A quick update on the rumored Nikon full-frame mirrorless camera Z-mount

A quick update on my last post about the rumored new full-frame mirrorless Z-mount from Nikon: the measurements I reported caused some confusion in the comments section - my understanding is that the external diameter of 49mm is the actual mount opening, the entire external diameter of the mount is going to be 65.4mm (just received this update):

  • Mount diameter (opening): 49mm
  • Total diameter of mount: 65.4mm
  • Flange focal distance: 16mm

The top graph by Eric Calabros shows a comparison between Nikon Z-mount and Sony E-mount: the Z-mount has more than 6 degrees advantage over E-mount (important for wide angle and fast lenses).

This entry was posted in Nikon Mirrorless Camera and tagged , , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Farhad H.

    Anyone knows/guestimates how that 6 degrees convert to the maximum lens speed?

    • RC Jenkins

      Depends on so many factors. It’s not just about speed.

      • El Aura

        Exactly, the Leica M mount has an ‘opening angle’ of 19.8º and yet has f/0.95 lenses.

        (Using the same definition of ‘opening angle’ as the sketch above.)

        • Eric Calabros

          You can make f/0.95 lens for large-flange EF mount too. But optics are always about compromises. If you had some flexibility somewhere, even a little bit, you can concentrate more on somewhere else to make it “overally” a better lens.

    • Bohemian Rhapsody

      If only it was as simple as that…

      • Farhad H.

        I know it’s not that simple, and that’s why I asked about a guestimate. Just can we guess a f/0.9 is possible for example?
        Not that I’m interested in such a lense, but to imagine what potential Nikon may bring to the market.

        • By comperisone if you can mount a voigtlander 50mm 1.1 to Sony e mount that means that probebly similare parameters will be posible in z mount

        • RC Jenkins

          F/0.9 at what focal length?

          • Farhad H.

            You’re right. I should have added the typical 50mm.

        • Aldo

          Except they already patented variable aperture zooms 2.8-4… throwing this advantage in the trash

          • Eric Calabros

            What you expect for a kit or entry level zoom? 24-70 f/1.2?

            • Aldo

              It makes no sense. They are crippling the lens on purpose? Using the ‘pro’ focal length? 16-80 2.8-4 seems a better ‘kit’ lense and it’s dx… If this mount indeed yields more light… it is simply not being reflected by those lenses kit lens or not

            • Eric Calabros

              The purpose is making it compact and affordable. There is nothing called “pro focal length”. Sony made a 24-70 lens thats is only f/4.

          • Wait, so a patent for a variable aperture zoom implies they will only ever make such (variable aperture) lenses? Confused.

        • RC Jenkins

          The F-number alone has very little to do with the physical dimensions.

          10mm F/0.9 has an 11mm aperture.
          100mm F/0.9 has a 111mm aperture.

          But do you think that we’ll see a 10mm F/0.9 lens, even though it’s aperture is MUCH smaller?

          Optics can be added anywhere in front of the mount to make light ‘fit’ within the mount.

          This is why focal lengths ranges also matter–combined with the flange distance & apertures / throat, they’ll determine the design.

          • Spy Black

            If in ~1960, we could have a 50mm f/0.95, I think there are several lens makers now in 2018 with the expertise to design such a 10mm. Once I would’ve rested such responsibility on Nikon or Canon, but today we’ve seen what the likes of Sigma, Tamron, Tokina, Samyang, and the up and coming Chinese optical designers have accomplished. There’s a lot of creative minds in that pool.

            • RC Jenkins

              The point was that asking if this mount supports F/0.9 is not a sensible question.

            • PhilK

              It’s not actually much of a challenge to produce a very very fast lens – you just put big pieces of glass in there and a large diaphragm, basically.

              The real challenge is producing an extremely fast lens that actually has good optical performance.

              Those are relative rarities (and tend to be very very expensive), and benefit from a larger mount in order to not have to make a lot of optical compromises. (eg, excessive vignetting)

            • Spy Black

              That’s my point indirectly. It’s 2018, and there’s a lot of lens makers today proving their mettle as to what they can produce, and pretty much all of them have been impressing quite well.

            • Marek Miszczak

              Perhaps they could, but I’m not sure if you could lift it up.

          • Farhad H.

            For sure not. What would be the use of a 10mm f/0.9?
            I meant the typical 50mm, which I guess some will have desire for.

    • How? Well it doesn’t, that’s how.

    • animalsbybarry

      The speed of a lens is determined by the maximum aperture
      The diameter of the mount does not determine the speed of the lens

      A larger mount will however allow greater lens desighn flexibility as well as more available movement for IBIS…… at this time we do not know if Nikon will incorporate IBIS and there are no rumors I am aware of that they plan to…..but if they choose to do so the mount desighn will make it easier than E mount

      • Movement range for IBIS has nothing to do with lens mount “throat” size.

        The big deal about large throat size is (a) it makes faster lens designs easier (in theory you can build a ludicrously fast lens for any mount, so long as you figure have some way to get all the light through the throat, take a look at a 10″ celestron telescope for an example) and (b) you can adapt lenses which expect smaller throats.

        The big deal about short flange distance is that (a) it determines the minimum thickness of the camera and (b) you can adapt lenses which expect larger flange distances.

        If the rumors are true then it should be possible to adapt lenses from ANY OTHER FULL FRAME MOUNT to the Nikon Z-mount since it has a shorter flange and a bigger throat than any rival. Nikon has long suffered from having the oldest SLR lens mount with the narrowest throat and the longest flange distance. (And the CX mount had a narrower throat than any other lens mount except the ridiculous Pentax system with tiny sensors.) This means Nikon lenses could be adapted to any other mount and not vice versa. So the Nikon Z mount will, out of the gate, be able to use any lens with a full frame imaging circle via an adapter. This is huge.

        • I am sure that Nikon will be excited about selling Sony lenses.

          • dave

            Enabling Sony lenses is a good trade for some mirrorless patent from them, which will help to push out the Nikon ff mirrorless much sooner.

            • Davo

              Which mirrorless patents would that be?

          • Andrew

            Nikon’s new Z-mount for its mirrorless cameras mean that Nikon can use its DSLR cameras to hold on to its existing customers who are heavily invested in Nikon lenses and conversely use its new mirrorless cameras to capture its competitors’ customers who will be able to use their existing lenses on Nikon’s mirrorless cameras. This is a brilliant marketing master-stroke.

            But it does not end there as Nikon could then sell more lenses for its competitors’ cameras thus increasing its lens sales. This does not bode well for Canon’s camera division and third party lens manufacturers! So apparently Nikon delayed the introduction of its mirrorless cameras until its competitors had cemented their plans before launching its own. It seems as if Nikon’s management has kept something up its sleeves for quite some time. Genius!

            • Agree with your first paragraph.

              Regarding the first half of your second paragraph, I don’t see Nikon doing that.

              Not sure about the second part of your second paragraph. Is Nikon really that smart? And have they really done that? The only company that has committed to full frame mirrorless is Sony. Well, OK, Leica. Everyone else is a different format size.

          • Better folks buy Nikon bodies and Sony lenses than Sony bodies and Sony lenses, right? The general pattern is people who buy into a new mount will adapt lenses they already have and new lenses for the new mount. Being able to use adapters encourages experimentation and reduces switching costs. These two factors have ALWAYS been to nikon’s disadvantage until now.

            • Sure, but Nikon lenses with Nikon cameras is even better. One must not forget that Nikon is an optics company, perhaps more so than a camera company.

        • Then after they develop a decent selection, they can start crippling competitor lenses. If they design it correctly out of the gate.

        • roos

          Lets not forget that with a short flange comes large lenses and big adapters. Allready with its 18mm, the e-mount lenses are huge. Neither does it have an internal focus motor. No more small af-d primes.

        • Michael Kettleson

          The difference in thickness is 2mm and with the larger internal diameter it will just be possible to make a dumb adapter with no communication between lens and body due to lack of space for contacts, chips and wiring. if you have a mechanicaly focused lens you will be able to use it, However many mirrorless lenses focus by wire, so they will fit, but turn the focus ring and nothing will happen

          • Eric Calabros

            Depends on where Nikon put the contact pins.

          • 2mm is plenty to run wiring through if you know what you’re doing.

            • Michael Kettleson

              I have thought further on the matter and the wiring will not need to pass through the 2mm flange, the contacts of the Sony lens are positioned inside the lens mount around 12mm off the sensor requiring a set of contacts inside the adaptor. If the z mount has similar contacts also inside the mount they could be obscured by the bottom of the adaptor, The positioning could be such that these contacts in the adaptor would foul other items in the camera body when turned to lock into place. It will not be possible to see until the new mount is relased if connectivity is possible. Dont forget in the 2mm flange you need a lens button release to remove the lens from the adaptor.

        • RC Jenkins

          Not always “nothing to do,” but “less to do than most people think” and “in conjunction with other aspects.” It boils down to what the bottleneck for the specific scenario is.

          The image circle is the important bit, but this can be constrained in certain cases–especially when most digital sensors expect light to hit relatively perpendicularly. For example, a D850 has a pixel pitch of roughly 4.35 μm–but with a 2mm stack of filters in front of the pixel–but part of that stack is a microlens array…

          One can’t reasonably expect good image quality with a fast 50mm lens on a FF sensor that moves 50% off center, with a 44mm throat & 45mm flange distance.

          Make that a 60mm throat and 20mm flange distance, and you open things up a bit for your lens design to project a larger image circle with reasonable image quality beyond the corners of the sensor.

          Things get complicated fast, so there really isn’t a ‘one size fits all’ rule for where the bottleneck is. 🙂

          • No, it literally has nothing to do. You could build a camera with a tiny throat and stick the sensor on rails that go a mile in any direction. This is just common sense. The sensor movement has literally nothing to do with the throat size. It’s like arguing that if you have small windows you have to have a low ceiling. It’s simoly not related.

            • RC Jenkins

              No, that’s a poor analogy. It’s more like if you have a tiny window on the ground floor and claiming that you can see the gutters 5 stories up.

              Of course the mount doesn’t dictate distance the sensor can move; but it absolutely dictates the distance the sensor can move…
              …while being in the area of the image circle projected by the sensor. This is sort of important in an imaging device that has a primary purpose of recording the image projected by the lens. This is common sense.

            • In practice, sensor travel is minuscule and this is a pointless observation.

        • PhilK

          As I recall, the internal diameter of the original Canon EF mount is 54mm.

          So I’m not convinced you can adapt “any” FF lens to a mount with a 49mm internal diameter.

          • Eric Calabros

            So how Canon users are adapting their full frame lenses to their M5? 🙂

            • PhilK

              What is the internal diameter of the EF-M mount?

              Perhaps some EF lenses are specified as not compatible with the adapter. (Eg, fast lenses with a very large rear element)

              Or perhaps some combos result in vignetting – which of course could be acceptable if the camera has a smaller – eg APS-C – sensor.

            • neonspark

              47mm and a distance of 18mm. you only need 54mm if you keep the EF mount distance. For the mirrorless cameras, given you’re closer to the sensor, the mount can be smaller.

              Hence why it is pretty much a given canon will not end up with 3 mounts: EF, EF-M, EF-MF

              That would be a DISASTER for canon fragmenting their lens division while nikon/sony power with just one mount. What canon is rumored to do is just switch to EF-M going forward for all lenses, like nikon/sony have.

              Alternatively they may keep their EF mount with the old film day distances and diameters and give the compact market to nikon/sony and hope the two do not develop large cameras in the future more suited to high end shooters with the new mount.

              Clearly canon messed up with the EF-M mount if they don’t plan to support mirrorless full frame. However the chances of that are small given they are probably in a worse position dividing their support among so many lens mounts specs.

              It could very well be the end of canon if their inability to break free of the old EF mount continues. Ironic given nikon lost the market to canon because they refused to give up the F-mount under the pretense: we gotta stick with our old-school lens owners. We all know how that worked out for nikon and how canon basically leveraged the new mount to their dominance. Likewise, nikon/sony will leverage their new modern mirrorless age mounts against canon should canon stick it with EF.

          • neonspark

            people adapt canon lenses to sony’s 46mm mount all the time.

            • Michael Kettleson

              Thats because they have a large amount of space between the two mounts about 24mm which means the two different mounting surfaces do not interfere with each other.

            • neonspark

              yes, but I was answering a statement that bet you cannot mount a FF lens to a 46mm mount. Clearly we do this all the time. As to why, or how, that is irrelevant to the statement in question that just because the EF mount is 54mm, the corresponding mount for mirrorless MUST be 54mm. But we already knew this: the F mount is just 44mm and it is full frame.

            • Michael Kettleson

              The corrosponding dimension of the Nikon f mount to Sony’s 46.1 is 46.5mm, and Sony has a corrosponding size of approx 43-44mm which matches the Nikon dimansion of 44mm. Yes Canon Pentax and Sony A mounts will be able to mount on any new Nikon mount but other mirrorless lenses may have difficulty or only a dumb adaptor without contacts due to size restrictions of one mount inside another so if requiring power to focus you wont be able to focus them with either af or manually.

          • Actually the adapter has so much flange distance to play with that’s not going to be problem.

    • Bob Newman

      Those 6 degrees are meaningless. The diagrams don’t illustrate anything useful.

  • onlymostlydead

    /crosses fingers/
    Please don’t be a little plastic brick that’s impossible to hold… please don’t be a little plastic brick that’s impossible to hold…

    • Hans J

      hmm I want a plastic brick that’s impossible to hold ha!

    • … and please don’t end up like the Nikon DL, please don’t end up like the Nikon DL…

    • neonspark

      The part that holds the lens mount has nothing to do with the size of the mount. Nikon can easily make a D5-like body with this new mount with the standard “huge ass” grips you’re used to. The lens will just mount closer to the sensor and you will not have the mirror and penta-prism box off course, but the ergonomics will be identical for the mass savings aren’t that drastic to change the center of mass siginficantly in all but the lightest lenses.

      Consider a hefty telephoto. Most of the mass and torque vectors will be similar under both mounts relative to the size of the lens. The grip of the camera can trivially be made the same. The adapter, plus the Z mount will not change the weight distribution or handling of such apparatus in any significant way.

      you can off course end up with tiny-hands camera and a huge telephoto. But nothing forces nikon to go this way. A huge D5 mirrorless camera is bound to happen. It likely hasn’t happened because nikon didn’t have a mount for it.

      • RC Jenkins

        Just a further point: The center of mass in many cases can actually be closer to the rear of the camera than on a comparable DSLR, which is largely empty (and light) in the mirror box.

        A lens mounts further forward on F-mount vs. Z-mount, assuming the optical design of the Z-mount lens can take advantage of this reduced flange distance. Adapted F-mount lenses will have a very similar center of mass to DSLR counterparts however.

  • Jim Kiefer

    so this means the max wide angle can be wider?

    • I am not an expert, but yes – I think so. I am sure other readers with more knowledge than me will chime in

      • Spy Black

        Am I reading this incorrectly, or is the proposed flange insanely wide? If the outside diameter is 65.4 mm and the opening is 49, doesn’t that make that flange over 1/2 inch wide?

        • Yes, this is weird – not sure why it is so wide.

        • Maybe it has got something to do with the adaptor . Probably a motor within or sturdiness to support long lenses?

        • Dmitry Anisimov

          it’s only ~5mm wider than F-mount

        • RC Jenkins

          Don’t forget to divide the difference by 2. If you are measuring the outer vs. inner, the flange is present twice during that measurement.

          • Spy Black

            Ah, right. I figured I was looking at this wrong somehow.

            • Azmodan

              You would have been right if the figures were radii, but since they are diameter, the actual thickness is

              (65.4-49)/2 = 8.2mm.

    • RC Jenkins

      Not necessarily, but perhaps in a practical sense. It really just means that Nikon can physically put glass where it couldn’t before.

      • Eric Calabros

        It means it can potentially absorb light rays that are usually blocked by boundaries of other mounts, so less bending is needed. This animation shows how extremely they have to bend it sometimes. https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/ca6ca075afd2a320764cc2c17afbfb848e6048458e58ea639d89623d9c5a3004.gif

        • Someone

          Awesome animation!!

        • RC Jenkins

          But you’ll note that the lens in that animation is not constrained by the mount or throat diameter. The elements are much smaller than the mount; and the only element(s) constrained in size would be the one(s) closest to the mount, because there’s no limit to how “fat” the lens can be.

          Also remember that ultra-wide lenses typically have tiny apertures–a 10mm F/2.8 lens would have a 3.5mm aperture. Compared to a 35mm aperture on a 50mm F/1.4.

          This is why, for example, the Sony 12-24mm isn’t drastically smaller than the Canon 11-24mm. The Canon here is also significantly wider-angle, with a deeper built-in hood:

          There are other lenses that will benefit much more from this mount.

          • Eric Calabros

            I just wanted to show what happens to light rays when they enter the lens. When sensor is as close as 16mm, the story of these rays would be much different, even for 15mm f/5.6. Unless they intentionally stick to conventional designs. See my comment above about 14-28.

            • Thom Hogan

              Given the design choices, I think we can logically conclude BSI sensor designs. FSI isn’t going to work well if they use any of that big throat.

            • Eric Calabros

              BSI is certainly required, with thinnest AA/UV/IR stack possible. I don’t know how outer PDAF pixels are gonna work.

            • Dmitry Anisimov

              Why? With throat wider than image diagonal, they can bring chief ray angle to zero and use sensors with narrow angular response, which Sony FE doesn’t allow

            • RC Jenkins

              That would have been true 10 years ago, but now we have microlens arrays for improved angular response on any type of sensor.

              BSI will of course work better, but not due to angular response.

            • Thom Hogan

              We have offset microlenses and we have sidewalls, too. But the engineers I talk to still say that this is suboptimal to just being telecentric in the first place.

          • neonspark

            agreed. people think wide-mount = wide lens. There is plenty of room on the ass of even the sony lenses to prove that you don’t need a wide mount to make the lens wider.

            The only evidence of a wider mount helping lenses is with sub f/1.2 lenses. We all know nikon made these but cannot make them with AF under the F-mount. Under the new mount, it should be trivial for them and we know of patents for 50 f/0.95 as being possible.

            so basically the Z mount is practically future proof.

            • PhilK

              “so basically the Z mount is practically future proof”.


              “640 KB of RAM ought to be enough for anybody”.

              — Bill Gates, 1981

          • Rttskr

            RC, your post is dishonest and made to deceive.

            The physical difference between those two lenses are 50% weight reduction, and significantly smaller front element that is cheaper to manufacture.

            • RC Jenkins

              It’s not dishonest, nor is it made to deceive. What an aggressive and naive comment to make.

              Were you able to comprehend the point and context of the discussion?

              Are you claiming that the plastic Sony 12-24mm lens weighs half the metal Canon 11-24 strictly due to the optical constraints of each mount? Not the different materials, or material for a 54mm Canon mount vs. Sony’s 46mm mount, the Canon correcting for a significantly wider angle? Are you also claiming that the price difference is correlated 100% to cost?
              If you’re not claiming these things, your post must be “dishonest and made to deceive…”

              Why did Sony stop at 12mm? Why not just make it an 11-24…?

        • waterengineer

          Thank you for the GIF

        • user

          Although less bending is needed but the incident angle between light ray and the micro lens will be much higher and varies a lot from lens to lens hence a lot harder to control color spilling problem.

          • PhilK

            Good point.

  • Eleazar Liu

    Sounds like cp+ with a road map is highly likely

    • Road map would be something new for nikon.

  • Bohemian Rhapsody

    Actually the exact value of the angle of Z-mount opening is 37.99 degree …
    Her is how he calculated the angle :
    The height of full frame sensor is 24mm
    Mount diameter ( opening ) : is 49mm
    So (49mm-24mm)/2=12.5mm
    Here we can calculate the angle by tangent
    The flange distance is 16mm
    So Arctangent(12.5/16)=37.99

    • Eric Calabros

      Yea we can say its 38. I think its even higher than Leica SL mount.

    • El Aura

      While perfectly fine for comparing different mounts, the critical angle is the one for light that has to reach the point on the sensor the furthest away from its centre, ie, the corner of the sensor. For that you have to use the diagonal instead of the height of sensor in the above formula: arctan(((49-43.27)/2)/16) = 10.15º.

      • Eric Calabros

        And 4.49° for E mount.

      • Thom Hogan

        That’s too high for FSI.

        • Dmitry Anisimov

          1. it’s not
          2. if it was, you could then say that f/1.8 lens is too fast for FSI (you can’t have f/1.8 lens without incidence angle reaching 15 degrees (arctan(0.5/fnumber) )

  • Daniel V

    Hopefully they don’t mess up this time for the video if else I will have to at least by a gh5s. I mean they are so close, is that hard for example to have put 10 bit and a log profile in the D850. You image the news arround the industry… wow have you heard about the new Imax size Nikon d850 with 10 bit and 14.5 stops of Dynamic range. Instead Nikon, was hey we have 4k, same as you can find in $ 700 camera.

    • It’s a stills targeted camera, like all Nikon’s gear. I wouldn’t expect much.

      FWIW, the D850 is exactly what a lot of us wanted, and then some. Nothing “messed up” at all.

      • Spy Black

        I wouldn’t dismiss the video capabilities that these cameras may wind up having. I think they know that at the least they need to compete with UHD full frame video capture. They may even throw some additional useful frame rates and codecs, you never know. We’ll simply have to wait and see.

        • Eric Calabros

          Every camera maker can use a modern codec these days, processors are powerful enough to encode anything to anything. The problem is these cost cutting rock stars don’t like to pay for the fairly expensive licenses to add a feature or two, that %90 of their customers never use.

          • PhilK

            I take issue with the notion that “any” camera maker can do such things.

            DSP design is a very high-end engineering task. I am fairly sure that most electronic product manufacturers (including digital camera makers) that don’t build their own imaging processors from scratch* generally use either off-the-shelf DSPs running licensed code or general-purpose media processors that already have various codecs “baked-in”, along with licensing agreements for any proprietary/patented codecs already handled by the chipmaker and passed onto the final customer in the unit chip price.

            So when a new imaging tech like UHD or h.265 comes along which requires a new processing pipeline, the vast majority of consumer product manufacturers have to wait until the electronic building-blocks for such codecs and other encoding tech are either incorporated into a dedicated chip that can be bought off the shelf, or at the very least available for licensing as firmware or microcode.

            *(Nikon Expeed is basically a standard Fujitsu DSP running partially Nikon-supplied code and stamped with Nikon branding. Nikon neither designs the basic DSP itself or produces the actual chips. Whereas companies like Sony and Panasonic do have that sort of capability)

            Which is a key reason why only a very small handful of very large companies are typically first-to-market with brand-new licensed and/or computationally complex tech like new video standards and codecs: the engineering and production requirements to produce products incorporating those things are vastly higher if you are unable or unwilling to wait until a “baked-in” implementation is available in an off-the-shelf part. (You also then have to subject yourself to all the costs and complications of engineering and debugging a bleeding-edge tech that no one has ever productized before, and this is non-trivial)

            • Daniel V

              I saw the spec from those IMAP processors like 2 years ago and it already had 10 bit video processing for example. It is just that Nikon thinks that they can sell whatever model just putting cinematography package on it. As we photographer are nitpicking about half a stop in low light and DR. They also on the video side are picky and laughing at Nikon attempt. Imagine if tomorrow Nikon sold DSLR with only jpeg, would you be happy, that’s the same thing for many videographers, because those bit would remove banding and at least a stop until raw 4k vast amount of data can be harnessed outside of movies and high end commercial.

            • PhilK

              The only thing I know of that uses the acronym “IMAP” is an email transmission/storage protocol. Perhaps you were thinking of “OMAP” – a type of media processor made by Texas Instruments. (But it hasn’t been updated since 2013)


              I love how you’ve decided you know precisely why Nikon chooses the features they choose, and how everyone seemingly is “picky and laughing” at them.

              It’s no mystery to anyone that Nikon DSLRs have generally had weak video performance and functionality. Deciding that that must be because Nikon is somehow being sneaky etc is a real leap. It’s far more likely that they just don’t care much about video (not to mention have little experience with it, despite being the first DSLR maker to incorporate it in 2008) and they’ve still managed to maintain a healthy share of the market without it.

              But times change and people expect fancier video functionality in a still camera now than they did 5 years ago, especially in a mirrorless product. I don’t doubt that if/when Nikon introduces a new mirrorless line it will improve video functionality over their DSLRs (not a hard thing to do, considering the architectural advantages of mirrorless for video), but whether or not it will please the pickiest customers is an open question that no one can know yet. We don’t even know if the product exists yet.

        • The codecs and bit rates are the big deal. Folks whine about AF, but compression artifacts are at least as important, if not more so.

          To me, full frame + 4k or higher is a red herring. The big deal about full frame is that artsy shallow depth of field. The less is in focus, the less useful that high resolution is. I think subframe will always have a place in live and event stuff, while full frame will always be for movie production.

      • The D850 still has weak live view (and hence video) AF. You might not care but it remains a weakness of the product line and limits the D850’s appeal (unnecessarily, given Nikon was first to market with on-sensor phase detect AF).

        • Semaphore

          Nikon stated they couldn’t put on sensor AF in the D850 without compromising still photo quality. If true, then given the orientation of that camera it’s the right decision, not unnecessary at all.

          • Davo

            I missed that statement. Can you point me to the source. I don’t doubt you btw, I just like seeing the original reference for context.
            But it does make sense when the D850 is marketed as the ultimate in IQ. A more generalized camera model could make that compromise.

            • PhilK

              I don’t know if Nikon specifically stated it but it is a fact of life. OSPDAF requires that some image sensor elements be partially or fully dedicated to AF purposes, and every element that cannot be used for rendering the image means that much sensor area cannot produce image data. (Or at the very least, cannot produce image data continuously, as its role is shifted back/forth from imaging to AF functions. This is what “dual pixel” means.)

            • Davo

              I’m looking for Nikon’s official position on it. Dual pixel is a Canon specific tech. Not exactly the same as how other manufacturers implement their OSPDAF which is in the microlens layer iirc.
              I’m aware that in some implementation eg. A9 that the masking can be seen in resultant images under some shooting conditions but like I was asking, Semaphore implied there was an official statement so it’d be interesting to see what it was and in what context.

            • PhilK

              I’m not saying anything about “visible masking”, I’m simply saying that if your process size is 100x (the smallest possible element that can be “printed” on the chip/sensor is 100 x some arbitrary measurement in width), where your pixels could be “100x” in width, if you then assign 25% of those patterned elements to AF tasks, that leaves only 75% for image-data-producing elements, meaning that now your minimum element width instead of being “100x”, is now up to “125x”, meaning your sensor’s image resolution is 25% lower than it would otherwise be with the same sensor fab tech.

              Or if you are multiplexing the output of a sensor element between image data and AF data, then you increase the readout time and potentially end up with time-based artifacts that wouldn’t be there if the sensor elements were dedicated to image data production.

            • Davo

              I don’t have an issue with any of what you’ve said. But I’m under the impression that the number of ‘pixels’ that are asigned for AF tasks are very small in relation to the total number of pixels. Hence from a practical POV, it might not make much difference although from an absolute POV then a sensor purported as the ultimate in IQ wouldn’t even sacrifice this.
              I’m not clear on whether these AF pixels can be used for imaging at all or whether resolution and colour info are simply interpolated from surrounding data? If so, there’s no need to switch between AF tasks or imaging tasks at all. The AF pixels simply supply AF info only.

          • That must be why Sony can’t put PDAF on its sensors… oh wait, it can.

            It compromises the quality of a handful of widely scattered pixels, so technically they’re correct but in practice it’s an excuse. Not being in focus compromises image quality too.

      • Daniel V

        This is all backward thinking, tell me how a mirror less camera will bring you more in terms of photography than a d850 – d750. What 100/200 gms will make a difference. Or do you think having a much smaller body will be better to balance with your big profit lens and I am not even talking about the dreaded ergonomics.
        As a pro photographer, I still want my d750 d800 size body that fits well in my hand and that I can access every important functions at the flip of a switch.
        But for a hybrid photo video camera, I am ready to make some sacrifice on the photo side because I already have some super camera. The truly pro video spec I listed about would really enhance my video work and expand my market. Which is not waiting for me by the way.

        • Daniel V

          The second market which would generate volume sales would be the entry level selfie and a little higher level vloggers. This should be apsc and very small factor for the selfie one with very good autofocus and even 8 bit at 400 – 600 range, at 400 can even skip 4k. Then a enthusiastic vlogger version in the 1000 1200 range with all the pro video features 10 bit etc but with apsc sensor. Both could have same sensor with very good autofocus but differentiated by 4k, 10 bit, high bitrate, log format etc.

          Not to forget, a flip screen where you can view yourself.

          • PhilK

            Honestly I think most of these vloggers should just buy a small camcorder and stop expecting a still camera to do things it is not particularly suited to do.

            A combination of small HD camcorder and inexpensive DSLR or mirrorless would probably put the performance of a Frankenstein hybrid to shame at the same price and then if one broke you still have the other one to make images with if necessary. 😉

            • Daniel V

              You are already late to the table, you already have mirorless camera that are both better and cheaper that a dslr or a camcorder from 3-5 years ago. Many phoographers stuk in the old paradigm think that camcorders they in their memory from 5-10 years ago are better at video than yesterdays miror less camera. Go and inform yourself, it is as if you are telling a photographer that getting a photo from a compact 1.2/3 sensor is the same than from an apsc or full frame camera. Hoe ridiculous you would consider that is the same to compare from normal camcorders and apsc or full frame mirroless camera.

            • PhilK

              No DSLR or mirrorless is better than a task-specific camcorder that has the controls and the viewfinder and the microphone and so on and so forth in the proper places, with the proper specs, instead of something where you have to stick a boatload of 3rd-party accessories onto it to be able to actually go out and do basic shooting.

              There is a lot more to videography than FPS and resolution specs.

    • Michael Turner

      What full frame camera has 4k for 700$?

      • Duncan Dimanche

        None 😉 the cheapest full frame 4k would be the 5dmk iv or the d850 I would assume 😉

      • Andrew

        One that is run-over 😉

      • TurtleCat

        I suspect they are thinking of smartphones.

      • Daniel V

        I was specifically talking about one feature they where braging about for their video in their DSLR, when it was already present in 700 Pana camera. I wrote something above in terms of price range and tech spec.

        • Michael Turner

          You were talking about the specs of the GH5s.
          1. It’s not even out yet.
          2. It’s micro 4/3.
          3. It’ll be 2500$, damn near the price of the D850.
          4. The D850 is full frame 4k.
          You see now that you asking Nikon to have options that either don’t even exist yet or they would’ve had to make the D850 insanely expensive to add them.
          When Nikon does offer internal 10-bit recording are you going to be like “It should have been 8K”

          • Daniel V

            The gh5s is a very niche product, more like a backup to the Panasonic EVA1. In fact it should have been cheaper than the normal gh5 as it does not have IBIS. Just look at the price in 6 month one year when they will have filled the orders from that niche market. It will be below 2k. By the way the d850 is a monster video camera with its Imax size sensor. But thats the problem with Nikon, they are so close, just this D850 comming out with 10 bit would have shaken the industry.

      • Daniel V

        I never said that, I said an entry level apsc model for selfie and vloggers, and they should do a pink version of it.

        • Michael Turner

          Oh ok, so you wanted less quality 4k than what they put in the D850. Doesn’t sound like that’s what you were saying but ok.

  • animalsbybarry

    The “ outer diameter “ of Sony E mount is 46.1mm !!
    Based on these revised specifications the “outer diameter “ of Z mount is 65.4 mm

    That means Z mount is A FULL 19.3 MM LARGER AND 2MM SHORTER THAN E MOUNT!!!!

    That is plenty of room for an E mount lens to Z mount body adapter

    I was resoundly criticized in an earlier post when I suggested that Nikon wisely made thier mount large enough that Sony lenses can be adapted to it…… if these new updated specifications are correct there can be absolutely no doubt that a fully functional adapter can be built (by a third party manufacturer !!!)

    • This can’t be, 46.1 is the “opening”, not the outside of the metal lens mount.

      • animalsbybarry

        This picture should clarify
        46.1 mm is actually the outside diameter of the E mount


        • No, that’s the inside opening 🙂

          • animalsbybarry

            You have me completely confused …..can you better explain exactly what you mean ?

            More importantly exactly how do the dimensions of the two mount compare ?

            • Wolf33d

              Are you trolling? just look at the image you posted. If you cannot understand the difference between inner and outer, even with an image, no one can better explain you.

            • El Aura

              As a rule of thumb just take whatever the opposite is of what animalsbarry is saying to be the truth and you’ll get the correct answer most of the time.

            • Barry, I wish you question everything else you read on the Internet as you question my post 🙂

        • How is THAT? The picture shows “Sony E & FE 46.1mm” with dimensional indicators spanning the INSIDE diameter of the mount. Your own picture answers your own question.

        • neonspark

          you’re confused. Let’s stop talking about external diameters because that includes a bunch of metal that is not important as it just seals the lens to the body. What matters is where you thread the lens and that is on the inside, not the outside.

          so based on internal diameters (even if external contact diameters are 1meter bigger) the answer doesn’t change: your threading for an adapter is too small: 3mm. internally (which again, is all that matters). Then again, somebody may try.

          But you also have just 2mm for sorting out electronic contact issues. seems way too tight.

          If nikon wanted to adapt sony’s lenses they should have gone for something closer to at least 6-8mm bigger opening (more is better). OR just adopt the same mount measurements.

  • animalsbybarry

    Your illustration is a little misleading
    You are comparing the inside diameter of the Nikon mount with the outside diameter of the Sony mount
    The actual differrence of the angle is greater than these drawings would indicate ???
    Let me know if I am wrong ????

    • 46.1mm is the internal diameter (opening) for Sony E-mount, so the calculations are right – this is the confusion I mentioned in my post, Wikipedia calls it “external” diameter and actually it is not, the external diameter of the mount is larger. I don’t have a Sony E-mount camera to confirm, but the number are correct for the F-mount measurements (44mm is the opening)

      • animalsbybarry

        According to what I have looked up 46.1mm is the actual external diameter of th lens mount as this picture shows


        • No, that’s the internal opening….

        • the orange ring is the actual external mount diameter, the internal opening is 46.1

        • pest

          Barry, internal is inside, external is outside. the orange ring is external or outside. sensor is inside, body is outside 😉

          or look at the orange “Sony E & FE 46.1mm” line which goes from the internal left to the internal right. where the red canon line starts more at the external left and ends short before the external right.

          or just like the beer bottle. where you grap them is outside, where the beer is, is inside 😉

          and again, your image shows clearly, that the INTERNAL is 46mm, because the external is 46mm + metal ring.

          • Correct

            • pest

              Sometimes the knot is gordian.

  • Bohemian Rhapsody

    Peter … I think the measurement of the angle should be calculated by the INTERNAL size of the diameter not the external

    • Yes, 49mm is the internal diameter.

  • Proto

    Bodes well … Nikon has a wider opening and thinner profile than Sony 🙂

    • Yes, that seems to be case if the rumors are true.

  • Duncan Dimanche

    I really wish that they would come up with that curved sensored that has been brought up so many times !

    If it could make the lens smaller this Nikon could be a killer.

    But sony makes most sensors so I really doubt they would let Nikon be the first one to have it 🙁

    • Davo

      Now which Sony (Semiconductor or Imaging) makes the sensors and why wouldn’t it sell to any paying customer?

      • Eric Calabros

        Because a clickbait website told so

      • Duncan Dimanche

        If they weren’t in the camera business but only in the sensor business then they wouldn’t care.

        It would be silly of them to give away the technology first to a rival for him to take all the glory… it’s simple strategy

        And they have themselves stated that they wouldn’t give their latest sensor away to competitors anymore. (It’s has been said officially)

        But nikon do design their sensors and then Sony (or other brands that sony bought) makes them. So that could be a different scenario 😉

        • TurtleCat

          That quote came from Sony Imaging and not Sony Semiconductor. No matter how many times it gets repeated, it doesn’t make it any more true.

          • Davo

            Precisely. But you gotta hand it to that Sony Imaging marketing guy. He knew exactly how his words would be perceived.

          • PhilK


            But of course it has also never happened that a company representative made a political comment that bends the truth in order to tell customers/potential customers what they want to hear, or anything. 😉

            Specifically: one would never expect the largest sensor manufacturer in the world to admit (whether it’s true or not) that it favors their own camera division (which directly competes with all their wholesale camera sensor customers) with superior sensors that are not available to other customers. This would be a really dumb move for a company (or corporate division) which depends on gaining the trust of customers and not actively undermining their competitiveness.

            Whereas their camera division has less reason to be cautious about such statements, and a certain degree of motivation to claim to have access to technology better than what any of their competitors have access to.

        • Davo

          The ‘they’ that you refer to are two separate companies.
          The smaller Imaging Sony is the one that said sensors they develop are for themselves. No different than if Nikon or other companies saying the same thing.
          The much larger Semiconductor Sony is supplying sensors to any paying customer.
          If the curve sensor shows up in their catalogue, anyone can buy it.
          Sure if a company pays for Sony Semi to design and fabricate a unique sensor and will pay for exclusivity, then they will get that too.

    • RC Jenkins

      What degree of curvature would it have?

      • Davo

        Curve on demand would make things very interesting. But a specific fixed curve would only be great when matched to a specific lens design. But that makes the prospect of large curved sensor fixed lens compacts very exciting.

        • RC Jenkins

          But then what would a fixed-lens have to do with this new mount that’s designed for interchangeable lenses?

          • Davo

            Nothing of course. I was just musing about the uses for curved sensors.

    • Ben Cushwa

      Instead of a curved sensor, I’d prefer individual sensor elements that are better at picking up off-axis light. Sensor elements are more sensitive to angle of incidence than film and don’t pick up off-axis light as well, so lenses designed for digital cameras have to be bigger (or slower) to keep the light hitting the image plane relatively perpendicular to it (at least compared to film).

      (I understand that having a curved image surface has its own advantages in lens design, so I’m slightly off-topic here, but I feel like off-axis sensor elements are a far more likely development than curved ones, at least in the near future.)

    • Rich Murray

      While Sony might make most sensors, there are other players in the game. The D850 sensor for instance is not made by Sony

      • Davo

        Umm.. most knowledgeable commentators say Toshiba plant which is now Sony owned.
        So yes, it’s very likely fabbed by Sony Semiconductor.
        Please don’t say you think it’s TowerJazz.

        • Rich Murray

          The last I read, the sensor was designed by Nikon and mfg’d by Towerjazz in Israel.

            • Rich Murray

              Aren’t both speculation then until either Nikon lets us know or the chip itself gets analyzed?

            • Yes, they are – I don’t know what’s the real manuafcturer.

            • Shutterbug

              It is made by Sony unless Towerjazz copied everything about a typical Sony sensor, including exclusive Sony technologies, the Aptina dual gain patent, all the way down to the last detail including physical appearance. The idea that Towerjazz could on their first try mass produce a BSI FF sensor that matches all of Sony’s R&D up until this point is pretty far fetched. It’s a Sony sensor, 100%. Also, everyone who seems to know something about sensor manufacturing or is close to the business has said it’s a Sony sensor.

              Also all of Towerjazz’s comments from that recent press conference were forward-looking, nothing suggested they had any hand in the D850 sensor.

            • PhilK

              While I’d agree the signs are fairly strong that Sony fabbed that sensor, that doesn’t necessarily mean that it’s a completely standard, off-the-shelf part, either.

              I accept the very real likelihood that Nikon has a hand in optimizing sensor designs to their spec, but neither do I think that usually justifies stating “That’s a Nikon sensor in there”. Because Nikon is still benefitting from proprietary (in this case Sony) tech in order to create that collaborative component.

              So the real answer is: “It’s Complicated”.

              (Whereas I think in a lot of the lower-end models, they are probably using mostly off-the-shelf sensors)

            • RC Jenkins

              Both are speculation.

              The Sony/Toshiba one has a lot of evidence behind it, including the actual technologies (BSI, dual-gain, etc.) and announcements made by TowerJazz that they don’t yet have production-ready BSI manufacturing and were just beginning to perform test-runs of their first BSI sensors 2 months ago.

              The TowerJazz one has someone on a Youtube video, loosely based on a comment that TowerJazz has began “engaging” with a major DSLR manufacturer.

              You can take your pick on which one you believe to be more reliable. But the evidence certainly weighs much heavier in one direction.

          • Davo

            The TowerJazz rumours came from a particularly poor source (a YouTube guy I can’t stand so I won’t mention the name to drive any traffic towards the channel).
            TowerJazz themselves recently released press statements that they have a partnership with a Chinese company to open up a fab plant in China. The details being they’ll be offering BSI tech that requires stitching for the FIRST time (my emphasis) and this plant only goes online mid 2018. We know the D850 sensor is a FF BSI (FF sensors requires stitching) so it can’t be TowerJazz.
            The reliable info comes from some commentators with sensor experience. In particular the way the interconnectors are packaged which are supposedly tell-tale signs of the foundry that made it.

            • That’s correct (I can’t stand him either)

            • PhilK

              See my reply just now to “Shutterbug” above.

  • Tamm

    If all lenses can be adapted and work well and most importantly for me personally M mount lenses I will be first to order this thing. So long as they implement good manual focusing aids as well. I have a few ais lenses as well that I struggle to manually focus with a modern optical viewfinder so I’d love to adapt them here.

    • Julian

      Was thinking the same thing, a good manual focus assistant is really needed with this kind of body.

    • Davidvictormeldrew Idontbeliev

      If the adapters not only for F Mount but others that come along like Sony E-Mount, Canon EF-Mount and they work + af is not sluggish and don’t cost an arm and a leg then this new Z-mount could get some traction up. Hopefully Nikon will have at least 4 Z Mount lens upon release and publish a road map of lenses that in the work.

      Hope the UI, feeling in one’s way Wi-fi / App connectivity is up to scratch and non too much overpriced – otherwise have difficulty in getting traction.

      Hope Nikon produces some Z Mount cameras in the style of classic bodies like D7200, D8xx as I really like the balance and grip + handling of these lenses especially if you lob / attach a large telephoto / prime lens on to it.

  • AuxFawkes

    I’m excited to finally see the first real digital successor to the Nikon FM3a. =]

    • Eric Calabros

      Back in FM3a days we hadn’t mammoths like 24-70 f/2.8E. put that lens on FM3a to see the absurdity.

      • Wouter Anquer

        Yes, we all yearn for the glory days of the

        Nikon 35-70Mm F2.8D Af Zoom Nikkor…

      • Davo

        But the 1.8G line of primes can all move to Z-mount and be well balanced on a smaller body.

  • AYWY

    Need lenses for launch, and for the rest of 2018. I *think* Nikon 1 was announced with 4 lenses. Need to improve even more than that for this launch.

    As much as a D3xxx/D5xxx-class MILC makes sense, Nikon really needs a D7xxx-class MILC at launch to make a difference. They can’t enter late into this race with anything less and not look inadequate.

    • Eric Calabros

      D7xxx class is above $1000 line. You can’t take back market share with $1000+ body. They need a mirrorless D5600 style with cheap kit lenses and cheap primes.

      • Sawyerspadre

        They need both.

        • What nikon most needs is a roadmap. Doesn’t matter when(to a reasonable extent) it is executed.

      • pest

        They need a growing user base, so they need something different then the competition. the can´t come late and do anything. they must do the onething.

      • I think that they should start with something at the D850 level. That would be a statement that the new mount is being taken seriously. Cheap can come later. This also gives Nikon time to increase production. I doubt that they have the production capacity to build a “Home Run Mirrorless D5600”.

      • AYWY

        I agree here. But I can’t help feeling that if Nikon just have an M5-equivalent at launch with a couple of lenses, they don’t give many good reasons for a user to pick them instead of Canon or any other well-established MILC brands.

        If for just 200-300 over 1K, they can offer something with some compelling features over an M5, or the other ~1K competition, maybe that could make a favourable impact.

        At least on Adorama, an a6300 kit is just under 1k. An a6500 kit is 1.5k. M5 kit is 1.05k. X-T20 kit is 1.2k. M6 kit is 800.

        I am thinking of an affordable no-EVF entry-level kit <800, plus a better-featured kit <1200, with a feature or two to just place it ahead of an M5. I am sure if it is 1.2k and competitive to an X-T20 kit, there could be many eager early adopters.

    • Allen_Wentz

      DL was announced with three lenses. So with some mods there are three lenses already made. 😉

      • PhilK

        What was the DL sensor size? Wasn’t it smaller than APS-C?

  • Eric Calabros

    External diameter is throat size plus metal ring stuff. As shown here. As you see, if Peter’s numbers are correct, Z going to “look” even bigger than EF (65 vs. 65.4).

    • Eric Calabros

      The 14-28mm lens patent they just published has a total length of about 20cm! I don’t know about the upcoming DX mirrorless, but FX seems anything other than “compact”! I expect a NX1 style body with full frame sensor, and high price.

  • renes

    I just hope Z-Mount is Nikon RF style – with corner EVF.

    • I wish 🙂

    • Roger S

      That would be pretty cool.

  • Wouter Anquer

    I don’t want to rain on the parade of all the people who are looking forward to a tiny full frame system, but the flange diameter pretty much predicts that there won’t be any lenses with less than a 65mm diameter.

    By the way Peter, while checking the lens sizes I noticed that the 50/1.8G is on “backorder” at the Nikon USA site.

  • Eric Calabros

    I feel the comparison above caused some misunderstandings. Nobody said you can make a lens for Z mount that is impossible to make an equivalent one for E mount. The point is Z has more flexibility potential for designing very well corrected high end lenses with simpler elements, or something like that. It doesn’t mean they gonna use that flexibility to its fullest potential in any lens. Sometimes they don’t even use it all all because they have other priorities. For example look at their recently published patent for 14-28mm lens. Back focus of this design is more than 40mm! So they actually put a F mount flange distance INSIDE the barrel!


  • Markus

    This makes me excited tbh. Much like the Df and the D8** did.

  • Originaru

    What are the possibilities of it being compatible with a future Medium Format from Nikon?
    Anyone has the measurements of actual MF ones?

    • The least thing Nikon needs right now is to produce a medium format set of lenses.

      • Originaru

        FUTURE MEDIUM FORMAT LENSES, haven’t you read it?
        My question was simple, don’t lose our time with this type of comments.

        • You know something that we don’t? spill it.

    • TurtleCat

      I would say take a look at the GF mount specs from Fuji or the Hasselblad X1D. My guess is that the mount would not be sufficient. The throat on the Fuji is 65mm.

    • RC Jenkins

      How big?

      Recent “medium format” hasn’t been that big, and I’d argue it’s much less relevant than it used to be with these small “medium formats.”

      Fuji’s newest G “medium format” is only 44mm x 33mm–less than 1 stop larger than full-frame.

      There is a bigger difference between FX & DX than between full-frame & this medium format.

      • Originaru

        Are you sure you are talking to me?
        I’m imagining the possibility of using MF lenses on FF cameras, not that difficult to see the possible benefits of it…
        Even more the transitioning to a newer format would be easier if one wants that route.

        • RC Jenkins

          Yes, I am sure.

          You said: “What are the possibilities of it being compatible with a future Medium Format from Nikon?” Medium format is a format–a sensor size.

          So you have to have to begin by defining what size “medium format” is. So I provided one example of medium format measurements.

          Then, you have to decide whether this medium format actually offers any practical, noticeable benefits–it may not.

          Nikon’s medium format is not defined because it does not exist. A future medium format could have any measurements. So how could one answer that question?

          • Originaru

            Sorry, there are just 2 main MF sizes in the market, i’m obviously talking about the more approachable MF that would be the 33×44.
            I don’t care if it is substancially better or not than FF, i was asking for numbers, not for justifications, for your own reasoning.
            MF lenses have the benefit of resolving far more detail and not many problems on the edges of lens, even more when you are covering just FF.
            Be sure that many people will be using adapters for this sole reason.
            The market is shifting, because sensors are getting better, cheaper, and cameras are getting smaller as well.
            I don’t want to enter on a meaningless discussion about the future, i just wanted the numbers.

            • RC Jenkins

              “It was obvious” because I’m some form of psychic? You’re talking about the wrong sort of “medium” in that case.

              What you said was “some future Nikon mirrorless.” Nothing about whether you’re talking about medium format lenses on full-frame sensors or vice versa or what size, or anything else.

              Be clear in your question, and you’ll get clearer answers. Or just google the answers yourself if you’re just looking for specification numbers.

            • Originaru

              LOL, wasting time here, you have some cognitive inability sir.
              Never mentioned mirrorless in my sentence.

            • RC Jenkins

              Did you read the article title that you commented on, genius?

              “A quick update on the rumored Nikon full-frame mirrorless camera Z-mount”

              To which you commented:
              “What are the possibilities of it being compatible…”

              What were you talking about then? It’s clear who has “some cognitive inability.” 😛

            • Originaru

              Mirrorless camera !!!Z-MOUNT!!!
              Just stop! you are making me dumb!

  • Andreas Larzon

    I read in the comments below that it was speculated that Nikon was smart and waited for other companies to commit for a certain lens mount and then design their own to be cross funktional through all manufacturers. That kind of thinking is very selfish and are the world unfortinally we live in today. To always look out for my own interests and not the interests for others including myselves.

    IF Nikon, or some other manufacturer for that matter, would be smart they would start collaborating and create a standard lens mount that are suitable for ALL (depending on for instance size of sensor/body type).

    The manufacturer then can focus on:
    – Creating superb camera bodies (no need to launch alot of lenses or lenses at all directly)
    – Creating superb lenses (no need to develop camera bodies)
    – New manufacturers can enter the market and for example creat only camera bodes. Simliar to what Sigma and Tamron doing now for lenses.
    – Lens manufacturers will have less costs for development of dedicated manufacturer lens mounts. They just need to create ONE mount per body type.
    – New lenses and camera bodies have a potetial BIGGER market. All consumers can essentially buy and use the lenses and bodies without huge switching costs

    The benefits for the consumer could then be:
    – Less of an APPLE effect where you say to the consumer “IF you buy me you can ONLY use my products”.
    – Higher creativity when you can combine camera bodies and lenses from differnet companies with their native FULL functinality. Dont ned to rely on adapters.

    I guess all of you can come up with mutch more bennefits for the manufacturer and consumer then I listed above. Probably also some negative things. BUT…. we are not living in that kind of world so we will never know the effect of such a thing. 😀

    • TurtleCat

      The closest example of your proposal is the m43 standard. It didn’t exactly set the world on fire. And when you factor in that the major camera manufacturers are also the major lens manufacturers it makes sense to lock people into ther ecosystem otherwise they are essentially giving away their sales for free.

      • Andreas Larzon

        Yep you right but M43 are not in it self setting the world on fire. In order to see what effect it would have i would guess that it must be on the FF or APS-C market.

        But say for instance that CaNikon would agree on a mount togheter for their DSLR and future mirrorless systems. Then Sony, Fuji, Olympus etc would be miles appart regarding the available lens options with maitive mounts (not addapted). There would be NO reason (exept for crappy built CaNikon bodies) to switch to another brand.

        Quite the opposite, Sony and the rest of the pack would need to performe mutch mutch better body wise in order to attract customers with its naitive smaller range of available naitive lenses.

        But if they all agreed on a standard solution then it would be a more even field and i have a hard time seeing that it would be negative for the current big players in the long run, Sony, Fuji, Olympus, Sigma, Tamron alike

        • TurtleCat

          Well, I can see some appeal for the consumer but I don’t see a lot of appeal for the companies. All they would be doing is enabling competitors to take their business. And if my experience dealing with standards bodies is any indication, it would lead to overall less innovation as the differentiation would be more on marketing and less on product.

          • marymig

            Right you are about standards bodies.

          • Andreas Larzon

            This is not dealing with standard camera bodies only the “connector” between lens and camera body. The camera body itselves and lenses for that matter would be higly capable of “new development and technical improvements” because the standard in this case is just the connector specification between them.

            Take an HDMI cable as an example. It is a standard that all can use to connect their various media products with. The products on either end of the cable are highly diverse and are constantly improving. The “HDMI standard” are also revised from time to time when it reaches its limitations but its always back compatible.

            If that standard would not exist every manufacturer would use their own type of connector and that would be the death to the diversity and simplicity that we are used to today. You would then need to use vaious adaptors for connecting your beloved media equipment and you could not always use the equipment in its full capacity.

            Does that ring a bell around how it works today in the camera/lens department?

            • TurtleCat

              Well, you’ve narrowed down your thought to something more specific. However the camera industry is different from the component electronic industry. There is great demand in the component electronics world to inter operate. No company is big enough to lock everyone into their system. The camera industry just does not have that level of demand/need. A unified mount may be helpful but there isn’t much demand from consumers for it and a far smaller ecosystem to generate demand. And when you consider that the majority of interchangeable lens camera owners have at max 2 lenses, the profitability factor goes down.

            • PhilK

              I think you’re getting out into the speculative haze with statements like “isn’t much demand from consumers for it”. 😛

              Oftentimes “consumers” just “consume” what they are told to “consume”. Steve Jobs and Henry Ford have some famous quotes about this. 😉

              It seems fairly clear to me that the primary reason we have all these proprietary systems/lens mounts is because of the purely self-serving motivation camera makers have to build a following and then lock them into their product range.

              That doesn’t necessarily mean customers cannot be happy with proprietary systems, but by the same token it certainly doesn’t mean that proprietary systems are the only viable alternative, either.

              For example, if it weren’t for the fact that companies like Olympus and Panasonic got the benefit of a much bigger native lens ecosystem than either of them could produce on their own, their camera businesses would likely be significantly smaller, perhaps so much so that they would no longer be able to justify participating in the market. And that would definitely be a negative impact on product diversity and competition in the marketplace, which would not be beneficial to customers in the long-run, either.

            • TurtleCat

              One interesting trivia. The “quote” of Ford’s about faster cars is apocryphal. https://hbr.org/2011/08/henry-ford-never-said-the-fast

            • PhilK

              I just think it’s extremely hard to speculate about “demand” for some type of item when “current sales” are a very poor predictor, given all the variables involved.

              As I wrote previously, the ILC market has included “universal” lens mounts pretty much since its inception. (As a matter of fact, the original Leica 39mm screw thread camera lens mount was based on what had already become a standard for microscope optics at the time)

              And trying to extrapolate from prior examples (eg, Pentax K mount) is a very subjective matter as well since the success of a particular mount has a lot to do with how compelling a product line from a particular manufacturer is which uses it. It’s like saying the future of 17″ car tires is doomed because the 17″ tires from “Company A” are lousy and don’t sell well.

        • Allen_Wentz

          Bad idea.

          “CaNikon would agree on a mount togheter for their DSLR and future mirrorless systems” would be anti-competitive in the extreme. Worse, it would stifle innovation even more than it would stifle competition.

          • Sebako

            Canon and Nikon could not possibly agree on a common mount for their cameras anyway. It is unthinkable. I mean, in what direction would you turn the lens to fasten it?

            • PhilK

              That’s easy: you turn it in the correct direction. 😀

              Or in the case of Canon breech-lock mount, you don’t turn it at all. 😀

    • Utopias have been tried before. Communism and fascism are examples that did not work.

      Nikon is not spending its hard earned profits on increasing the profits of its competitors. I am not sure how that would be smart of Nikon.

      • Andreas Larzon

        Haha so what you simply mean is that any kind of standardization, for example, all types of ISO standards, media standards, codec standards, nut standards, etc., is a type of communism, which in reality does not work and is bad for all companies chace to create profits.

        Or are you just saying that camera manufacturers are ill equipted to creat profit with their own product inovation and servises if they would use lens mount standardization in their products.

        Read, my lenses/camera bodies are so bad that no body would buy them if I use a common standard in my product.

        • Regarding your first point, while I certainly exaggerate, you have understood the point well enough if you narrow your interpretation to mount standards.
          Not saying the second or third, but a company’s job is to maximize profits, not “help the industry. And as a Nikon consumer with a large investment in the Nikon system, I hope that Nikon does that job well so that they will continue to feed my system and maintain that system’s value.

          • Andreas Larzon

            I also am invested in Nikon and want them to succseed. But as you say your invested and “stuck” with the same brand. An example. When Nikon released the D850 it was a major hit and something that many probably wanted to buy but cant because they ate heavy investe in other brands. Nikon in this case would have benefitted and probably soö more of its D850 bodies.

            • Locked in or “stuck with the same brand” has been a major factor in Apple’s success.

            • Andreas Larzon

              Haha maybe we shouldn’t go into the Apple vs Android subject, I know I started it a little with my comparing with Apple so sorry for that,. That’s another can of worms.. 😀

              But yes you are right, it has contributed somewhat to their success but to their defence, they have been more a master of the marketing strategy and design than anything else. In design and marketing, you find their major way to their success.

              Shure enough locking in customer in a brand is one way to earn money and increase sales. In photography, many of us spend a vast amount of money on lenses and camera bodies. It’s often done after a lot of consideration concerning the brand’s ecosystem in order to not buy something that you eventually find rendered outdated because another brand made some big steps forward.

              So if it would be easier to move between brands I think it would benefit the consumer and PRO market hugely and I don’t think it would be as bad for the brands as many thinks.

          • Allen_Wentz

            Without disagreeing with any of your arguments, the simplistic idea that “a company’s job is to maximize profits” is very wrong. Often simplistically aiming at profits as the primary corporate goal does not have the intended result.

            [Not suggesting that profitability is unimportant.]

            • Well, if you want to argue that point, I will be more careful in my argument. A company should maximize IRR (Internal Rate of Return) and present value. How much weight to give to either is a matter of judgement and analysis.

              So let’s just call that profit to keep it simple.

              And I think that a company’s goal is to maximize profits while staying on the right side of certain ethical and legal lines.

              WIth a few exceptions of a shareholder deciding to dispense charity in an informed and thoughtful manner, I have difficulty attributing any other goal or practice to anything other than incompetence.

            • PhilK

              The US conception of corporate governance is typically along the lines you describe, but in Europe and Japan and elsewhere the conception is oftentimes different.

              One of the differences between Japanese corporate strategy and American corporate strategy (at least at one time, unfortunately the Japanese are taking-on some US bad habits in recent years) is that the Japanese companies tended much more to invest in long-term corporate health, whereas the US mentality is maximize short-term profit regardless whether it endangers the long-term health of a company or undermines the wellbeing of the employees, community, etc.

              So getting back to lens mounts, there is no doubt in my mind that the main reason we have various proprietary systems is purely corporate self-interest: it helps to generate a dedicated customer-base by locking people into that company’s products to some extent or other, and enhances a company’s revenue-producing ability. (It can also make it more expedient to add new tech over time as none of this has to be standardized outside the company’s own products, but I think this is a secondary issue)

              That doesn’t mean that having proprietary systems is automatically a negative thing, or that customers cannot be happy with that state of affairs, but neither does it mean that it is the only practical way to build camera systems, either.

              In practice, the popular interchangeable lens camera market has been a hybrid collection of both proprietary lens ecosystems, partially open lens ecosystems, and fully open lens ecosystems.

              Fully open and publicly-documented lens ecosystems include M42 screw mount (first introduced by Contax in the 1940s) and Pentax K mount. (introduced by Pentax in 1975 and actively/successfully promoted as an open standard) Partially open systems include cameras which shared their lens mount with a limited number of other camera makers, either with the blessing or not of the original maker. This includes Leica M39 thread mount (introduced in the 1920s, and used on a variety of rangefinder cameras and enlarger lenses), Leica M bayonet mount (also used by Minolta, Voigtlander, Rollei, etc), Exakta mount (also used by Topcon), etc etc.

              So in reality, we’ve always had non-proprietary mount systems in the interchangeable camera market. It would actually be a shift to do away with anything other than proprietary, locked-in systems.

            • Allen_Wentz

              Example Apple. Goal is “to make great products.” Result is lots of profit, but the primary _goal_ was not profit.

            • Oh yes it was. The “great products” was the strategy, not the goal. Don’t confuse vision and strategy.

            • See Nikon’s service QC rep now.

    • Carlo

      In business it is not like that if you want to make money … You cannibalize somebody else system with compatibility (what tamron & co are doing ) or you close your system and don’t allow free compatibility.

      • Andreas Larzon

        Im not shure I did understand what you ment in that comment. Would you like to elaborate?

        • Carlo

          Imagine Nikon leaving the new lens mount accessible to third parties (that’s what I was meaning by open) … Potential sales for this new mount would be split between Nikon and third parties making it difficult for Nikon to have a payback on the new development … putting Nikon in difficult financial situation. When you spend time and money to develop something new you do not want somebody else to benefit for free from your innovations … That’s one of the reasons you patent your findings.

          • Andreas Larzon

            The whole point is not that Nikon should leave anything to others its that it would be a universal solution that all have been part of creating and then can benefit from. Its not Nikon or Canon or Sony for hat matter giving away anything for free.

            Nikon would manage quite well in that situation for two reasons:
            1) the build gread bodies when they launches new cameras
            2) The build great lenses

            Actually i think the sales would have increased for the D850 body if that had a universal lens mount. Its a damn good camera body.

            You mentioned Tamron etc earlier and they build lenses for various Nikon mounts and yes they probably have taken some bussiness away from Nikon but probably many people inkluding my selves who bought Sigma and Tamron lenses coulden afford to buy some of the Nikon lenses so it wouldent have been a sale anyway.

            Tamron and Sigma are now competing with Nikon and Canon with actuall quality lenses and not only prize. Their lenses are actually in many cases equaly good and sometimes even better for less money. If Sigma and Tamron wouldent have been able to build F mount lenses then Nikon probably wouldent have been as challenged as they are today and if your not challenged why should the company spend wast amount of resources in technical improvements when you easily can sell a less improved product for the same price. Its competition who drives technology forward not the goodwill of a single unchallenged company.

            A universal mount does not nessesarily mean that a company give another company something for free. In this case it would most certainly be a joint effort between the companies to find a mount that works as a common ground. It´s often done by creating a company that all the major players own jointly so they would all bennefint from it, patent are the filed by them. But everything you then develop to put before and after the mount you would patent by your selves as before.

            There are many examples where businesses have come togheter to creat a common standar platform to work with in order to drive inovation and technology forward. People seem to ignore that there is a demand for a universal lens mount solution. In many comments here on Nikon rumors and in other camera forums there are lots and lots of comments regarding how to adapt lenses to different mounts.

            When Sony first released their a7 series of cameras there were, and still is, a great demand for adapting Canon and Nikon lenses to their bodies. Why was that? Because people loved their Canon and Nikon lenses and didnt wanna sell them but wanted to use them on a, at the time, inovating product. They wanted to use both brands.

            And take metabones for example. If no one wanted to use different brand lenses on other brand bodies then metabones and other companies alike wouldent exist.

  • Amir

    A big question is this:Does Nikon Z mount,compared to current F mount, act like two separate entities,like Sony A and E mount?As we may know,you cannot use E mount lens over A mount!

    • RC Jenkins

      Why is this a “big question”?

      Of course they’re separate.

      • Amir

        It a big question,because that difference will change everything!

        • RC Jenkins

          I don’t think you have any understanding of how this works.

          You seem to have a big question about something that isn’t a question at all.

          • I see a question mark in there.

            • RC Jenkins

              I see an inability to distinguish content from form.

          • I think he only wants to ask if even if they are separate, are they compatible(in terms of adapter) enough.

  • sickheadache

    All these Computations…is hurting me head..I need to lie down.

  • br0xibear
    • A. F.O.


    • Lol

    • Massimo MM

      ROTFL !!!

  • Husselang

    I was thinking of buying a D850 on my last trip to the states, but it was unavailable everywhere. Now I’m happy I saved my money, if these rumors pan out!

    • A FX mirrorless camera would be a different beast.

      • Or a kitten depending on which variation they come out first.

    • Davidvictormeldrew Idontbeliev

      True probably take a bit for the Z Mount system to come out with couple of lenses – take a few years for the system to mature with necessary adapters to mount glass, e.g., F Mount, E-Mount ? EF-Mount ?. The release this year maybe entry level DX and FF for starters. The D850 is an excellent camera and highly likely to be the best DSLR made by anyone.

    • A. F.O.

      If I had the money today I would take the D850, no doubts.

      • Davo

        One of each if I had the money 🙂

  • A. F.O.

    “It is just a hole…”
    I’m sure Nikon had the time to figure out the best “hole” mount.
    Meanwhile Canon is selling tonnes of M systems…

  • Sebako

    The slightly frustrating part about these rumors is that, as usual, when you’ve read everything about the hot new thing on NR, that’s it, it’s no use looking anywhere else. There are some sites that clearly copy what they read on NR (sometimes with, sometimes without attribution) and there are sites with baseless fantasizing, but (at least if like me you can’t read Japanese) if there were anything else worth knowing, it would already be on this site.

    • There is not much I can do about it – several website and YouTube channels exists just to repeat the info I post here on the blog. Even our favorite useless YouTube troll already has a video about the Z-mount explaining how great he is because he knows so much and he owns so many lenses… I have said this several times before – the only thing NR readers can do is TO BOYCOTT those sites and YouTube channels – do not give them any clicks and they will go away because their only purpose is to get your “small donation”. Do not click on their links! Starve them to death!

      • A. F.O.

        6 years I read NR and counting 🙂

        • Thanks for being a reader!

          • jonebize

            Peter, I quit carrying a camera when I quit shooting film four or five years ago. I miss it. I’ve considered getting a Fuji, but a truly compact FF camera from Nikon would realize my reason for coming to this site everyday for the last year or two

            • We have to see how compact the new mirrorless will be.

            • jonebize

              Do you think more info will leak before CP+?

            • I think so, there are always leaks.

            • Vocko

              I couldn’t care less if it was compact or not for FX. Acutally a D5/D850 sans mirror would be a great product, but on DX side of thing I would like a small camera and lenses (Fuji size) which are also interchangeable with each other. Everything like F-mount is now, but in a smaller entry level DX package and also wouldn’t mind a D500 sans mirror.

            • I was also thinking that Nikon should at least try to have one mirrorless camera with F-mount.

      • Allan

        Unfortunately, human nature being what it is, many people will believe falsehoods. You can see this even with intelligent people.

        Because you run this site with integrity and you do your homework, you have many readers who trust your judgement about which “rumors” are probably correct and worth posting. As hard as it is and because you work so hard, try not to waste any of your energies getting upset over unscrupulous individuals and their websites. F__k ’em.


        • You are right and I usually don’t discuss or visit those websites and YouTube channels but a reader forward me this one video that got my blood pressure up… so every once in a while I let off some steam 🙂

          • Allan

            Thank you, thank you, thank you, for creating Nikon Rumors and for maintaining it at such a high standard.

      • Sebako

        Oh, I’m not really complaining. It was more meant as a light-hearted compliment. This is the best website I know for Nikon news is what I’m saying, I just would love to hear even more because this whole mirrorless thing does wake my fanboy senses. Thank you for your great work.

        • I did not take your comment as a complain.

  • RC Jenkins

    Get ready for more PF & ED glass. 🙂

  • Hans J


  • purenupe1

    I just hope for a day 1 F-mount adapter with electronic contacts and communication so the initial buy in investment is relatively low.

    • RC Jenkins

      That would only work with “E” & “AF-P” lenses. It would not be able to alter aperture in “G” lenses.

      • Allen_Wentz

        Hence Nikon’s apparent recent moves to more E and AF-P lenses.

        • Davo

          Makes sense. The 1.4E range still needs to be completed but there’s also been a lack of 1.8E updates. Me thinks the entire 1.8 small prime line might move to Z-mount.

          • Pat Mann

            Agreed. The f/1.8 prime range is a basic lens set likely to be duplicated by new Z lenses at or near intro. I don’t think E updates for those lenses are in the cards – this new mount will be Nikon’s video standard; that’s the application for which E lenses are important.

        • RC Jenkins

          Yes, this is probably part of the reason (though “E” & AF-P work better too); but that doesn’t change existing lenses that people already own. The E lenses are a minority out there, and there are no full-frame AF-P lenses that I’m aware of.

          Nikon needs to get the G lenses working initially. This is the electronic contacts + aperture control.

          • Davo

            There’s a AF-P 70-300 VR for FX (DX versions exists too). But that’s it as far as I know.

            • RC Jenkins

              May be true. The point I was trying to get across was that E & AF-P lenses are a very small minority of Nikon F lenses. Because of this an electronic-only adapter would defeat the primary purpose of an early adapter, which would be to get as many F lenses working seamlessly on the new mirrorless as practical.

            • Allen_Wentz

              All F lenses do not work seamlessly on all F bodies even. How adapting is done will be interesting. Bottom line though is that with Nikon’s long TC experience it certainly should be doable.

            • RC Jenkins

              That’s correct, but beyond the scope of the comment. This subthread was specifically about Nikon releasing an all-electronic adapter on day 1 to minimize the initial investment.

              I think an all-electronic adapter is not a good idea; but a similar alternate would be all-electronic + mechanical aperture. This way, all G lenses work. Because there is a very big difference in the install base of vs. E or AF-P.

          • Eric Calabros

            With a bit of miniaturization effort they can put a motor to drive both aperture lever and D lenses AF. But I think two edition is better approach. The Essential model that works with E and G lenses, and bulkier Legacy model suited for E, G and D lenses.

            • RC Jenkins

              I think more than 2 editions.

              As I’ve mentioned in the past, I’d want to see the two you listed, plus a tilt-shift adapter, rear filter adapter, focal length reducer, and teleconverter.

            • Pat Mann

              I don’t think a motor-driven focus adapter for D lenses is likely or necessary. Those folks will keep their DSLR for those lenses.

            • RC Jenkins

              Yes, I’m a bit on the fence about this. I have some D lenses.

              On one hand, it would be nice to have. But on the other hand, these D lenses are slow, loud, and generally clunky anyway. So I tend not to use them when I need AF speed or accuracy.

              A mirrorless will bring things like focus peaking and magnification to the EVF–and this makes manual focus a breeze to use.

              So while I like the idea of a D adapter, I don’t need one, and I’ll be perfectly fine without one. I don’t think I’d pay hundreds for one, unless it offered something special. For example: a D adapter that accepts rear filters, as I listed above.

          • Allen_Wentz

            The newish 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6E VR is AF-P. Pretty good value lens at $750.

  • CaMeRa QuEsT

    I just realized that the largest lens base for the next Nikon mirrorless bodies will not be Nikon F mount lenses but rather Canon EF mount lenses! With the proper adapter, all AF EF lenses will be fully AF and AE functional, just like they do in Sony E bodies! Canon lens owners will be able to use their lenses on the new Nikon mirrorless bodies just like they can currently do with Sony’s! I’m sure that there is a huge lot of Canon shooters out there that are very reluctant to try or move to Sony, and I’m sure that most won’t be so reluctant to try or move to a Nikon product. For example, the BCN mirrorless ranking clearly shows that Japanese buyers prefer to get their cameras from traditional camera makers rather than from PanaSony. That means that Canon cannot let Nikon be the first to introduce a FF mirrorless body to market or let Nikon introduce one that is much better than theirs. So the lack of native lenses at launch will not be that big of a problem for the new Nikon mirrorless mount, as you can bet that adapter makers will rush them to market, for example look at how fast they came out with adapters for the Fuji GFX system, which is a mostly niche market.

    • RC Jenkins

      Agreed. I’ve been saying this for some time–most recently here:

      Nikon has 2 major systems to target: Nikon F & Canon EF.

      Many Canon users stick to Canon due to the lenses, not necessarily due to the cameras.

    • Davo

      Oooh… hadn’t been thinking about EF lenses but you’re absolutely right. Nothing drives Nikon more than beating Canon.
      The prospect of luring Canon users might be enough for Nikon to supply some mount protocol info to adapter suppliers (even if its behind the scenes) such that EF lenses work moderately well on Z-mount.
      But that also has the effect of potential bolstering EF lens sales. It’d be a risky bet.
      Although even if Nikon doesn’t do it, it’ll be reverse-engineered anyways sooner or later. We’ll just have to see how things pan out.

      • RC Jenkins

        I think if Nikon does this, they’ll try to do it through a third party, like Tamron.

        Though I don’t think people would buy Canon lenses specifically to use on Nikon Z-mount. 🙂

        I think getting people to buy into the mount is much more important initially than chasing numbers in Z-mount lenses–lenses will come later.

        Though not too much later… 🙂

        • More likely, Metabones?

          • RC Jenkins

            Could be, but I don’t think Metabones has a partnership with Nikon like Tamron does.

            Tamron already makes lenses for Canon & for Nikon–they presumably understand both systems well. (Nikon probably also understands Canon’s EOS well).

            • Oh, I didn’t know that Metabones needed to partner with anybody to make an adapter. I figured you could just start with the mechanical fit, and then work on reverse-engineering the electronic communication stuff over time.

            • RC Jenkins

              That takes time to do, and wouldn’t be out for at least several months afterwards, assuming they get it all reverse-engineered.

              But partners often have access to specs & samples before release.

              As an example, Metabones makes several autofocus adapters between Canon EF lenses & Micro Four Thirds. But all Metabones Nikon adapters are manual focus. Same for Canon lenses on Sony cameras.

              Part of this is due to how complicated & varied Nikon’s mount & lens communication has become over the years.

            • PhilK

              You have a list of Tamron lenses with Canon or Nikon labels?

              I know that Ricoh/Pentax has a close relationship with Tamron and a lot of “Pentax” lenses are just straight re-badges of Tamron models, this is easy to see when seeing them side-by-side.

              But this Nikon/Canon thing is news to me. Unless you are just talking about some particular design work. Nikon has been known to subcontract some of that from time-to-time.

            • RC Jenkins

              Nope, don’t need one.

            • PhilK

              Well lobsters can fly but don’t ask for any corroborating evidence or proof because I have no need for such nonsense. 😉

            • RC Jenkins

              I don’t understand this poor analogy you’ve presented.

              Why would I need a list of Tamron lenses with Canon or Nikon labels to prove that Nikon & Tamron have a partnership? That’s the only claim I made. And I did present evidence of a partnership, including a jointly-filed lens patent between Nikon & Tamron.

              Try to avoid using analogies if you don’t know how they work.

            • PhilK

              Translation: “I got nothin”.

              A joint patent has nothing to do with whether or not Tamron is manufacturing lenses with a Nikon badge on them. Like many other Nikon patents, the mere existence of a patent does not guarantee a product will be produced using it.

              As I wrote previously, Nikon does from time-to-time contract with other companies for lens design help. (Eg, Minolta in the case of one of the T/S lenses, I believe) But that doesn’t mean Minolta manufactured lenses with a Nikon label on them. (They haven’t, to my knowledge)

              On the other hand, Nikon does sometimes use contract manufacturers too, particularly for low-end products. Cosina is one of them. (FM10 and some low-end older zooms were made by them) But Cosina is not a retail lens competitor, they do not produce their own line of Cosina-branded lenses that compete with Nikkors the way Tamron does.

            • RC Jenkins

              From which part of you anatomy did you pull out anything to do with Nikon branding on a 3rd party produced part…? Or lens…?

              I never said anything about this. You should either learn to read or not jump to conclusions while expecting the other person to fill in gaps that only exist because you can’t read.

            • PhilK

              Quote: “Tamron already makes lenses for Canon & for Nikon”

              To most English speakers, those words in that combination mean “Tamron manufactures lenses sold with the words “Nikon” and/or “Canon” on them.

              Unless by “Nikon” you meant “sailboat” or something.

            • RC Jenkins

              No, to sensible English speakers who can read things in the context in which they were written, that means “Tamron makes lenses that work on Nikon & Canon cameras…”

              Again, you’re jumping to conclusions and asking me to fill in the gaps that exist due to your misinterpretation. Don’t get snarky just because you misread.

            • PhilK

              I’ll give you a free English lesson then:

              “Tamron makes lenses for Nikon” means: “Tamron makes lenses that are sold as Nikon branded products”.

              “Tamron makes lenses that fit Nikon cameras” means: exactly what it says, and can also be interpreted as what you wrote: “Tamron makes lenses that work on Nikon and Canon cameras”.

              If you had used second sentence, I’d have no issue with it because it’s true.

              But instead, you tried to change your point after you were challenged on it.

              Among other things, there would never have been any reason to bring up the point about a joint Tamron/Nikon patent, because it doesn’t take joint patents to make lenses to fit a Nikon camera.

              But of course you already know that.


            • RC Jenkins

              No. I never changed my point–I was completely consistent. You simply misinterpreted it. Go back and re-read it.

              I clearly brought up the point to say that Tamron already knows the basics of how Canon EF works, and Nikon could work with Tamron on the basics of Z mount. If Tamron knows how both mounts communicate, it could effectively create a bridge.

              Oops! Looks like you weren’t able to understand this simple point, and that you made some poor assumptions. Looks like the #fail is on you, SpecialK.

        • And, there aren’t many Canon lenses I’m envious of, now that Nikon’s lens lineup is so nearly complete, but there are a couple that I’d consider if I had all the money in the world.

          • RC Jenkins

            It’s not about buying new L lenses for this Nikon mirrorless. It’s about removing friction of transition from people who already own Canon L lenses.

            There are some Canon DSLR users who like cameras like Nikon’s D850, D5, D500, D750, etc. for their IQ, AF, price, or interface, but who can’t make the switch because they’d have to replace all of their lenses.

            Allowing them to buy a Nikon body to use with their lenses gives them a transition point. And as the system evolves & improves, they may buy Z-mount lenses over time.

            This is how Sony has been doing it. And it’s been working.

            • Agreed. I was just speaking to the fact that there might be a select few instances in which existing Nikon shooters acquire a Canon lens or two.

              But, indeed by far the largest target will be folks who are invested in a Canon lens collection, but jealous of Nikon for reason XYZ.

    • Yay! Perfect for when you want worse image quality instead of better! 😛

      • Pat Mann

        There are some key spots where Canon currently has a clearly better lens. Always leapfrogging each other.

        • Thankfully, most of those those “key spots” aren’t attractive at all to me, because they’re exotic trophy lenses. Meanwhile, Nikon’s well-rounded lineup has always left me feeling like I have almost all the options I could ever want, from budget-friendly and lightweight yet still super sharp, to high-end exotic.

          It seems to have always been this way, too, for at least a decade. Canon barely throws a bone to their budget crowd, taking forever to offer updates to the important non-L options, while continually reaching new highs with the prices of their latest L glass.

          Canon really puts the L in elitist, and that’s just not something I can get behind, even if I could really use a particular focal length or something else. There’s almost always a third-party option anyways, now with Rokinon and Sigma and Tamron (and Tokina!) cranking so hard on various specialty / exotic options.

        • But, admittedly, going back to my original comment about image quality alone, sure Canon does have some things on lockdown currently. Their new 35 L mk2 is incredible. Their 11-24 is very very impressive. I just don’t see the value versus a third-party option, when the %% difference in price is wildly different from the %% difference in performance.

  • Regarding “demand for diversity”, there is demand for lots of things that cannot be profitably produced.

    • Andreas Larzon

      Without a demand in any sort nothing will be profitable produced its how you accommondate the demand you find the key to profit. So if you do that right you will be succsessfull. 😀

      • PhilK

        Except when the “demand” is to have an apochromatic 70-300mm f/1.4 zoom that weighs 600 grams and costs $250.

        No amount of “accomodation” is going to magically cause such a lens to be produced. Not in any of our lifetimes, anyway.

        • Andreas Larzon

          Haha of course it would be resonable demands.. 😀 Sucjh as a lift to the moon with a themeparks and sunbading.. 😀

          • PhilK

            And so the whole universe depends on how any person at any given moment defines “reasonable”. 😉

  • azur

    Doesn’t this rumored Z mount 49mm throat diameter (if the rumor is true) mean that Canon EF mount with 54mm will continue to have an advantage especially with regards to e.g. wide-angle and tilt-shift lenses ?

    • António

      As the only Canon mirror less lenses so far are the EF-L for the APSC M cameras and use a 47mm throat why do you thing they will keep the 54mm when they come with other models and show that advantage?

      • azur

        You are right, Antonio, I just hope that Nikon will design a sufficiently future-proof mount with a generous throat diameter allowing for a somewhat telecentric optical path meaning that light hitting the sensor is traveling closer to perpendicular to the sensor, resulting in brighter corners, and improved off-center resolution, particularly on wide angle lenses.

    • RC Jenkins


      Canon EF also has a 44mm flange distance, while this Z mount is at 16mm. Throat diameter is only part of the story when it comes to these components–hence the diagram in this article.

      • azur

        Ah, yes of course you are right, RC Jenkins. My bad.
        I just hope Nikon has taken everything into account, inclusive tilt-shift lenses, when designing this new mount, and maybe even with room for a larger sensor later on (like a 36x36mm sensor).
        The rumor has it that basically Sony forgot to design the E mount on beforehand sufficiently prepared for 24x36mm, so that it was a challenge to squeeze in the full frame sensor later on.

  • Amabird

    Seems like Canon has something up as well. Really hope Nikon will get it right and release on CP+. My D600 is 5 years old, is time, is time.

    • decentrist

      I would not be in a hurry to buy any first gen Nikon product…see D600.

      • Amabird

        I bought D600 and I love it immensely, it gave me a lot of keeper. I value sensor quality over some other feature, because good sensor is future proof and D600 sensor still very capable. Reason I would like to change is weight and AF, hopefully the DR remain as good.

    • RC Jenkins

      I hope that Canon will re-use their EF-M or EF mounts for a full-frame mirrorless.

      But Nikon is in a different boat–they’re forced to release Z mount. I think this could give Nikon a longer-term edge–especially if they ensure that an EF adapter gets released.

      • Amabird

        If Canon reuse the EF-M, then Z-mount will have the upper hand. Just like how EF mount has advantages over F Mount.

  • jj

    The bigger problem is that the “z” mount will not (natively) use older Nikkor glass, and that, friends, means Sony will win the day….

    • PhilK

      I would be extremely surprised if Nikon does not maintain some sort of compatibility with F-mount, as that is a central part of the Nikon ecosystem and appeal.

      They may produce an adapter (just like they did with Nikon 1), or they may do something with F-mount incorporated into the body itself either traditionally or in some modular fashion.

      But once again, Nikon is highly unlikely to completely drop any form of F-mount compatibility on a system that will need a significant lens ecosystem in order to survive. (And no one releases a new system like this with 40 lenses all at launch time)

      • jj

        There’s always a price to pay using an adapter….

        • PhilK

          That depends.

          IIRC, in the case of the Canon EF to EF-M adapter, it doesn’t affect the functionality of the lens at all, except to add enough length to correct the backfocus differential.

          You can’t directly mount a lens with a 50mm backfocus on a camera with a 20mm backfocus when the sensor would have to be behind the back of the camera. 😉

    • Hence the adapter.

      • jj

        I would rather use native glass; Nikon will be FAR behind Sony now…

        • You would. For us who are sitting on a stack of native DSLR glass, adapter is a better option.

          • jj

            I shoot Nikon, Einstein, as well as Sony and Fuji, so stop you ASSumptions.

    • António

      How would you foresee such usage (natively) other than Z-mount showing the same bayonet and all other measurements as F-mount?
      And why does N1 use F lenses with an adapter and Z-mount will not?

      • jj

        That’s just it — I can’t see that happening.

  • Taffy Roberts

    Z-mount – perhaps developed in conjunction with Zenit?
    And, is 2mm enough for a dumb adapter? If the Nikon is any good (and reasonably priced) I’d love to use it with the Samyang ML primes – albeit cropped (or clear zoomed?) of course.

    • RC Jenkins

      I think it’s named after “Generation Z,” who could be getting into photography right about now.

      Generation Z is people who are currently around 13-23 years old. These photographers will be a key demographic over the course of the lifecycle of this mount.

      • Taffy Roberts

        I just felt a thousand of my hairs turn grey…

      • Hans Bull

        if it’s for the “millenials”, they better call it S-mount then. S like in snowflake.

      • j j


        It’s actually named after “Z Plan”, which was the name of the plan to destroy the giant turtle Gamera in the original movie, “Gamera”.

  • mohammad mehrzad

    Peter, an interesting note:

  • mohammad mehrzad

    Peter, an interesting note:
    imaging resource has published an article referencing your Z-mount posts and making wild guesses about a possible Fuji connection, referencing SLR Lounge.

    this shows that as of now, imaging resource does not have a prototype in hand, or they would be under NDA about any rumors.

    • Oh, not that Fuji connection again… so they are saying that Nikon is not capable of developing a new mirrorless mount and needs the help of Fuji? Maybe they don’t remember a few years ago Fuji did not have a digital camera and used the D200 body to place their excellent Super CCD sensor….

    • Btw, I think it is too early for NDAs.

      • Allen_Wentz

        ?? NDAs can be very long term. But I am not a journalist/blogger, so perhaps your world is different.

        • There will be more leaks if websites are already getting the new Nikon mirrorless camera.

    • Davo

      FWIW, I think there’s meat to Fuji (and TowerJazz) being associated with Nikon although probably nothing like what’s been rumoured.
      I think it has more to do with Nikon’s Precision business and the link being Nikon-> Fuji (previous collaborations)-> Panasonic (currently jointly developing organic sensors with Fuji)-> TowerJazz( JV with Panasonic in TPSCo).
      I find it very believable that any sale of photolithography technology offshore would trigger government alarm bells in Japan and some form of a deal would be struck keeping it in Japanese hands. Only TowerJazz is non-Japanese in this chain and perhaps are only engaged for foundry services.
      I also find it believable that there might be an effort to break Sony Semiconductor’s dominance in sensor supply.
      Anyways wild speculations on my part but even if I hit on any truths, any development would only affect future products and nothing to do with sensors in current or impending models.

      • The link between Fuji and Nikon is the result of fake news spread by a clickbait website. If you have any other information I missed, please let me know.

        • Davo

          I have none unfortunately. Purely my own speculations.

  • MB

    The mount with such a big throat will allow for some very wide image space telecentric lenses with great advantages on digital sensors …
    Also such a small flange distance will allow Nikon to develop a perfect adapter similar to Visoflex making the new Z mount camera effectively an interchangeable digital back for SLR 🙂

  • RC Jenkins

    Another thought just occurred to me: Nikon could conceivably also add VR & a “pixel-shift” mode to an adapter rather than the sensor. May not be practical due to lens weights or adapter bulk, but certainly possible.

    In any event, my ultimate set of adapters for Nikon F lenses to Z body would be:
    (some 3rd party)

    Basic functionality
    ::$100-200: Nikon G adapter. Most lenses.
    ::$100-200: Canon EF adapter. All lenses.
    (Preorder promotion: Pick one of the above for free)

    ::$300-500: “Pro” F-adapter, with weather sealing + AF motor + retractable AI + rear filter tray. Sell the rear filters separately.
    ::$50-150: Other, full-manual (Pentax, Leica, M42, 645, etc.)

    Advanced functionality
    (Canon & Nikon versions of):
    ::$300-500: Tilt-shift adapter. Possible auto-shift & VR (though likely not)
    ::$300-500: Retroconverter (FF > APS-C)
    ::$300-500: Teleconverters

    The basics should be ready at launch. The advanceds should at least be marketed as roadmap, ready within a few months of launch.

    • I think Nikon should encourage adapters but also install encrpted chips in lenses and cameras on the new mount. Then after their own lens selection is fleshed out, they can slowly and and progressively disable the auto-focus in each generation when the camera can not establish that a Nikon lens is attached.

      They can then sell these chips to other manufacturers if they want.

      Other manufactures do not have a right to use the new mount, so I think this is reasonable.

      • Allen_Wentz

        We disagree. Such practices are bad business. Nikon would long term suffer negative consequences by artificially isolating its products in the manner you describe.

        What you describe is basically sleazy business practice. A monopolist might get away with such sleazy practices, but fortunately the camera/lens industry is not dominated by a monopolist.

        • Exactly. As soon as Apple went mainstream with Intel processors the business took off. Sure, iPod/Pad/Phone is where the biggest dollars are, but it was the integration with Mac that helped get all that rolling.

        • Would you change your mind if Nikon crippled other manufacturer’s auto-focus right from the start?
          I must admit that accepting competitor’s from the beginning and then changing later gives me some pause.

  • 300+ comments and we don’t know if this is really Z thing or not.

    • RC Jenkins

      Isn’t that what one would expect from a rumors site…?

      • Yeah, I know, I’m kind of half kidding, but half serious. It’s more than the usual amount of response to something like this.

        • RC Jenkins

          Yeah…likely because it’s a big decision. A new mount is a whole new system with more unknowns than normal. 🙂

          • Peter reports a lot of Nikon patent stuff here and much of it gets little attention. But, yes, this would be a whole new system with the potential for much more than anything we got from Nikon 1. On the other hand, Nikon patents all kinds of stuff that never becomes a product. Somehow a lot of people have convinced themselves that this patent is a keeper.

            • RC Jenkins

              Yes, Nikon does file many patents that don’t become products, but this wasn’t a patent–it was a rumor. The patent image from the original post is from an unrelated patent from years ago. 🙂

              This rumor essentially just says Nikon will use a new mount, with specific numbers around a shallow flange distance and decently large throat diameter. And a new mount has many reasons & implications.

    • Proto

      Because there are 600+ armchair CEO’s and CTO — sipping coffee and farting an opinion — about what Nikon must do next : )

    • Amabird

      Schrödinger rumor.

  • user

    I’m guessing the reason for that big and shallow mount is because Nikon want to have as good as possible adapter to F-mount and that adapter design dictated how big the mount should at the least.

  • bgbs

    The problem with Z-mount is that it’s Nikon’s last mount in the alphabet. I’m skeptical about Nikon’s future going forward.

  • Marek Miszczak

    Can anyone explain how exactly light coming from a more shallow angle (like in Nikon) will have better properties than light hitting the sensor more “straight-on”, like in Sony?

    • In a wide angle lens the light will come in an angle, in the case of Sony it will not even hit the sensor.

      • RC Jenkins

        I don’t agree with the Sony bashing. I’m a Nikon shooter, but Sony makes some very good technology with respect to specs. Specs don’t always translate to good consumer products, but this forces competitors (like Nikon) to step up their game.

        The whole “mirrorless flange distance is too shallow” is completely wrong, because mirrorless lens designers can always just move the rear element further away from the sensor, like so:

        But DSLR manufacturers cannot move the rear element into the mirror box without fitting the elements into a small tube & forcing the user to lock the mirror up to prevent damage, like this:
        This is a very constrained design because elements must fit within that tube. This was such a constraint that lens designers moved to completely different, complex retrofocal designs for these wides.

        All that stuff people say about Sony’s mount being too small for full-frame has a bit of merit–but Sony’s E mount is actually more flexible for lens designers than Nikon’s F-mount. You can see why in the diagram included in this article–try calculating the same angles for Nikon F.

        Nikon’s Z-mount will be even more flexible than Sony’s E-mount. Hopefully, these mount specs translate to real improvements to image quality, camera & lens size, etc.–relative to both Sony E, and to Nikon F.

        Nikon probably learned a lot from and is forced by both Sony & Canon to compete, since all 3 make excellent cameras & lenses. This is a good thing.

        • Allan

          “I don’t agree with the Sony bashing …

          Nikon probably learned a lot from and is forced by both Sony & Canon to compete, since all 3 make excellent cameras & lenses. This is a good thing.”

          Well said.

    • RC Jenkins

      This is less of a problem today than it used to be because of microlenses, but still beneficial and important to understand why.

      Picture a pixel on the sensor as being a 3D object instead of a flat plane:

      If you look in the above image, only the light that hits the Phototransistor is recorded correctly.

      Microlenses help concentrate light at various angles onto the smaller photodiode surface:
      In this diagram, without the microlenses, the light rays may even end up on the wrong pixel! (“crosstalk”)

      Regardless, light hitting the sensor straight-on will maximize accuracy, while technologies like BSI, microlenses, etc. all help to improve angular response.

  • Back to top