[boriscleto]

Have Canon and Nikon Lost Their Minds?

Have Canon and Nikon Lost Their Minds? | Fstoppers

I don't think he gets the target market. It's about the Crazy Rich Asians...Well, the Nouveau riche anyway...

[MarkJerling]

The disadvantages listed here pretty much sum it up for me. In particular the EVF lag.I am quite amused by the tone of this article which to my cynical eye treats the limitations of DSLR as deal killers but treats those of the mirror-less as minor inconveniences that will be solved some day.Come back to me when they are solved.

I think you've summed it up well.

[reh321]

Well, yes. All AF lenses, but also MF lenses (if I understood correct, you can't use MF lenses on some of the Canikon later cameras...?).

I'm not sure exactly what you mean by this.

Canon changed lens mount when they went to auto focus, so no manual focus lens has ever been usable on any camera manufactured after 1987; this applies to DSLR as well as MILC.

Nikon's path was slightly more tortuous than Pentax's, but as far as I am aware, manual focus lenses have always been usable on all cameras - but I'm not sure about metering. What ever restriction does exist came into being before their MILCs.

[troika]

But Nikon's new MILC is a new mount, incompatible with Nikon dSLR lenses as is Canon's new offering.

[Not a Number]

Canon released a FD to EOS adapter. The drawback is that the front element protrudes so can only be used on some lenses - mainly the expensive L series telephotos.

There are adapters that allow you to use Pentax MF K and screwmount lenses. Witness the uproar when people amputate the stop down lever on K mount lenses like the 50mm f/1.2 so they can be used on Canon FF bodies.

Nikon cripples their lower end bodies so they don't even support screwdrive AF along with stop-down metering and the various mechanical linkages on MF lenses. However their higher end bodies support stop-down metering. And why else would companies make M42 to Nikon mount adapters if you couldn't use MF lenses on Nikon? And like Pentax and Minolta/Konica Nikon had a TC, the TC-16, that gave limited AF ability to MF lenses. There's a way to get around the lack of metering linkages with MF lenses that involves using exposure compensation, I don't recall the details.

There's a review video of one of the Laowa/Venus lenses that is full manual on Nikon and the reviewer should how to meter and set the exposure using EC. I just shook my head and thought of all the people who gripe about the crippled K-mount and using the green button. The lower end Nikon users should have it so good.

[reh321]

But Nikon's new MILC is a new mount, incompatible with Nikon dSLR lenses as is Canon's new offering.

Each has an adapter that allows you to use their DSLR lenses on their MILC. As I understand, all lenses will retain all functionality on the Canon system because of how they jumped to their current mount, less true on the Nikon system because of how they evolved to their current mount

[Not a Number]

But Nikon's new MILC is a new mount, incompatible with Nikon dSLR lenses as is Canon's new offering.

What about the FTZ adapter that is touted to let you use over 360 F-mount lenses on the Z-series.

I haven't been following the Canon EOS-R rumors. But Canon released an EF to EOS-M adapter so I don't see why they wouldn't release a EF to EOS-R adapter too.

Edit: gee look at this:
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1433717-REG/canon_mount_adapter_ef_rf.html
https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1431716-REG/nikon_4185_ftz_mount_adapter.html

[troika]

I've used adaptors and it doesn't appeal to me. I value native lens mounts. I use legacy Pentax and Tokina K-Mount and F and FA series lenses and don't feel crippled at all.

It all comes down to preference and priorities. I'm pretty happy with Pentax.

[reh321]

I've used adaptors and it doesn't appeal to me. I value native lens mounts. I use legacy Pentax and Tokina K-Mount and F and FA series lenses and don't feel crippled at all.

It all comes down to preference and priorities. I'm pretty happy with Pentax.

So why are you so concerned about what Canikon are doing?

[reh321]

What about the FTZ adapter that is touted to let you use over 360 F-mount lenses on the Z-series.

I haven't been following the Canon EOS-R rumors. But Canon released an EF to EOS-M adapter so I don't see why they wouldn't release a EF to EOS-R adapter too.

Edit: gee look at this:
Canon Mount Adapter EF-EOS R 2971C002 B&H Photo Video
Nikon FTZ Mount Adapter 4185 B&H Photo Video

I can't find the reference right now - but my recollection is that Canon actually released three different adapters - one has some kind of dial on it and one allows user to put standard filter behind the lens.

[troika]

So why are you so concerned about what Canikon are doing?

Because since they released these cameras we can't stop talking about it on Pentax Forums. I shoot Pentax because of the legacy glass and all that they have built to help me continue using it, weather sealing, external control ergonomics, form factor, and great view finders.


But, we've had an "if Pentax doesn't follow suit!, we're all doomed!" obsession this month.

That's why.

[biz-engineer]

Not quite. I'd like a mirrorless body to adapt odd lenses. It would keep me out of trouble with my wife who doesn't like it when I carry more than 2 cameras On the other hand, if I have to buy a new camera that will definitely get me into trouble

Yes but you are talking for yourself and norm is talking in general. One customer is not the market.

---------- Post added 07-09-18 at 06:16 ----------

Mirrorless with mechanical shutter is just a different implementation of a system to take the same photographs. What's upsetting is the way mirrorless "advantages" have transformed over time from being small advantage with drawbacks transformed into bold advantages without drawbacks and finaly "it the future". I can take every single advantage claim of DPR and prove the claim is not true.

[Jonathan Mac]

Pentax had a chance to release mirrorless back when it was just starting off. They could have built a better system than Sony and gotten ahead of the curve, maybe even to the extent of going back to being one of the big players. But it would have required a lot of investment (and risk).

The chance is gone now and I don't think Pentax can afford another new mount, their lens development has already slowed to a lethargic crawl as it is.

Mirrorless will continue to grow until it accounts for a significantly larger share of the market than at present - CaNikon have gotten into the game precisely because they saw the writing on the wall and realised that they can't maintain their market dominance without going mirrorless.

[richard0170]

This thread has really got me thinking. So I decided to do a bit of research. Most FF SLR mounts have a flange distance of round 45-46mm. This means that any lens above this focal length does not need complicated optics to focus on the sensor. Therefore a "normal"prime of 50mm for any FF camera should be around the same length. I decided to test this out with a simple experiment. I took photos of a couple of old film SLRs with similar lenses - Pentax K2 with 50mm M f1.7 and Canon EF with 50mm FD f1.8, together with an "original mirrorless" - Voigtlander Vito IIc with 50mm f3.5. You will see from the images that the front to back depth of all these cameras is remarkably similar. I have also shown as a comparison an Olympus XA with a 35mm f2.8 lens what can be achieved depth wise if you have a wide angle lens on a mirrorless FF camera. All of these lenses are of high optical quality.
So there is no advantage of FF mirrorless over a DSLR size wise when using normal or telephoto lenses, other than the possibility of saving some weight by losing the pentaprism and its attendant hump. The advantage of FF mirrorless size wise, should be the ability to have compact and high quality wide angle lenses. Guess what no one is making any! It is almost as if the lenses manufacturers have a ***** envy size wise. I know that by showing the XA I was being a bit extreme but just check out images for Leica M, Voigtlander M and LTM and Contax G mount wide angle lenses, attached to their respective cameras. I would have shown you comparison photos myself but I am not lucky enough to have anything from these RF systems.
As for the new Nikon Z 50mm f1.8 it is ridiculously large and bloated, and expensive to boot. If it is a commercial succes it won't be Nikon that have lost their minds but their customers.

[richard0170]

This thread has really got me thinking. So I decided to do a bit of research. Most FF SLR mounts have a flange distance of round 45-46mm. This means that any lens above this focal length does not need complicated optics to focus on the sensor. Therefore a "normal"prime of 50mm for any FF camera should be around the same length. I decided to test this out with a simple experiment. I took photos of a couple of old film SLRs with similar lenses - Pentax K2 with 50mm M f1.7 and Canon EF with 50mm FD f1.8, together with an "original mirrorless" - Voigtlander Vito IIc with 50mm f3.5. You will see from the images that the front to back depth of all these cameras is remarkably similar. I have also shown as a comparison an Olympus XA with a 35mm f2.8 lens what can be achieved depth wise if you have a wide angle lens on a mirrorless FF camera. All of these lenses are of high optical quality.
So there is no advantage of FF mirrorless over a DSLR size wise when using normal or telephoto lenses, other than the possibility of saving some weight by losing the pentaprism and its attendant hump. The advantage of FF mirrorless size wise, should be the ability to have compact and high quality wide angle lenses. Guess what no one is making any! It is almost as if the lenses manufacturers have a ***** envy size wise. I know that by showing the XA I was being a bit extreme but just check out images for Leica M, Voigtlander M and LTM and Contax G mount wide angle lenses, attached to their respective cameras. I would have shown you comparison photos myself but I am not lucky enough to have anything from these RF systems.
As for the new Nikon Z 50mm f1.8 it is ridiculously large and bloated, and expensive to boot. If it is a commercial succes it won't be Nikon that have lost their minds but their customers.

So just to show that Pentax do not need to change to a new mount if they went mirrorless is a few pictures of a Minolta 21mm lens for the SR/MC/MD cameras of yore. The lens barrel fits inside void of the flange distance and where the mirror goes. On the SLRs the mirror needless to say has to locked up to fit the lens. Not a problem with a mirrorless camera. This lens can even be fitted to Leica M mount with an adaptor.