Isn't about time Nikon changed their mount?

well nikon has a legendary system of glass that can fit all of your needs, while sony has maybe three lenses at best

File: Canon-85mm-f1.2L-II-vs-Nikon-85mm-f1.4G.jpg (170KB, 960x640px) Image search: [Google]

170KB, 960x640px

>>3083966
>3) No electronic apperture
What the fuck you talking about? What are G lenses?
>4) All those problems because muh compatibility.
What problems?

The only "problem" with the f mount is that it is harder to make fast AF lenses like a 85mm 1.2 or even a 50mm 1.2 that canon has.
>pic related

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	Canon
Camera Model	Canon EOS 5DS
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.1.1 (Windows)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/2.8
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2015:08:05 12:47:32
Exposure Time	1/160 sec
F-Number	f/5.6
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	1600
Lens Aperture	f/5.6
Exposure Bias	1/3 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	70.00 mm
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard

>>3083966
>Sony Master Race can use any lenses with a simple mount adapter.
>Pay $X,000 for a good lens, jerry-rig it to fit a shitty camera

Nope, stick to your hipster meme luddite lenses for your enthusiast tier cameras

>>3083993
G lenses dont have electronic aperture, E lenses do.

the hilarious reality is that most sony shooters here aren't even using sony lenses because the reality that sony lenses are as expensive or in many cases, MORE expensive than even high end lenses from canikon.

>>3084065
Yeah thats because canikon have a much higher production output and they dont have to buy their knowledge from carl zeiss (RIP) himself.

File: Zeiss-Otus-1.4-55-lens.jpg (84KB, 1280x879px) Image search: [Google]

84KB, 1280x879px

>>3084079
>barrel rolls in grave harder than Disney after Black Cauldron

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:

Image-Specific Properties:

>>3084087
Whats the point of that lens? I can pick 55mm 1.2 nikkors for less than 400 bucks all day long.

>>3084089
It is as close to optical perfection as you're gonna get.

>>3084089
>Whats the point of that lens?
Faggots! Faggots with more money than sense. You never see pros out using them. Do zeiss even make anything longer than a 135mm?

>>3084089
When you are a talent-less hack you need the best sharpness and micro contrast available to make your pictures stand out.

For good photographers yeah, any non-garbage 50 will do just fine.

what would help nikon is a mirrorless line

same mount, sensor moved back as much as possible to reduce flange protrusion

Electronic Viewfinder

release a few pancake lens (18mm/35mm/50mm) they can be f2.8


that way nikon users can have a secondary smaller camera that fits all their lenses

>>3083966
>1) It is outdated.
They incorporated all modern features.

>2) Huge flange distance.
Actually an advantage with digital sensors and excellent modern retrofocal lens designs.

>3) No electronic apperture, works with a mechanical workaround.
E series.

>4) All those problems because muh compatibility.
Which is a big deal, especially when you're shopping for a big telephoto lens or if you want to sell your old lenses.
Or if you want to try film, but don't want to buy a whole new set of lenses.

>>3084107
A real compact camera needs a collapsible lens.
Anything else won't be pocketable do what's the point?

They should make a hybrid viewfinder though. - ie: in live view turn the optical viewfinder into an electronic one.

>>3084100
This. You don't need that superüberextra lens. Sure it's sharp but if you photos are shit so what? Sharpness is overrated...

>>3084117
>Sharpness is overrated
Sharpness isn't overrated but Ziess lenses are. You pay a lot more money and the difference is only noticeable in lab tests. For real world uses they are just bling; "Look at me I've got a Ziess"

>>3084090
when will the micro contrast is a meme meme end?

>>3084087
>>3084089
>4k for a MF lens
KEK! you can pick nikkors 1.2 noct for 3k and it will be sharper wide open. Did I mention it is FUCKING T1.2?

>>3084245
>nikkors 1.2 noct
Old shitty lens with no sharpness wide open.
No thx!

>>3084317
>nikkor
>shitty
>I am literally 12

>>3084317
>nikkors 1.2 noct
>Old shitty lens
Yeah, sure m8.

File: FilmCamera_014a.jpg (33KB, 550x392px) Image search: [Google]

33KB, 550x392px

Is there a Nikon AF film body that can AF old screw lenses and new ones?

>>3084428
Every Nikon above the D5X00 series.

>>3084430

>D5X00
>Film

Wut

>>3084428
What do you mean by new ones? The F4 and above will AF any lens even the G series but only in P/S mode.

File: 1495169454283.png (266KB, 665x574px) Image search: [Google]

266KB, 665x574px

>>3084431
Didn't catch the film part.
If it's film, >>3084432 pretty much summed it up.

>>3084428
http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/compatibility-lens.htm

File: Comparison_Table-__920.png (70KB, 920x232px) Image search: [Google]

70KB, 920x232px

>>3084065
>MORE expensive than even high end lenses from canikon
Sony just released a 600 dollar 85 F1,8 that ranks as the 7th sharpest lens on DXO.

In my opinion this is the magical formula they need to follow up on.
Affordable and fast F1,8 lenses with top notch sharpness.

>>3083966
5) The faster they get the ball moving, the better off they will be with lens patents

But Nikon probably won't make it in time. Right now, Sony, Zeiss, Tamron, Samyang, Tokina, Sigma, Laowa are all scooping up all the optimal lens construction patents.
The later they get into the party, the worse off their lenses will be. The same is true for Canon too though.

>>3084437
why the batis is shit in DXO? Is zeiss a meme?

>>3084446
The Batis is actually ranked very high on DXO.

There are also some forms of Chromabs which DXO doesn't measure.

File: 1e6.jpg (41KB, 600x727px) Image search: [Google]

41KB, 600x727px

>>3084317

>noct-nikkor
>shitty

kys

also, would like to say for the record, the Df is the holy grail of native lens compatibility for ANY digital camera on the market. it can natively mount and shoot with no modification pre-AI lenses dating back to 1959 when the F mount was introduced, it has the same flip-up AI tab the FE had in the 80s. It also doesn't have the red dot tax on it and they are starting to come down in price, funny thing is I believe they use a Sony sensor

>mfw awesome Sony sensor without gimped body and nigger rigged MF lens selection

>>3084110
>Actually an advantage
This isn't an advantage. It's a restriction

the other side of the fence can argue their mount is technically better because it's compatible with all of your lenses.

>>3084449
What is a red dot tax?

>>3084454
Huge flage distance = less light falloff

File: 1.png (69KB, 1104x451px) Image search: [Google]

69KB, 1104x451px

>>3084459
That is a myth.

But the point is you can design retrofocal lenses for mirrorless too.

File: a7RIIvs5DsRvsa99_24-70mmf2.8.jpg (45KB, 800x353px) Image search: [Google]

45KB, 800x353px

>>3084463
Your pic refutes you. Look at the 5.6 curve.

Designing lenses for mirror cameras is easier, that's a fact.

>>3084482
>Your pic refutes you.
40-50% relative illuminance is better than 20-60%.

Do you think you are convincing, or do you believe your own lies?

>>3084437

>DXO

Like fucking clockwork

>>3084483
I would rather have something that is fuller stoped down when I want to. At the 15mm mark loxia is already at 70% while the milvus is still at 85%.

>>3084488
Most people would rather have F2,8 lenses that work well at F2,8, instead of being a crippled false advertisement.

>>3084491

Then why is x-mount so popular?

All their lensed are shit wide open.

>>3084493
>Then why is x-mount so popular?
It isn't.

>>3084457
The tax cameras that have won the Red Dot industrial design award bear, naturally.

>>3083966

No.

Sensor improvements will render most of the major advantages moot within 6 or 7 years.

Every other "advantage" is marketing bullshit. Camera too big? You could always kill yourself.

>>3084499
Nikon hasn't had a sensor improvement since 2012 though.

>>3084501

Yeah, D4 and D5 are exactly the same...

File: nsr-sf155.jpg (30KB, 744x460px) Image search: [Google]

30KB, 744x460px

Nikon CEO is dumb as a cow.

First of all. They used to be the market leader in producing machines that create image sensors and other microchips.
This can''t be stressed enough. Giant corporations like Intel, AMD, TSMC, Sony were their potential customers.

Logic would suggest they use that leadership to build themselves many microchip manufacturing plants for cheap. Right?
This is what makes sense:
-They are able to produce machines that build microchips
-They use that capability to build lots of fabs that produce microchips
-Those fabs will be able to build a ton of image sensors
-Those images sensors could go into their own Nikon Cameras
This is smart. This makes sens.
Nikon could have been what Sony is today.

But.
>Nikon CEO is dumb as a cow.
They never build themselves any fabs.
Nikon owns 0 fabs that can produce image sensors, even though they used to be leaders in the field of equipping those fabs.

Nikon = Full Retards.
Today they aren't capable of doing shit. ASML and Zeiss owns that market now.

And Nikon is reduced to nothing more than a patent troll who is suing Zeiss and ASML.

>>3084511
>not owning the fab = dumb

Fordism is over since WW2. Nikon is dumb to lose market to tokina, tamron, sigma lenses.

>>3084517
Well. The result is ASML and Zeiss now owns the market Nikon used to own.

It kind of tells you a lot when not even Nikon wish to be Nikon's customer. Doesn't it?
Like what the hell? If the other microchip foundries don't want to buy your stepper machines, at least your subsidiary should buy them.
But no...

>>3084511
Producing lithography machines and building fabs are not exactly the same.
Capital requirement for building fabs are a lot more than making lithography systems. A lot of the fabs have government backing to get it rolling as you are throwing a lot of money at it for years before it can actually produce anything.
It is very possible that Nikon tried and failed to secure the capital to do it. They are nowhere big enough to start fabs by themselves.

>>3084539
They are the only expensive component in a fab, which is otherwise just a big building with a lot of clean rooms.

Nikon had billions to build fabs for in the past. They just failed at being smart.

>>3084540
Hah, equipment are the cheapest thing of any factory. Land lease, employee, time, that's what cost the most.
Without backer or customer from the start, throwing money at building a fab is pretty much a black hole.

>>3084541
>equipment are the cheapest thing
Maybe if you buy used, from Canon.

Modern steppers cost anywhere from 50 million to 100 million a piece.

Nice try though.

>>3084543
Equipment is a one time investment. Wages, electricity, raw materials, rents are all recurring cost. Yes, initial cost will be mostly on equipment, but recurring cost will quickly over shadow it.

Consider a fab today cost 15+ billion (from a well established player) and multiple years just to get to a point where you have sellable product. No company in the right mind will be willing to start from 0 without additional backing.

>>3084553
>No company in the right mind will be willing to start from 0 without additional backing.
Canon and Sony did.

>Equipment is a one time investment.
This is wrong. Equipment needs to be upgraded. Unless you are Canon and wish to truck on with 500nm forever.

Nikon was in pole position to hand itself cheap high end steppers every time they invented new ones.

>>3084555
Sony have customers lined up before they even started and a much bigger capital to start with and. If i remember correctly, Sony bought their way in, and didn't start from 0.
Cannon, as you pointed out, they are stuck because their unit can't generate the money to keep them moving forward with new tech.

Machines have a static cost spread over their life span, that in terms in a one time investment. You use it till it dies or there's no longer a market for its product.
Upgrades, yes, but every time new tech is implemented you have proofing period and that can take years, all the while your recurring cost is still adding up.

>>3084572
>Cannon are stuck because their unit can't generate the money to keep them moving forward with new tech.
I'm pretty sure this was a decision made on purpose from Canon. Their old sensors still sold, their customers aren't interested in new sensors. In fact sometimes you get the impression they don't want new camera models to exist at all.

>>3084574
Since Canon don't sell them to 3rd parties, they can only recuperate fab cost through camera profit.
Problem really is investors, nobody care for long term growth and development anymore. They pretty much against anything that will cut into their immediate profit margin. They rather squeeze you till you die and move on than wait.

>>3084585
>Since Canon don't sell them to 3rd parties,
That is also a decision Canon leadership made on purpose. It didn't have to be that way.

Two bad decisions, and yet they are still better off than Nikon because they do have those fabs.

>>3084126
>>Sharpness is overrated
>For real world uses they are just bling; "Look at me I've got a Ziess"

At photokina you could rent zeiss lenses for free so me and 2 friends took that opportunity. The look on the faces of all the gearfags around us noticing all 3 of us were sporting Zeiss was ridiculous...

File: 1391088349.jpg (141KB, 600x300px) Image search: [Google]

141KB, 600x300px

>>3084511
It's not that Nikon doesn't want to make lithography machines anymore.
Their engineers just failed to keep up with the competition.
And so did Canon.
And so did Intel.
And so did everyone else.

ASML has a nearly 100% market share now.
They are the only company with the technical knowledge to make the current generation of lithography machines.
They are also the only company even attempting the next generation (extreme ultraviolet) which is an engineering nightmare because they can no longer use lenses but have to use a vacuum chamber with mirrors instead.

>>3084572
>Machines have a static cost spread over their life span, that in terms in a one time investment. You use it till it dies or there's no longer a market for its product.

That's not true at all when it comes to lithography machines.

Every new generation reduces the cost per transistor.
So by investing in a new machines you can make the same chips for less.

And the neat thing is: you don't have to discard any old machines.
Older machines can be used for less critical layers in the chip.
Even several generations old machines can be used for layers that provide power and basic signalling.
Only the first layer requires the state of the art machines, and only broken machines ever need replacing.

File: 20161204-DSC05722.jpg (1MB, 2000x1333px) Image search: [Google]

1MB, 2000x1333px

>>3084126
>You pay a lot more money
My 50mm f1.8 ultron = 300 eurobucks
>difference is only noticeable in lab tests
No. Better handling, bokeh, sharpness, Zeiss 3D pop® and the Leica Glow™ in the blown highlights.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	ILCE-7M2
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 6.10 (Windows)
Photographer	David Mornet
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.0
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2017:05:28 11:00:22
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	5000
Brightness	-4.7 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Color Space Information	sRGB
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

File: 1429423562489.gif (496KB, 500x455px) Image search: [Google]

496KB, 500x455px

>>3084635
>ASML has a nearly 100% market share now.
>Zeiss optics inside
That feel when Zeiss proves once and for all they have the ultimate software for optics calculation.

Puny Japanese copy cats can never hope to match German greatness.

>>3084668

It is a shame their killed their brand value by slapping CARL ZEISS onto a fuckton of shitty compacts and cellphone cameras.

>>3084671
Some of them have great performance for their size restrictions though.

>>3084493
>Then why is x-mount so popular?
They aren't that popular tho.

>All their lensed are shit wide open.
They aren't shit tho.
Absolut maximum wide open sharpness is mostly irrelevant to actual photographers.

Sorry to say this, but only talentless hacks and gearfags read some mtf charts and dxo garbage like bible. No one cares about your gear, and no one is going to look at your shitty snaps at 100% anyway. And if the pic itself is good, only talentless hacks and gearfags will pixel peep and complain about sharpness.

>>3084682
The original discussion was about vignetting.

It can be a bit of a marketing scam to charge nearly 2000 dollars for a lens, and then it turns out it has so many compromises wide open.

>>3084682
Doesn't change the fact fuji lenses are almost universally unusably shit wide open, even the f2 23mm on the x100 series is fucking useless wide open and it's not even that fast.

Compare them to modern sony, zeiss, voigtlander or leica and they're a complete fucking joke. They don't even hold up next to samyang. What's the point in bringing out a whole slew of fast primes if they all need to be stopped down past f2.8?

File: images3.persgroep.net.jpg (172KB, 694x868px) Image search: [Google]

172KB, 694x868px

>>3084668
I don't think their photography lenses inherit much from their lithography department.

Lithography lenses only deal with one (ultraviolet) wavelength so no worries about chromatic aberrations.
They are also stupidly big and complex.

I do wonder what will happen to Zeiss when ASML moves away from lenses and into mirrors.
AFAIK Zeiss doesn't make optical mirrors.

File: 750_6998.jpg (430KB, 1000x668px) Image search: [Google]

430KB, 1000x668px

>>3083993
>nikkors 1.2 noct

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	NIKON CORPORATION
Camera Model	NIKON D750
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop Lightroom 5.7 (Macintosh)
Photographer	Joseph Isip
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/1.7
Sensing Method	One-Chip Color Area
Color Filter Array Pattern	800
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	20 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Horizontal Resolution	300 dpi
Vertical Resolution	300 dpi
Image Created	2015:03:05 23:53:21
Exposure Time	1/60 sec
F-Number	f/2.5
Exposure Program	Aperture Priority
ISO Speed Rating	100
Lens Aperture	f/2.5
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	Flash, Compulsory, Return Not Detected
Focal Length	20.00 mm
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Gain Control	None
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal
Subject Distance Range	Unknown

>>3084850
Explain your pic.

>>3084449
I agree.
I wish Nikon would incorporate that feature in all of their bodies. I have a couple of pre ai lenses that I have yet to modify.
To the OP why should they modify a mount that works just fine. Maybe Pentax should also change their as well for an armchair designer like you. Also why would they want to alienate their customer base like others did in the past.

>>3084449
>Df
>not a gimped body

You're legitimately retarded.

You people would do anything not to take photos.