Mirrorless vs. DSLR Mount Question

[Habermas]

Hi All,

 

First time poster, long time lurker. I have a technical question about camera mounts. When Nikon and Canon introduce their own full frame mirrorless cameras (to compete with the A7) how likely is it that they will have to use a different mount system (in the same way Sony had to switch from the old A mount system for the A7)? Put another way, will Nikon and Canon users face the same problems we face with Minolta/A mount lenses? Will they have to buy adapters, etc. or is it technically possible to make a new mount that would accommodate old, DSLR-style lenses on a mirrorless body? I asked this because I often go through the pendulum swing of deciding whether to sell my A850 and minolta/Zeiss lenses and switch to Nikon (since I don't want to settle for an inadequate adapter to use my current lenses on an A7). However, since I think it's likely that mirrorless will eventually become the standard FF system in the future (and because there are things I like about EVFs, etc.) it would be galling to sell all my equipment, buy a D800 and lenses and then, in five or six years, have to buy an adapter to use them on a new Nikon mirrorless camera!

 

Thanks for any collective wisdom...

 

 

 

[chrisqphoto]

when the mirror goes away, the lens can sit closer to the sensor, meaning the body can be smaller. it's highly likely they will come up with something else because if they don't, people will try putting on a lens that's made for the sensor to be further away behind a mirror.

[Guest all8]

Is there such a big difference between DSLR and Mirrorless? Most likely everything you like about Mirrorless will end up on a DSLR soon enough. In any case a new Mirrorless system will have a new mount for the simple reason that camera makers can then sell you new lenses and adapters  

 

One alternative, if you can handle manual focus, is to look at Zeiss Milvus lens lineup - they work equally well on Canon, Nikon and Sony. They probably also work on that new Leica SL. Apparently the Nikon one has an aperture control which makes it somewhat desirable (no electronics).

[Guest Peter Kelly]

A million dollar question. Probably many millions of dollars, so I wouldn't like to be the management team making the decision!

 

Ultimately, every single camera design, whether film of digital, SLR or Mirrorless, is a collection of compromises and economics will factor in too.

For instance, a rangefinder is fast, light, and accurate, whereas an SLR has to have a bulky pentaprism and mirror. The rangefinder can have simpler lenses because the SLR has to keep the rear element farther away than is ideal.

However, the rangefinder can't use big telephotos because the viewfinder is limited. It can't use AF either, as there's no room for a beam splitter.

 

Similar things apply to digital.

While the design of lenses is easier for some mirrorless (the same reason of distance to rear element), it becomes trickier with wide angle, as the angle of incidence is important (it was irrelevant for film).

 

In an ideal world there would only be one single factor affecting lens design and all cameras could be built around that. Sadly, it isn't the case.

 

Then we come to economics. While, on the face of it, there is nothing to stop you making a mirrorless camera using the exact same mount and 'flange distance', so you could just mount all existing lenses, most of the profit is in the lenses.

Create such a camera and sales of lenses will barely change. You could always do as Samyang did for a number of their A mount lenses and effectively 'weld' an extension tube in place to allow them to fit an E mount, but then the unnecessary bulk would be criticised.

 

Of course, Sony have already gone down the most likely path: a new mount with adapters. I expect Canon and Nikon will very likely do likewise if they decide to launch new models.

The other question at the moment, though, bearing in mind the shrinking market, is whether they will bother at all, or try to hold firm with existing product lines.

[mkg3]

A million dollar question. Probably many millions of dollars, so I wouldn't like to be the management team making the decision!.....................I expect Canon and Nikon will very likely do likewise if they decide to launch new models.

The other question at the moment, though, bearing in mind the shrinking market, is whether they will bother at all, or try to hold firm with existing product lines.

 

 

The biggest difference between why Sony intro'd E mount on the top of existing A mount, versus what Nikon/Canon will do is, my sense, the existing user base.

 

The commonality of mount with the large installed base when introducing a new system is huge.  While this approach may not make the most technically advantages decision, it certainly makes the lowest risk and high probability of success business decision for the mass market.

 

My sense is that both Nikon and Canon will intro mirrorless bodies with the common mounts as their existing lens lineup.

[Waldhaus3]

Because the lens will sit closer to the sensor a spacer is required to make focusing work - even manual focusing.

If they keep the same mount they would need an adapter anyway to act as a spacer - and would risk people being disappointed because they tried to use the lens without the spacer.

So the simple thing to do is to use a new mount. The key would be to design it to include all the autofocus and vibration resistant features that would be present on an SLR. 

The alternative is to use a larger body with the body becoming the spacer. If the mirror box is being eliminated the real decision is whether or not to make the body thinner.

sony chose thinner. It will be interesting to see what is done with the A99 II. If it is mirrorless will the mirror box size be kept or will it be made as an e mount.

Combined engineering and marketing decision.

[JGM]

The commonality of mount with the large installed base when introducing a new system is huge.  While this approach may not make the most technically advantages decision, it certainly makes the lowest risk and high probability of success business decision for the mass market.

 

My sense is that both Nikon and Canon will intro mirrorless bodies with the common mounts as their existing lens lineup.

 

If I had to look into my errr.... 'crystal ball' my money would be on mkg3's 'guess' ;D 

[Golem]

.........

deciding whether to sell my A850 and minolta/Zeiss lenses

and switch to Nikon (since I don't want to settle for an

inadequate adapter to use my current lenses on an A7). .......

There is nothing "inadequate" about the Sony adapters.

Non-Sony-brand adapters can be equal to Sony's own

or vastly inferior ... it's a matter of price.

 

Nevertheless, Sony erred in calling these devices by

that tainted word "adapter". It's even in their model

names: "LA XX" where LA apparently is "lens adapter".

It shoulda been "SC XX" for "system converter".

 

Now, Nikon and Canon MUST use a new mount for their

eventual FF live view systems. Canon already has lived

thru the changeover from the breach lock SLR mount to

the EOS/EF SLR mount while Nikon is proud of sticking

with their original [1959] Nikon-F bayonet to this day.

Therefor it falls to Nikon to seize the day on this concept

[which I'll predict/present forthwith] while Canon, should

they choose this method, would do well to let Nikon

"break the ice" with the buying public.

 

OK. Here's the idea. I'm not a prophet. If I can think of

this, then the R&D folks at Canon/Nikon are aware of the

possibility as well ... whether or not they will choose to

market it. Now, to the actual idea .... [Tah Daaahhh !]

 

The concept is to avoid the [perceived] stigma of using

"adapters" and enforce a view of "adapters" as "System

Converters". The method, hardware-wise is to equip the

camera with interchangeable lens mounts ... but do NOT

equip it with any sort of native "lens mount".

 

This is nothing new technically. It's a ben dare dun dat.

The camera has NO lens mount. It has a "System Interface"

which is a receptacle for, in the case of Nikon, a variety

of actual lens mounts which would include the F-mount and

their new live view system lens mount, as well as perhaps

M-mount and M39 mounts. It's almost unthinkable for Nikon

to include a mount for Canon EF, but 3rd party offerings

are bound to turn out [Metabones etc etc]. Some 3rd party

connections will be direct to the System Interface [to the

"naked" camera with no attached lens mount]. These would

tend to be medical/scientific devices.

 

So it's a "two-fer". Market-wise it avoids the stigma of using

"adapters". Function-wise, the "naked" System Interface is

larger and sturdier and more versatile than needed for any

particular lens mount, so your lenses for general photography

are not each and every one burdened with a bigger and more

expensive lens mount than necessary for typical photography.

 

Obviously, most [Nikon] live view cameras would ship with

the lens mount module for the new live view lens range, but

surely it hasta also be offered with their current generation

of the F-mount, as well as just plain "naked". Canon can very

easily apply the same concept, but using a different System

Interface, so avoiding "misogyny", at the customer's expense !

And acoarst this is also a solution to the Sony A-mount plus

E-Mount challenge.

[Habermas]

Thanks to all of you for these illuminating responses. Very helpful! It sounds like the chances are reasonably strong that a new Nikon mirrorless camera would require a different mount (and therefore, an adapter for any pre-mirrorless Nikon lenses). I really like the idea of re-framing adapters as system convertors. My concern about the LAEA4 is the fact that, as I understand it, you loose the native autofocus capability of the camera your using (say, an A7II) and are stuck with the on-board auto focus of the adapter. Now I have an A850, so for all I know the LAEA4 adapter autofocus may be better than my 850, but if I upgrade to a mirrorless camera that has superior AF capacity I hate to lose it. Of course if I knew that Sony was going to remain sufficiently committed to A mount to create a new generation of superior adapters/convertors I would be less worried about this!

[Golem]

The problem seems to be about the older shaft-driven

AF in older lenses. IOW the AF motor is not internal

to each lens. Would be great if Sony would eliminate

the SLT mirror in the LAE4 concept, but keep the drive

shaft motor, while using the on-sensor AF detection to

inform the driveshaft motor, pretty much the same way

it informs the internal-to-lens motors, which way to

spin and just where to stop. Not for me to say whether

Sony is refusing to do something that they are fully

able to do, or whether it can't be done. But my best

semi-edumacated guess it that it can be easily done !