1 /sort of/ was. (They at least had the luxury of many decades of same-mount lenses, even though the K-1 was their one-and-only shot at a full-frame DSLR for the foreseeable future…)

              I agree that the whole point of mirrorless in general, from a manufacturing and corporate profits standpoint, is the minimization of MFG costs, compared to all the extra parts required to make a DSLR. Especially considering Nikons’s as-of-yet un-abandoned mechanical aperture; something which they really ought to have done away with at the same time as their switch to SWM-only autofocus bodies. But alas, we’re only now beginning to see “E” aperture lenses here and there for DSLRs.

              But I digress.

              The bottom line is that Nikon mirrorless will only consist of 1-3 bodies in the first 1-1.5 years, I suspect, and they’ll have to really hit a home run with each one.

    • If you’re really that concerned about the D850 being “obsoleted” right after you buy it, then just buy that D850 used on eBay, and re-sell it if you really have to. Otherwise, buy a new D850 and enjoy it for many years, …or if you already know you’re really interested in mirrorless, keep on “making do” with whatever camera you’ve already got. It is likely still a killer camera. 😉

  • SkyMeow

    I just hope Nikon won’t screw up the existing F-mount lens compatibility. Adapter better work as we expect.

  • Bohemian Rhapsody

    Having the lens sit much closer to the sensor removes the need to have a retrofocal (reverse telephoto) group which results in less extreme image correction, fewer lens elements and often a sharper image.

    However the increased angle of incidence of light rays at the edge of the image often results in increased light falloff (vignetting). For this reason a weak retrofocal group is included even when a non-retrofocal design is permitted.

    Zeiss Loxia 21 vs Zeiss Milvus 21
    Size: Loxia is much smaller
    Price: Loxia is 300 dollars cheaper
    Aperture: They are equal
    # of elements: Loxia is far less complex
    Image quality: Loxia is somehow still superior to the Milvus despite the above.

    • PhilK

      The sensor is also a critical part of this – they can be tweaked for camera designs where the edge-of-sensor light-ray angle is more acute by changing the design of the microlenses, etc.

  • Earle

    Yes it’ll be expensive. What new tech isn’t? Yes it needs an F mount adapter, and it needs at least two native zooms to start. What would help is if initially it was bundled with the adapter (for people like me) or the two native zooms (for people starting from scratch).

    Maybe Nikon will copy Sony’s aggressive trade in program too.

  • Azimuth1

    What Nikon has is the flash system (SB5000 on) which Sony doesn’t have with the same performances and reliability. But if Nikon users have to (re)buy all the lenses with a new mount it’s _ALREADY_ a big mistake for Nikon, so they should sell the adapter directly with the camera, at least! But all we know that a lens + adapter is a less performing solution than a native lens. I foresee an hard time for Nikon if the ergonomics and usability of this new mirrorless will be anything less than stellar…

    • Mike D

      We do? I would say it depends on the details of the body, the lens, and the adapter. Many combinations will be lesser performing. There is no reason certain combinations can’t perform exactly the same. We won’t know until the camera is actually released.

    • Allen_Wentz

      Not to worry. Ergonomics and usability are what Nikon does better than any other vendor. Sometimes.

  • CaMeRa QuEsT

    Shortest flange distance in the business means that even Sony E mount lenses can be adapted to it, widest mount mouth means that f/1.0 or faster lenses are finally coming back to Nikon, naming it the Z mount is about right as it is probably the last meaningful lens mount to come to market if Canon decides to use the EF-M mount for their FF mirrorless system, too.

    • That will be a pretty skinny Sony to Nikon adapter.

      • CaMeRa QuEsT

        Just like the F to EF adapter, just a sliver of metal, but 2mm is enough to make it strong enough for the purpose. What remains to be seen is if the additional 5mm in diameter is enough for the 2 different bayonets to overlap each other.

        • Nyarlathotep

          The F to EF works because the F bayonet fits entirely within the mouth of the EF mount. E to Z would be a no go.

      • Nyarlathotep

        Yeah, it won’t work. The bayonets would interfere. It is the same reason there is not an adapter from K to F without an optical correcting element. They are just too close.

  • What I’d like to see are the specs for the Nikon 1 mount. That would be an interesting comparison.

    • HD10

      Hi Pete … I posted the info you seek in an earlier post along with info on the many other mounts for dSLRs and mirrorless. Just look it up either below or above depending on how you are reading this thread.

  • A. F.O.

    just to say that Peter has had such a premium rumor with this one! more than 840 opinions!
    (I really don’t care, for now, about miroless. I’m good enough with DSLR);
    I must say, to put na END in the discussion Bengt vs RC, that I’m sure that the Nikon’s engineers (like Zeiss, Sigma, Canon, Sony, etc.) solved that problem a couple years ago…pretty “simple” physics.

    • RC Jenkins

      Yes. I should apologize to everyone here for so many responses to that thread.

      I just wanted to be clear to anyone reading that shallower flanges provide more flexibility and fewer constraints for lens designers. That’s it.

      Many people seem to have the misconception that a shallower flange distance automatically makes designing lenses harder, and this is not the case. As seen in the Sony vs. Canon element diagram, a designer can always move a rear element further from the sensor if needed for the same optical designs as a longer-flange mount.

      The key is that designers can additionally take advantage of this new space that opens up between 16mm – 46.5mm in front of the sensor. So lenses like 50mm F/1.0 (which were practically impossible on Nikon F) now become possible. Corrective elements for wider angles can also be placed here. etc.

      A shallower flange will benefit us all with new & exciting glass…
      …as well as “old” glass.

  • Yair

    The most important aspect is the ability to use F mount lenses and that performance will be great.
    I speak for the many people who continued to buy expensive Nikon glass and will be very disappointed to find out it can’t be used on a future mirror less body.
    If we will be forced to buy a new mount glass the loyalist Nikon followers will start looking for options.
    Nikon has to support it’s user based otherwise they will lose their key advantage.

    • I strongly suspect that this has been a huge part of what Nikon has been working on, and keeping a mirrorless system from arriving sooner. Nikon absolutely loves their historic legacy, and they’re not about to abandon it now. I suspect that, one way or another, we’ll be able to maintain the exact same level of backwards-compatibility that we’ve always enjoyed. Meaning, it will likely be just as effortless to mount an old AI lens on this new system as it has ever been on existing DSLRs. We might even get at least one adapter that includes an AF-D motor, who knows!!!

      • Nyarlathotep

        Completely agree here. Nikon banks on the fact that the historic legacy lenses has been one of it’s strongest marketing tools for photographer retention. It would be foolish to abandon that now, especially in their precarious state right now.

        • I suspect they learned their lesson with the AF-D to AFS-G situation, when they made the difficult decision to remove the AF-D motor from their beginner DSLRs, before they had more than just one or two SWM autofocus prime lenses. The backlash was vociferous, but I suspect most beginners were perfectly happy with their SWM DX kit lenses anyways. And we had a full set of 1.4 and 1.8 SWM primes trickle out over the subsequent years.

          Nikon will definitely put a mechanical aperture coupling in at least one of their mount adapters. I also suspect that every single mirrorless body will ship with at least one super-basic adapter, likely even the one that includes a mechanical aperture coupling. Because simply put, it will be a huge plus if they are able to say, “right out of the box, this system will seamlessly integrate with almost every lens we’ve ever made”

          The only thing left to ponder is, how they might add an AF-D motor to an adapter. I think it’s do-able, just a matter of price, and how many different adapters they feel like confusing us with.

          I’d like to see them keep it simple, with one “basic” adapter that is only fully compatible with SWM AF and the new “E” aperture lenses, but doesn’t offer AF-D autofocus, plus another adapter that is aftermarket, which offers AF-D autofocus as well.

          (Or, if Nikon is gutsy enough to make one of their first mirrorless cameras a D5-style body, with a V-grip included, they might as well just include the “pro” adapter.)

          • RC Jenkins

            Totally agree. I’ve been saying the same thing for quite some time.

            I’d like to see several adapters, including:
            ::Basic (let’s say G/E/P/AI)–give these away in the box, or as a free promotional item for the first month
            ::Weather sealed
            ::Advanced (D)

            And then the cool optical stuff like:
            ::Teleconversion / Reduction
            ::Rear drop-in filter

            While the first category just repeats what users can do with F-mount and prevents leaks…

            …this second category helps sell more. Cool differentiators that mirrorless can do that Nikon F cameras simply can’t. 🙂

            • While we’re dreaming, can Nikon dust off its AI-S factory machines and create some new manual lenses too? Normally I wouldn’t suggest this, but seriously, manual focus has become a pretty decent chunk of the market lately, what with Rokinon making lenses for all mounts, and Zeiss making great lenses as always, and so many AF lenses now being MF on Sony with the more basic adapters…

              I’d kill to have a mirrorless FX system with a brand new 18mm f/2.8 AI-S with incredible corner sharpness wide-open, and maybe a new 24 1.4, 28 1.4, and/or 35 1.4 AIS.

              But, now I’m just dreaming. Too bad Rokinon build quality is junk…

            • RC Jenkins

              Agreed. With mirrorless, I don’t mind using manual focus lenses–especially if they’re smaller. Corner sharpness is always tough though as you get wider or faster–always a tradeoff for size. Nikon could conceivably improve this with PF, though…but it could kill starburst ability I think.

              I wouldn’t want them to be “AI-S”. I’d want mirrorless-specific, with CPU communication–closer to AI-P than AI-S.

              Check out the Cosina Voigtlander (like the 21mm F/1.8 for Leica), if you haven’t already. 🙂
              If Nikon doesn’t do this, they may.

          • Allen_Wentz

            A top quality F adapter or perhaps two is a given, and is very important. However I have a different viewpoint:

            A) IMO midrange mirrorless are the sales Nikon most needs to get, and that modern lenses built with the new MILC in mind are the really, really important ones.

            B) IMO the new MILC need not be adaptable to _all_ F lenses, and Nikon does not need to build a quiver of complex adapters to fit all old F lenses to its MILC. Heck, for years there has been a mish-mash among what F lenses work with what F bodies, TCs, etc. Nikon will be better served investing its excellent design resources into modern lens for modern cameras.

            • RC Jenkins

              I agree. Nikon doesn’t really need to cover all F’s fully. They can do an option, but it is unnecessary.

              To me, the most glaring example is the “D” lenses that require an AF motor. I think these should be lower priority.

              If Nikon includes just the electrical contacts, they cover:
              ::AF-S (non-G)
              But with no way to control G apertures.

              So they could add a manual ring for G lenses, or an electronically controlled aperture arm. Then, they can cover a vast majority of lenses, with manual focus supported for:

              Indexing for AI-type lenses should be a non-issue because mirrorless shooting should already be stopped down (previewed) in the VF.

            • Mike D

              Don’t you need indexing for AI type lenses if for no other reason that you want to have the metadata of what aperture was used? I know I do. When I shoot my Fuji with adapted lenses I have no record at all in the EXIF of what aperture was used.

            • RC Jenkins

              That’s a good point. You’d still need to manually dial in the lens you used though when you attach it.

              Though it does depend as well. Some AI lenses are AI-P, which use a CPU to communicate.

              But I’d think that this is something Nikon could include in a more advanced adapter, rather than a more basic adapter. I think the most important or common adapter Nikon produces won’t need the AI ring because there are fewer photographers who still use AI lenses.

              I’m also in this minority group of AI-lens users. 🙂

            • Mike D

              I forgot to add that I also want to be able to see the aperture in the viewfinder, not just in the EXIF. 🙂

              Yes, I would be fine if Nikon had a couple of adapters, let’s call them basic and advanced for now. Different price points but I’d be willing to pay more for advanced features.

            • Gosh1

              As suggested above, An optional F-mount adaptor could house the AF-D motor in situ.
              There are too many excellent AFD lenses out there to drop this Nikkor format e.g. 85 f1.4D 70-180 AFD Micro etc

            • I would assume that Nikon will adopt the same pre-AI lens cut off point as they have always had for modern SLRs…

            • RC Jenkins

              I don’t know about that…

              Indexing isn’t required on mirrorless cameras, because the lenses don’t need to stay wide open in order to have bright viewfinder. In mirrorless, it’s generally a better idea to have the lenses set to the aperture you intend to shoot at.

              (Indexing is the difference between the max aperture and the selected aperture so that the camera knows how much to compensate for in metering).

              Therefore, Nikon can simply *not include* that little AI tab in the adapter, allowing both non-AI & AI lenses to be mounted with no problem.

              This is similar to how, low-end Nikons can ironically mount non-AI lenses just fine.

              So it’s possible that the mirrorless camera becomes even more compatible with most F-mount lenses than most of the existing F-mount DSLRs. 🙂

            • Interesting, and yes that’s something I experienced with at least one Pre-AI lens that I discovered mounted just fine on my D5300, after a huge amount of hype about the Df I was reviewing “finally” offering compatibility, LOL. Good times. (And some of my best images!)

              But, I’m still not sure how it would work on lenses that don’t have a mechanical aperture ring? Doesn’t the aperture need to be mechanically set on G lenses?

            • RC Jenkins

              AI & aperture are different mechanical features to Nikon’s F-mount.

              AI is that little tab outside of the camera’s mount (at about 1 o’clock if you’re looking at the mount).

              The aperture arm is that little tab inside the camera’s mount at about 9 o’clock.

              A few google search results may help illustrate this:

              Nikon will certainly need to include some level of aperture control for G lenses–whether electronic or manual (ring). G lenses are very important for Nikon to support.

              I think the bare minimum useful adapter is CPU + aperture.

            • OK that’s what I was previously referring to when I spoke about all / most adapters including the mechanical aperture stop-down arm.

              It would be great to see a fold-able tab though on the outer ring itself, so that pre-AI lenses can be mounted. But that’s where I was starting to think, “not if it makes things too complicated”. Personally, I’d rather just take a metal file to my lens’ aperture ring, and convert it myself. I didn’t drop out of Mechanical Engineering fer nuthin’!

            • RC Jenkins

              Yes, I suppose these are some of the intricacies Nikon has to deal with…
              ::Fixed AI Tab? No AI Tab? Foldable AI Tab (a la Df)?
              ::Electronically controlled aperture arm? Manual Aperture Ring? No Aperture Ring?
              ::AF motor?
              ::Weather sealing?
              ::Tilt-shift adjustment?
              ::Drop-in filter / TC?

              and then try to find every permutation and price that will be useful. 🙂

              This is the price they have to pay for attempting to support F for so long and being a bit slower to adopt full-electronic communication.

              I’d even be ok if Nikon made a free adapter that only supported E lenses to keep things simple & cheap–as long as they offered a more advanced adapter for a reasonable price.

            • Allen_Wentz

              I do not see a free adapter being provided.
              A) Necessary top quality adapters cost money.
              B) Many buyers are buying for the MILC and MILC lenses, not to retrofit clunky F lenses. Why should the cost of an adapter be included in the cost of a product that will never see F glass anyway?

            • RC Jenkins

              Most mirrorless glass will be just as chunky as F lenses. We’re in the era where consumers generally want corner to corner sharpness and speed over size. Some mirrorless glass could be a bit smaller, but we won’t see drastic changes for some time.

              I’d guess that any full frame mirrorless Nikon releases will absolutely see F lenses for the first few years since many people already have this glass and since the glass wont exist natively on the new mount for a few years.

          • Gosh1

            An optional F-mount adaptor could house the AF-D motor in situ.
            There are too many excellent AFD lenses to drop this Nikkor format e.g. 85 f1.4D 70-180 AFD Micro etc

            • KnightPhoto

              In addition the 105D and 135D and 180D still make some very nice images, but I feel like screwdriver focus could be a separate adapter than the G/E lens adapter…

        • Robert Falconer

          Except that technology has moved far enough along now that the F-Mount is showing its age and beginning to become more of a liability than an asset.

          • Nyarlathotep

            Totally agree.

    • Allen_Wentz

      I look at it more like the DL. I would likely have bought one or two DLs as travel cameras. My main concern with a NIkon MILC will be with how the MILC behaves with its MILC-specific lenses.

      The ability to add one of my comparatively huge (clunky even) F lenses to a new Nikon MILC is not the primary reason that I would buy a Nikon MILC. Every owner of F glass already owns DSLR bodies to use their F glass on.

      Note that I do strongly believe that 1-2 top quality F lens adapters are critically important, but secondary to how well the MILC body and its MILC-specific lenses work.

      • Yair

        That’s one perspective,
        Yet If eventually mirrorless are going to replace DSLR it looks different.
        Taking into account I am looking for a better way to manually foucs and shoot video using my current lenses the adapter is critical for me.

        • Allen_Wentz

          I do not see mirrorless “replacing” DSLR. I see them as different tools.

          Like I said above, F lens adapters are critically important. Buy not primary. Primary is how good the MILC bodies are and how good their MILC-specific lenses are

          • Yair

            I disagree, for me the MILC is a tool to maximize the potential of my Zeiss MF primes and to get good video AF.
            I agree it is personal and mostly related to your investment in the current F mount lenses.
            Other than that how MILC can help me get better pictures ? Size and weight are not a factor for me since I use fast and heavy glass anyway.
            As shown in the Sony line it can’t be avoided.
            I don’t want to buy more lenses that will not work on my DSLRs
            This is the point of having a one system.
            For me the adapter is critical and primary.

            • Allen_Wentz

              See, I do not see MILC “helping me to get better pix” than DSLR for the next 5 years, except by being smaller and therefore in hand when a fat DSLR would not be.

              Video sure, but I am only evaluating for stills competence. And a decade from now MILC may be whupping DSLR at every parameter, stills as well as video.

      • KnightPhoto

        I might be an edge case but my plan is retain my D500 pair and add a Nikon FX mirrorless. So I would like to interoperate certain F-mount lenses between the two: my 8-15mm, 58G, 105E/70-200E (don’t own these two yet), my 300PF and 500G (and future 500E).

        I’m liking what Thom is saying here that the more modern F-mount lens AF-S motors have likely been tweaked to interoperate with mirrorless. Hope so!

        On the mirrorless side, yes I’d be interested in more compact wide-angle to normal Z-mount lenses and I wouldn’t mind that I couldn’t mount them on my D500. Exciting thread!

        If there’s a future ultracompact DX mirrorless, sure I’d add that too at some point. But I hope to always have a high speed top of the line DSLR in the D500 line as part of my mix and hey maybe they’ll come up with a curved sensor fixed lens APS-C “DL”.

  • Bob Simrak

    Nikon has so many faux pas with major initiatives the past several years, they can’t afford to screw this up. But they’ll probably find a way. Past performance is the best indicator of future performance…

    • HD10

      I know about Nikon’s past faux pas … having lived with some of it. But their recent past performance involved the D850, D500 and D5. Nikon seems to have found a way to get most of the things right recently. Among others, my recent purchase included a pair of D850 and the Nikkor 19mm f/4 PC … all these have been pretty good I would say.

      • Bob Simrak

        Their iterative model updates have been great. New initiatives… they’re batting “0”. Nikon 1, 2, 3, DL, 360…

        • HD10

          So some bad and some good.

          Noting your comment that their iterative models have been good and the new ones have been failures, do you consider a Nikon Z-mount mirrorless as an iterative or a new model?

          Your original post seems to indicate the latter but I think an argument could also be made for the former as Nikon had already released the Nikon 1 series Well, here’s looking forward to Nikon doing well with its mirrorless camera. =)

          • More good than bad, for sure. Every company suffers the same. I’m excited to see what they do with mirrorless.

  • Rhonbo

    Lets hope Nikon does not add another two lines of lenses, DX & FX that would be 5 altogether with FX DX CX and now FF & Crop Z mount, it will take forever to get out all the lenses we need. IMO it should just be FF right off the bat with a road map of what to expect and when. Of course there should be an adaptor to use our current lenses. How about an adaptor to use other branded lenses without any penalty engineered in. Like Sony. This way photographers with other systems could buy into Nikon.

    • I don’t see how it can be avoided. The notion has probably caused much debate and consternation at Nikon HQ, but really the best way to take full advantage of a mirrorless system is to have proprietary lenses.

      If the Nikon DX lens history is any indicator, however, it’ll be slow going at first for one new format or the other. Likely the DX format, of course. They’ll most likely only have a new set of kit lenses first, just a 18-55, a 55-200, and a 35 prime if we’re lucky.

      FX will likely get a couple primes and a couple f/4 and/or f/2.8 zooms.

  • Wade Marks

    Judging from the number of responses to this post, I would say there is huge interest in a Nikon FF mirrorless. And it makes sense for Nikon to do FF first. The market for dedicated cameras is clearly headed to be primarily high end. The people who create the buzz only care about the high end.

    If Nikon releases a really great FF mirrorless, it will not only sell and bring greater profit margins, but it will create a halo effect for any crop sensor mirrorless.

    But the money is really to be had at the top. As Thom has said, Nikon needs to get it right the first time; a home run. They need to reach the same level of excellence they did with the D850.

  • Dominic Siu

    Even I’m shooting with Canon, I really eager to see a great Nikon FF mirrorless. Nikon please make it right.

  • Amanda Thorn

    I don’t think Nikon are too late if they learn from the mistakes of Sony and Olympus etc. That is the other manufactures had slow AF, slow EVFs etc when their first cameras were released. Nikon needs to bypass this phase and release a stunning pro level camera with an F mount adapter better then any third party ones. Then they may very well capitalise on photographers swapping from DSLRs to mirrorless. The switch has started already but most pros still use DSLRs.

  • jvossphoto

    A flawless F mount adapter is a must!!!

  • Pancanikonpus

    light up the mirrorless competition please

  • AuxFawkes

    Mirrorless cameras are still many years away for being suitable replacements for DSLR’s. Calm down folks, DSLR’s aren’t going away anytime soon and will still be here 10 years from now, and even longer than that.
    Mirrorless cameras are severely overhyped to this day just like when they were first introduced.

    • Fly Moon

      So I can’t use a mirrorless camera like Fuji GFX or Sony A7R3 for landscape? What do they miss compared to DSLR to accomplish that?

      • RC Jenkins

        No, you cannot.

        You must use a camera system originally designed to solve a film problem (seeing through the lens without exposing); despite the added complexity of additional optics & moving parts that are unnecessary for digital photography.

        You act as though the path of least resistance & least complexity is an appropriate one. How dare you!

  • PeterT

    I wonder what takes Nikon so long to launch a FF mirrorless camera/system. They do have the technological knowledge from their Nikon 1 line and as far as I remember the last iteration of the J-line was already equiped with a sensor produced by Sony not Aptina. So getting a sensor produced with their specifications shuld not be the problem. My guesses are that
    1. they try to come up with at least a 3-5 lens set at start and that this takes time and lots of production capacities.
    2. they took enough time to analyze their mistakes with Nikon 1 and tried to figure out where the mirrorless market is heading to in order not to ride a dead horse again because that would mean the financial death of Nikon.
    3. they are working on a real sensor innovation like quad pixel AF or global shutter and do need more time to get there (see rumors regarding TowerJazz)
    4. they had long lasting internal discussions (japanese culture) on how to embed the new system into the Nikon F-mount environment (stay with F-mount or create a full operating adaptor solution).

    These are my uneducated guesses and I would be happy to hear your thoughts 🙂

    • Antonio Sánchez

      IMO, the Nikon 1 J5 is a quite mature product. It has nice focusing, the sensor is much better than earlier generations, and fills a niche that Nikon was not covering anywhere else. I am aware that it is not a very popular camera, but I am enjoying it a lot for travel, hiking and macro photography.

      The main problem with Nikon 1 (for me) it is precisely what should be a strong point of any Nikon product, and it is lenses. It ships with a slow kit zoom, where the competition (Sony RX100) ships with much faster lenses. And there is no wide fast alternative (a 9mm f1.8 would be very welcome). As it stands, you get the most of the camera with the teles 30-110 and 70-300, which give you a very compact camera with nice quality and long reach. However, this camera should also be a really good camera for street photography, but it needs faster lenses to reach its full potential.

      With the new FF mirrorless the problem is the same one. Nikon should bring quality lenses from day 1, specially normal wide lenses, where the size difference of a mirrorless setup will draw more costumers. And perhaps a good adapter for the tele range, but I think this is less important than it is made to be. I believe owners of tele lenses will keep using them with DSLRs, and if they want EVF, they are better served with a mirrorless FX mount with DSLR form factor.

    • What takes Nikon so long to launch a FX mirrorless camera?

      Hopefully the same thing that took them so long to launch a FX DSLR: DOING IT RIGHT THE FIRST TIME.

      I’m not sure how many folks were seriously into photography “way back” in 2007, or in the 5+ years prior, but it was a really big deal that Nikon was “so far behind” Canon in the full-frame DSLR realm. The mocking and scoffing was even more intense from Canon shooters on their 1Ds’s and 5D’s, than it has ever been lately from Sony shooters.

      But when Nikon shipped the D3, it was game over for Canon, and they never really caught up. Sure, they’ve often led the “race” for more megapixels, but they’ve always done that at the cost of literally all other aspects of image quality, so that’s a game I’m glad Nikon has been smart enough NOT to play.

      Just let Nikon do FX mirrorless right the first time, and all will be well.

      Everybody’s talking doom-and-gloom for Nikon, if they don’t get it right, or don’t get ANYTHING done soon, but the reality is that they still have plenty of time to pull it off, before they’re truly at risk of Chapter 11 bankruptcy or something.

      Here’s the real bottom line: If Nikon DOES get it right the first time, it’s game over for Sony. That’s why Sony is releasing cameras so frantically on such a quick product cycle- they’re the prey in a hunting party, and they want as much of a head start as possible before the bugle sounds.

    • Nakayamahanzaemon

      Profits. Canikon’s APS-C DSLR cameras aren’t selling as good as several years ago, while FF DSLRs are less gloomy than APS-C. Even Sony is focusing on a FF mirrorless system because it’s more profitable than APS-C. Sony lost their share in the APS-C mirrorless market at least until 2016. Nikon may have thought that they should put more effort into FF DSLR cameras on grounds that FF cameras, be it mirrorless or DSLR, are selling.

      Several years ago, I read an article about Canon or Nikon’s executive saying that they are reluctant to get into the mirrorless market fully because the market is already crowded by several makers, which lowers profits significantly. Remember that Samsung, the second biggest mirrorless maker after Sony at the time, got out of camera business in 2015 probably because of low profits.

      Having said that, I guess that Nikon didn’t expect Sony to grab a share from Nikon in the FF market.

  • Ray Justice

    We are almost to 1000 comments, wow. I currently have the D5 and D850 and Love, Love, Love these amazing cameras but am waiting to see what Nikon brings to the table with mirrorless. Will I put in in my bag? only if it helps me make better images…. but can’t wait to see…

    • What do you think of your D5 now that you have a D850?

  • animalsbybarry

    One thing that we have not discussed about the new Nikon Mirrorless camera is the battery

    I would like to see Nikon keep the same EN-EL 15 battery as thier SLR cameras and utilize the same battery compartment in their battery grip (allowing for 8AA or EN-EL 18 battery)

    I would much rather have all Nikon batteries interchangeable than require a new battery for the new mirrorless camera

    • IronHeadSlim

      That is a good point, the Nikon 1 shared a battery with DSLRs so that would be very convenient.

      I personally would like a ‘pro’ mirrorless to have the same ergonomic body as D5/D850/D500, but with the front of the camera set back. That and not having the mirror box/pentaprism would make it lighter.

      But, I also personally really, really like optical SLR viewfinders!

      • animalsbybarry

        If the camera shares the same form factor as a DSLR and has an optical viewfinder like a DSLR than it is not a mirrorless camera, it IS a DSLR.

        • No, a rangefinder is not a DSLR for example. The mirror defines a DSLR, not the viewfinder.

        • IronHeadSlim

          See above, thanks!

      • @IronHeadSlim,

        …So, it sounds like you want a DSLR that has better live view features. 😉

        • IronHeadSlim

          I prefer DSLRs.

          If I were to go to a mirrorless, I like the D5/D500/D850 body size and ergonomics.

          Sorry for the preceding confusing post.

          • Well I’m glad to hear that some folks are willing to “lug around” a D5-size body even today among the mirrorless-curious. I think that such a large mirrorless body could have a huge advantage in battery life and other features.

            • IronHeadSlim

              It would make one heck of a bullet proof body, with minimal moving parts. Once I look through a EVF that makes me feel as good as a D850 optical finder I am ready to switch!

        • IronHeadSlim

          And I prefer DSLRs because of the optical viewfinder.

      • Vinnypimages

        If all things were equal then mirrorless would replace all cameras but so far, for me, not quite equal but I imagine at some point in the future they may do. Currently I would like a minimalist body either FX or even better DX with a speed booster. For me it would purely be a backup for travel that takes up as little space and weight as possible in the bag.

    • If Nikon really thinks big, the sensor will be square which will eliminate the need for a battery grip. You will use a selector to cycle between 30 by 30, 24 by 36, 36 by 24.

      You can’t do that with an SLR.

      • RC Jenkins

        That’s not really going to “fit” with this mount. A 36 x 36 sensor would require a mount diameter of 51mm to circumscribe the sensor.

        I’ve stated this before, but my ideal sensor would be:
        ::42.67mm x 24mm (16×9) @ 7680 x 4320 (8K)

        This (coincidentally?) is circumscribed by a 49mm mount. 🙂 And many Nikkors project an image circle that would support this–not perfectly in corners, but better than nothing. Also,

        This sensor would be able to crop down to full-frame, do a 24×24 square, etc.

        I think it’s time to start thinking about 16×9 sensors, since this is the native aspect ratio of most display devices used today.

        • Antonio Sánchez

          Well, you could do what WestEndPhoto says with a circular sensor, and that would fit.

          • RC Jenkins

            How would that work?

            The diagonal on a 36 x 36 sensor is 51mm.
            This article claims a 49mm mount.

            51 > 49.
            Also, 46.67 > 36.

            So it would not fit.

            • Antonio Sánchez

              I mean a circular sensor with a diameter equal to the diagonal of a 36×24 sensor. This way, you could choose 36×24, 24×36, or 30×30 formats, as WestEndFoto was suggesting.

            • RC Jenkins


              Once again, no. For all the reasons listed above. Including that 36 is smaller than 42.67.

              I don’t think you understand the geometry of this scenario.

            • Antonio Sánchez
            • Antonio Sánchez
            • RC Jenkins


              Do you know the difference between the “square” that WestEndPhoto referred to and the “circle” that you referred to?


            • Antonio Sánchez

              WestEndFoto wanted to shoot 24×36, 30×30 and 36×24, and he does not need a 36×36 square sensor to do that, a circular one is enough.

              I was giving a solution to WestEndFoto requirements with the constrains of this rumored Z-Mount.

            • RC Jenkins

              Again, scroll up & read what you wrote. That’s not at all what you said in response to my suggestion.

              You seem to be incapable of understanding that I was offering a different suggestion that can not be met by a square 36×36 sensor, even though you suggested that it can be.


              …so then you “clarified” a 51mm-diameter sensor, which is larger than the mount. And of course, with your larger-than-mount sensor, you end up with a very (very!) expensive sensor.

            • Antonio Sánchez

              Oh, well, sorry… I was never talking about your suggestion, but only about WestEndFoto’s.

            • RC Jenkins

              …and so this is why you replied to my suggestion (rather than WestEndFoto’s), and agreed with WestEndFoto’s suggestion of a square sensor, by suggesting a circular sensor?

              umm…yeah…that makes sense…

            • Antonio Sánchez

              No, I replied to you because it is you the one who said that it wouldnt fit, and I wanted to say that a circular sensor would fit and would meet the requirements of WestEndFoto. There are some similar sensors in smartphones, like the nokia 1020, that offer different aspect ratios (although not to the point of taking a vertical picture)

            • RC Jenkins

              You may have a reading disability. What I said was that it wouldn’t fit within the diameter of the mount:


              This is literally the first thing I said, and I said it very clearly.

              Of course a circular sensor will fit the mount if the circle diameter is large enough & equal to the diagonal of the square. That’s sort of obvious, since it’s the definition of “circumscribe.

              But you’ll note (once again) that the diagonal = 51mm, while the mount = 49mm. 51 > 49. Which is what I said. And this is what you didn’t seem to understand.

              Next time, I’d recommend reading beyond the headline & checking your maths before responding with snarky comments and posting diagrams that only prove that you have a reading disability or inadequate maths skills. You may save us all some headaches.

            • Antonio Sánchez

              I really dont understand why you are so condescending.

              WestEndFoto wants a sensor that can be cropped to 36×24, 30×30 and 24×36. A 36×36 sensor can be cropped to those sizes, but does not fit. A circular sensor can be cropped to those sizes and does fit.

              I am truly at a loss. I am not sure what is the problem.

            • Antonio Sánchez

              Maybe you were reading 36×36 each time I (and WestEndFoto) wrote 30×30?

            • RC Jenkins

              You responded incorrectly to my suggestion, and I’m condescending? Pot, meet kettle.

              I was making a different suggestion that your reply to me didn’t respond to, and you admitted that you didn’t read the response.

              Give it a rest, and I will too.

            • Antonio Sánchez

              I read your response, I was just playing nice and say it was a miscommunication, so we could end the conversation on a positive note. However, you keep insulting me, as you have done in your very first answer to my suggestion.

              I am truly puzzled. I stand by every one of my words.

              And seriously, your 16:9 sensor suggestion was nice and all, but I dont have anything to say about it that adds to the conversation. I did have something to say about your reply regarding if WestEndFoto’s sensor would fit or not, and that’s it.

            • Ben Cushwa

              From the standpoint of eliminating the need to swap between shooting horizontal or vertical and capturing the most light reaching the image plane, I can see the appeal of a square (or round) sensor. (Issues with sensor/mount dimensions aside.)

              From the standpoint of best matching the sensor to the available displays, the panoramic sensor does make good sense. (Many 5:4 purists will scoff at this, but they probably already scoff at 3:2 sensors, so whatever.)

              Both sets of options present issues with existing Full Frame glass not being optimized for either, so both could suffer performance issues in the corners in some cases.

              If Nikon deviates from the traditional Full Frame sensor, it will have to balance light-gathering efficiency, commonality with existing displays,
              and backwards compatibility with existing glass.

              I’m really curious to see what they come up with.

              (I’m not replying to any comment in particular, I just saw this exchange and thought the design ideas were interesting.)

        • Note that I said, 30 by 30.

          Also note that 30 by 30 is roughly the same area, and therefore resolution, as 24 by 36.

          • RC Jenkins

            That’s fair. As I mentioned, I’d personally prefer a 16×9 8k native (which scales perfectly down to 4k, 1080p, etc.), with a 24×24 max square crop.

            This would result in a roughly 18MP square image, which I think is sufficient for most square applications I’ve seen… 🙂

            • I see 16 by 9 as a common video ratio.

              In still photography 99% of my shots are 1:1, 4:5, 2:3, or 1:2.

              But the classic 35mm 2:3 aspect ratio is throwing away a significant portion of the image circle. Hard to fix with a SLR, but if it is not fixed with mirrorless, then the only reason it is not being done is cultural inertia.

              Note that this does not take anything away from anybody that shoots in 16:9, while it gives to others.

            • RC Jenkins

              16×9 was a compromise between 4:3 (television) & 2.35:1 (cinema); and you may see it common in video because it’s pretty much the de facto standard today for most display devices. This includes tvs, monitors, phones, etc. And this is where most photography is consumed today, and where it will continue for many years. So that’s why I’d suggest a native 16×9 ratio, that maximizes resolution for the display devices we commonly use.

              All non-circular ratios throw away a significant portion of the image circle, including square. 🙂

              The same argument could be made that 16:9 does not take anything away from anybody that shoots in square, but gives it to others. And it’s also not done today due to cultural inertia.

            • Thanks for the education. I haven’t owned a TV since the early 90’s, so I am largely ignorant of this.

              Yes, even a square throws away space. Just make it big enough not to, but then you have unused sensor. Cost vs benefit…..

              Nikon should just make a firmware update to add more aspect ratios, but does it really matter? When I bought my D800 I defaulted it to 4:5. There was the occasional time that I regretted the loss of flexibility, so now I have it set to the entire sensor, though often in my head I am composing a 4:5 or square aspect ratio.

            • RC Jenkins

              The good thing is: No matter what the sensor size or shape, an EVF will allow users to see the frame in any aspect ratio. Square, 4:3, 16×9, 2.35:1, etc.

              The question is just in area, resolution, and pixel density. And these will be subjective–everyone will have different requirements.

              Which brings up another point: the other interesting part of mirrorless is that Nikon can easily produce multiple sensor sizes without having to re-engineer complex parts like the mirror & VF assembly. There may be some minor engineering like heatsinks; but overall, this is much simpler to do than on a DSLR.

              So maybe (and hopefully), we’ll see multiple sensor sizes, aspect ratios, and resolutions. 🙂

            • Are you proposing actual physical sensors, or just the ability to select different sensor sizes from the same sensor, selected electronically?

            • RC Jenkins

              Both. I think Nikon can & should offer a handful of different physical sensors (obviously, in different models)–especially earlier on, as they assess their buyers. Similar to FX vs DX today–because the sensor is a significant expense. Some people will want an APS-C; some will pay a bit more for full-frame; some will pay a bit more for 16×9; and some will pay more for square. Some will pay for IBIS, some won’t. etc. Who knows? Some people may even want a cheaper 1″ sensor again–but on this new mount.

              That’s the physical sensor part. Regardless of model, I think Nikon should offer a number of different cropping methods–and potentially even offer custom cropping modes, that will be reflected in the viewfinder. This is more software than anything.

            • Hmmm…..perhaps a 3:2, 1:1. Then maybe a colour, black and white and astro.

            • RC Jenkins

              Goes back to the earlier point: I’m not buying that. I’m especially not spending several thousand to buy a sensor that I won’t use most of for most shots.

              I (and most people) are displaying & viewing most shots at high resolution on 16×9 displays, except instagram (1MP square) or square prints–which are significantly smaller than my wide prints. So in the sensor I proposed, I’ve got over 18MP in an area larger than DX square–plenty for display. For larger prints, displays, and screens (including the computer I’m typing this on), I want 16×9 to be the highest quality possible.

              Therefore, I strongly prefer a 16×9 sensor.

            • What do you think costs more? Unused image circle or unused monitor space?

            • RC Jenkins

              Not sure I understand the question or how it relates to what I wrote.

              Sensors are expensive. Very expensive. And a 36mm square sensor will probably be double or more the price of a standard full-frame sensor. Sensor prices do not increase linearly with area.

              So if you’re asking me if I’d spend thousands on a square sensor to always crop down to about 80% of the image (36×24 or 30 square), I’d say no.

              I’d much rather use 100% of a camera that probably costs less.

            • Well, think of it this way. If you have a 16:9 sensor and want to compose a square image, you are going to be utilizing less than half of the image circle (I am too lazy to do the actual calc) and your resolution will be much less than composing a square image on a square sensor. I spent all that money on a full frame camera and I am only using half the image circle, I may as well have bought a DX camera with a DX sensor.

            • RC Jenkins

              You’re stuck in a circular argument.

              Refer to my earlier posts, and you’ll see that any time your sensor & display don’t have the same aspect ratio, you’re cropping or scaling one or the other. The question is just which one do you want to give priority in when it comes to image quality.

              For me, I know that 16×9 displays exist in 8k, 4k, etc.–and that people use them all the time. You probably have one in your computer or phone.

              I also know that I print out massive landscapes wide–sometimes several meters wide for panoramas.

              What I (and many others) don’t do often is purchase high resolution square monitors or print out square images large. The most common square application I know of is instagram, which is 1 megapixel images.

              So you’re stuck in a circular argument here. You’re arguing that somehow square format is “correct,” when it’s not. My argument is just that 16×9 is a more common display format, and it is.

        • EnPassant

          A 36x36mm sensor would fit very well as it would be used as a multi aspect sensor (In similar way to Panasonic LX100 not using the entire sensor area.) just as WestEndPhoto describes.
          Meaning the corners of the sensor would mostly never be used as they anyway would be on the outside of the image circle of many current 35mm lenses. And although some lenses have enough projection for a 36mm sensor the optical quality of the area outside the projection circle of the 35mm format is usually weaker.

          The fact that we had both M42 and LTM39 mounts for the 36x24mm format proves the mount diameter doesn’t have to be bigger than the diameter of the film or sensor area. The reason is that the light rays are not moving straight from the rear lens to the sensor, except in the middle, but at an angle.

          The reasons we propably sadly not will see a 36x36mm sensor are firstly no suchs sensors are being made for cameras. And secondly, even if such a size could be ordered cost would be much higher than for a standard 36x24mm.
          Also a 36x36mm sensor would leave less place for contacts.

      • All I want is a sensor big enough to cover the entire image circle. Then I can hold in landscape mode and switch to portrait just by flicking a switch. That would save the weight, cost and complexity of a battery grip and improve ergonomics.

        Nikon could do that with any mirrorless system with, say, the top end, if they are too chicken to go all in.

        Hmmmm……..if they also gave me focus points across the frame, I just might start drinking this mirrorless kook-aid.

        • Allen_Wentz

          That would be sweet, but uber-expensive sensor real estate cost goes up exponentially as sensor size increases.

          I suppose the image itself could be rotated optically before it got to the sensor, but that too would add weight, complexity and cost. Perhaps feasible, but only at the big heavy end of MILC. In any event I do not see anyone buying oversize sensors just to allow a portrait/landscape switch.


      NOPE! I strongly believe that battery life is one area where Nikon needs to put Sony to shame. They’ve already lost some of the “oomph” since Sony is starting to phase out that stupid NP-FW50 battery that is practically useless, in favor of the new A9 / A7R3 battery, but Nikon still has a chance to do something even more impressive.

      Simply put, Nikon needs an incredible battery system that offers equal, or better, life compared to their DSLRs. I would rather have this, and have the camera be as heavy as a D750, or even a D850, than have an A7-size camera body, and have to cram my pockets full of 5+ spare batteries.

      Nikon, aim for 3000 mAh @ 7.5V!

    • Allen_Wentz

      Sure, and I would much rather have world peace and a different POTUS; but camera bodies vary greatly in size, layout and power requirements. Personally I _strongly_ want Nikon to continue optimizing for performance rather than for the convenience of force-fitting identical batteries or cards across different bodies.

      • animalsbybarry

        But a battery is a battery and changing the size of the battery in no way helps the performance of the camera

        Current Nikon cameras take an EN-EL15 battery
        This is a fairly large battery , and certainly a mirrorless camera should not have a smaller battery
        On the flip side a bigger battery means a bigger camera so many people would not want the camera to take a larger EN-EL18 battery
        Current Nikon cameras accept the EN-EL15, 8 AAs, or EN-EL18 battery in the battery grip.

        Again there is absolutely no advantage to changing the battery size Nikon currently use except to force buyers to waste money replacing thier current fully functional Nikon batteries with new batteries that do exactly the same thing the old ones do

        Nikon will already face an uphill mirrorless battle to get people to choose/replace a brand new Nikon Mirrorless system over the much more established Sony system

        It certainly does not make sense to require Nikon users to replace thier batteries for no good reason, and is very likely to discourage some people from buying the the new Nikon Mirrorless

        • Allen_Wentz

          You said “…changing the size of the battery in no way helps the performance of the camera” but that is flat wrong.

          Changing the battery allows changes in size, number of frames shot on a charge, frame rate, etc. All those things impact design engineering performance of a body.

          One simple example is to look at D850 only getting to 9 fps by changing the battery.

  • Tom Taubert

    Everybody loves connecting USB type devices. Therefore, I propose that the Z mount use a USB on the lens and flange. Maybe more than one.

  • RC Jenkins

    Good luck in your quest to determine if the chicken or egg came first…

    …and which is more important to a world that consumes both.

  • Gosh1

    Really hope Nikon do not lose the plot with this mirrorless Dm1. Full compatibility with FX lenses is essential – at NO extra cost or delays (there be very harsh lessons on this for Hasselblad with their X1D and H lenses etc). Picking up on key themes raised in insightful comments below…

    >> With the diversity of legacy Nikkors, an AI coupling in vital (as in Nikon Df) optional F-mount adaptor could house the AF-D motor in situ.
    There are too many excellent AFD lenses out there – a vast population – to drop this Nikkor format e.g. 85 f1.4D, the 70-180 AFD Micro etc

    >> Full frame is obviously essential – even better a 1:1 sensor based on the BSI sensor in the D850 but 36 x 36 of ~50mp. This should fit within the 49mm mount, but allow toggling among formats (as I do with D850)

    >> 36 x 36 square ~50mp will allow simple in camera cropping to DX, so leveraging on DX Crop factor; a major factor underscoring the tele –
    reach of new lighter telephotos. It is exemplified in the reach of the 300 f4E PF on the D810 and especially the D850.

    >> AFS performance delivers fully – modes, speed, lock on et al at the standard of the D5 / D500 / D850 triad

    >> In built VR on the sensor. Now this would be a boon for shooting MF Nikon Fit glass 🙂

    >> In built capacity for pro continuous shooting – supplement the supplement the MB-15b with a long and slim MB-18 type battery in a 2nd slot. Mirrorless being power hungry…. Nikon’s Dm1 needs 3000 mAh

    >> Ergonomics that borrow heavily on control layout from the winning triad of the D5 – D500 – D850

    • Gosh1

      >> Let there be a consumer boycott unless there is a bundled F-mount adaptor at first RELEASE of the Dm1

      • Allen_Wentz

        I agree with many of your comments, except that IMO adapters should not be “bundled.” Bundled just means included in the sticker price, and not every user needs every adapter or even _any_ adapter. Better to have a lower base price and a top quality separately-paid-for adapter for those folks who intend adapted usages.

        • Gosh1

          Increasing the cost to buy back Nikkor compatibility with this Dm1 will likely raise a storm of ire among those of us –
          (1) who have supported Nikon for decades invested in AIS and older glass
          (2) returning or new Nikon users

          A swelling portion of younger photographers are attracted to the retro aspects unique to classic Nikon glass – and so many legacy lenses enable emerging photographers to build a system at a fraction of the costs of new glass.

          The bundled F-adapter should at minimum couple with AI, G as well as the newer E lenses. Perhaps given the challenges, compatibility with AF-D lenses is likely an add on

          ALL considered, especially what’s at stake, Nikon should give these adapters away. Compatibility of its F-mount with 5+ decades of glass that underscoring the company’s prestigious history is their sine qua non.

          • Allen_Wentz

            I STRONGLY disagree. No way every buyer should be forced into paying for the cost of an F adapter.
            A) From the buyers’ standpoint many folks just want a MILC with MILC lens(es).
            B) From Nikon’s standpoint raising the sticker price shifts the supply/demand interaction point to sell less bodies.

            Look at all the folks here like me who were looking to buy a DL or two. None of us were predicating our planned purchases on sticking old clunky F glass on a small new body.

            The group of Mikon dweebs who frequent this site are not representative of Nikon’s overall MILC buyers, but we probably are somewhat representative of Nikon photogs who will buy MILC and add F glass. And many of us intended to buy DL.

            • HD10

              Selling an optional bundle combining the F-mount adapter with a Z-mount camera (at a lower cost) as an option rather than making it mandatory will be a win-win setup for both the buyer and for Nikon.

            • Gosh1

              An option. A great deal hinges here on how Nikon market and price the bundled camera and core accessories.
              Separating the high costs of the MD-18 grip and performance costs for 9 fps from the D850 was not their wisest tactic. Ditto the crazy cost of the hood for the new 180-400 f4. Antagonizes customers for some cash profit

            • HD10

              Some possible bundles:

              Z-mount camera

              Z-mount camera with kit lens
              Z-mount camera with premium lens
              Z-mount camera with premium lens set

              Z-mount camera, kit lens, F-mount adapter
              Z-mount camera, premium lens, F-mount adapter
              Z-mount camera, premium lens set, F-mount adapter

            • RC Jenkins

              Agreed with some of these bundles, but I see nothing wrong with an initial promotion for a “free adapter” for the initial sales. This will reduce sales friction, which is very important in launching a new platform to an audience that is largely incumbent with F-glass.

              Nikon needs to sell as many of these mirrorless cameras, as fast as they can. This is strategically more important than short-term profits. After establishing a base, they can worry about margins.

              Conceptually, like this:

            • HD10

              Certainly! Moreover, that will make Nikon’s attraction to its current Nikkor owners much more sticky than Sony could not even dream of.

              But much will depend on the capabilities and quality of the adapter … and to a lesser but also important extent, on price. For this reason, I hope that Nikon is seriously considering (if it has not yet made these) making three types of adapter differentiated in capabilities, weather sealing, ruggedness. A single do-it-all adapter will always be deficient in some of the metrics it will be measured against … performance, ruggedness, price, etc.

            • Gosh1

              Yes! Let’s hope Nikon have learnt important lessons. Whilst they are chasing profits on premium high end products, turnover volume is critical given their competition and the imperative of attracting new customers

            • Allen_Wentz

              Given the nature of well-designed new tech products (e.g. iPhones, D850, etc.) initial promotions such as “free adapter” to sell more bodies makes no sense, because initial supply of bodies is likely to be in short supply anyway. The nature of the tech device beast.

            • RC Jenkins

              This is a completely different scenario than iPhones & D850. This is not a self-contained unit; nor is this a product for an established base. This is a new, untested premium platform that requires many external components for a base that doesn’t exist. It’s also assuming short supply and that this will react like any other ‘tech product’, neither of which may be the case.

              Nikon arguably could have done much better with cameras like the 1-series, DX, etc. which were also well-designed tech products. Yet they lost 1’s due to high prices and poor lens selection; and lost the APS-C battle for similar reasons.

              The key is in building market share fast on a platform. That means pulling out all the stops initially.

            • Gosh1

              Agree fully on both suites of bundles 🙂

            • HD10

              Re D850, despite the MD-18 and battery cover being in short supply, Nikon would have done far better in sales to sell a D850 bundle as follows:

              Nikon D850

              Nikon D850 + MB-D18

              Nikon D9850 + MB-D18 plus cover for EN-EL18

              Nikon D850 + MB-D18 plus cover for EN-EL18
              EN-EL18b battery, EN-EL18b charger

              MB-D18 plus cover for EN-EL18 battery
              EN-EL18b battery, EN-EL18b charger


            • Allen_Wentz

              Again, we disagree. Your suggestion to _include_ “the high costs of the MD-18 grip and performance costs for 9 fps” with the D850 would be nuts, for the reasons I listed above.

              I for one do _not_ want a kludgy grip on the D850 just to pick up 2 fps and go from 1,000 captures per charge to 3,000 captures per charge while adding size and weight. I like the D2-3-4-5 body ergonomics, but not the ersatz kludge that add-on grips present.

            • Gosh1

              Heterogeneity of the Nikon customer base is another of its strengths – to be respected even if it part may appear to the unfamiliar as so much “old clunky F glass”. Judging by the 100th year anniversary blurbs, Nikon are wise enough to respect the diversity in buyers’ wants…They appear to rank the legacy of their F-mount highly. And for sound reasons

              The D850 exemplifies a winning package –
              unmatched – qualifying for an range of genres. Remarkable value at its price for what one buys in a single camera.

              A FF Dm1 will be judged by how well it meets this precedent in compatibility with the Greater Nikon Ecosystem. And many users are indeed very happy buying into just its smaller aspects.

            • Allen_Wentz

              F glass has been my sole kit since the 1970s, so I consider myself familiar enough with it to categorize much as “old clunky F glass” as regards building a new MILC system. Some lenses simply _are_ “old clunky F glass,” like my 300mm f/4D at 1440 g – – while the newer 300mm f/4E weighs only 755 g and has VR.

              All F lenses and bodies already do not play well together. Interaction among bodies and lenses is a mish-mash in many different ways. Adapting F lenses to a new mount will be very complex, enough so that suggestions to simply throw in a “bundled F-mount adaptor” are just wrong.

              Some existing lens/body conflicts are subtle, like reduced AF speed with certain lens/body combinations. Others are more dramatic, like Nikon listing my D3 as incompatible with my 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6E VR (I find it works OK because I use backfocus).

            • Gosh1

              Good points. The AFD line up, especially, has its stars and laggards. The optics of the first medium range zooms like the first 24-120 AFD and 28-200 AFD no longer make the grade.
              The slow AF on my 70-180 Micro is a case in point but this remains one of my favourite lenses!
              Many of the smaller lighter MF primes are excellent – especially shut down below f5.6. Notably the 20 f4AI and 105s. But using these MF lenses on Mirrorless with a F-adapter should involve few if any problems

  • HD10

    Perhaps a pipe dream … but consider this.

    Nikon makes an adapter that would feature a 0.7x focal length reduction and add one-stop when mounting an FX lens on an APS-C Z-mount mirrorless body. This can be quite useful for some applications.

    An example: FX Nikkor 85mm f/1.8 mounted on an APS-C Z-mount. Full AF and electronic functionalities. With the 0.7 reducer, FOV remains at 85mm but effective aperture is now f/1.2. The resulting combo is still small and compact, inexpensive but very potent combo at an affordable price (compared to a dedicated f/1.2 lens).

    • RC Jenkins

      Here is a link to my earlier post buried further in the comments:

      Where I describe just a few features I could think of that Nikon could include in an adapter, including:

      ::Teleconversion / Reduction
      ::Rear drop-in filter

      They could also add an electronic mechanism to move the lens closer or further for autofocus of manual focus lenses. And there’s a number of other features they could build into an adapter.

      • HD10


        Specifically, my Nikkor 19mm f/4 PC while good is still not wide enough for some use. Giving the Nikkor 14-24mm f/2.8 some ability to shift while retaining the same FOV and be one-stop faster would be quite exciting.

  • jimh

    If they’re abandoning apsc, I can just forget about Nikon fof good. Sad.

    • HD10

      Nothing to indicate that.

    • Who said they are abandoning APS-C? They can easily fit APS-C sensor in this mount just like Sony and Leica.

    • Allen_Wentz

      D500, clearly the best APS-C body made today, proves Nikon is NOT abandoning APS-C.

      If Nikon does not initially include APS-C size in its new MILC, so what?

  • Gosh1

    With kudos to the featured comment of hje 🙂 And N-Mount is a better appellation than Z-mount!

    Last year I considered a Nikon 1 system very seriously (for its compactness) but the dropping of compatibility of the V5 with FF telephotos killed that interest cold. I decided to Wait & See what delivers in FF mirrorless.

    I also budgeted out a Hasselblad X1D system to grow over time, but soon I came to see this excellent camera as a prototype of the MF future. Albeit, currently, much of the Medium Format specs are overlapped by the high-res FX D850. Besides the massive cost, the delays in X1D compatibility with the ‘blad Ecosystem and bugs in the X1D etc underscored apprehension among many potential ‘blad customers…

    These possible scenarios for Nikon remain credible

    That Nikon releases more than one model of Mirrorless Camera makes sense to meet different market niches. Compatibility with F-mount lenses supporting fast AF is a given. While a FF N-Mount Dm1 makes sense, its lenses will only sell if available and affordable on release.

    Even with the option, a large portion of the Nikon customer base will deign to invest in N-mount lenses that cannot be used on a DSLR. Millions have committed to the Greater Nikon Ecosystem, and it is hard to see the new Nikon customer ignoring even the new F-mount lenses to only buying N-mount lenses.

  • Vinnypimages

    Elsewhere they are reporting that Sigma will announce lenses for the Nikon FF Mirrorless mount at CP+ in March.

    • I do not trust a word coming from this place.

  • I have reported that several times last year:

    I still have nothing concrete to confirm if this will be the case.

  • Back to top