Is it still wise to invest in Nikon f mount? (Page 4): Cameras & lenses are not an investment as far as I'M concerned, they are tools, and an expense, the value begins to drop with the...

Manglesphoto Loc: 70 miles south of St.Louis

karno wrote:

I am on the fence about this and would like to her... (show quote)

Cameras & lenses are not an investment as far as I'M concerned, they are tools, and an expense, the value begins to drop with the first click of the shutter, just as the value of a car drops as soon as you drive it off the lot.
I know the my cameras will eventually need to be replaced not because a newer model has come out but because they are broken or worn out, its the cost of my hobby nothing more or less. The only justification I need is I want it, need has nothing to do with it. If you are planning on going with a mirror-less system in the near future then I can see a concern on a new lens purchase, otherwise just relax, have fun.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Steve Perry wrote:

As others have said, Nikon has used and supported the F mount forever. In fact, when AF first hit the scene, they SHOULD have changed the mount like Canon did but they stayed true to the same mount for backward compatibility. It's not going anywhere soon.

As for the Z mount, it has a MUCH shorter flange distance so using your F mount lenses on it with an adapter will be a breeze.

Could you explain how an adaptor would shorten the flange distance for use of a F mount lens on a Z mount body. It seems to me that only Z mount lenses could be adapted to the F mount bodies.

Steve Perry Loc: Sylvania, Ohio

joer wrote:

Could you explain how an adaptor would shorten the flange distance for use of a F mount lens on a Z mount body. It seems to me that only Z mount lenses could be adapted to the F mount bodies.

The normal F mount lenses are designed for a longer flange distance, so you need to add space to the Z mount - which the adapter would do. On the other hand, you would need some sort of optical interface to mount a Z mount lens on an F series body since those lenses aren not designed for the longer distance.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

joer wrote:

Could you explain how an adaptor would shorten the flange distance for use of a F mount lens on a Z mount body. It seems to me that only Z mount lenses could be adapted to the F mount bodies.

Let's take an example. The flange distance for the EF mount is 44mm; a EF lens must be 44mm from the sensor. The flange distance for the EF-M mount is 18mm; on a EF-M camera there are 18mm between the sensor and the sensor - Canon needed to add 26mm to give the 44mm needed by a EF lens, and the 26mm were taken up by the adapter mechanism.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

Steve Perry wrote:

The normal F mount lenses are designed for a longer flange distance, so you need to add space to the Z mount - which the adapter would do. On the other hand, you would need some sort of optical interface to mount a Z mount lens on an F series body since those lenses aren not designed for the longer distance.

Got it, thanks.

karno Loc: Chico ,California

Manglesphoto wrote:

Cameras & lenses are not an investment as far ... (show quote)

Thank you for the comment,
From a relaxed fellow photographer who is having fun!!
I look at anything purchased as investment, if I buy a lens in f mount I am investing in that camera system.
I will be upgrading as technology gets better, I like keeping up tech, and I find my photography does improve with the technology, people say that a camera does not make better photographer and that is true to a certain extent. If your pushing your cameras to its limits then then new tech may improve the quality of the images as well as advance skill set.

Manglesphoto Loc: 70 miles south of St.Louis

karno wrote:

Thank you for the comment, br From a relaxed fell... (show quote)

Why upgrade if what you have is working? My last camera purchased was a D810, do I see a D850 in the future, nope, just because it has advanced technology it won't help ME produce a better image. if I can't get it with 36mp why would 42mp make a difference?
Your going to worry your self into an early grave

I don't see DLSR's going away anytime soon.

karno Loc: Chico ,California

Manglesphoto wrote:

Why upgrade if what you have is working? My last... (show quote)

Trust me I am not worried, this is a discussion not a freak out.
I am relaxed and loving the medium.
But I will say this, my images improved to another level when I upgraded from d810 to the d850. Not compisitionally, it is difficult for me to put into words. I am seeing more depth better blacks and highlights, and colors. Just better overall images.
I do not want to upgrade anytime soon I am having a blast with this camera.
My concern is more about getting more glass for a system that I was concerned about being replaced or just not being upgraded, at some point in the future.
I hoping I am communicating my thoughts properly.
Buying Zeiss glass in my world is an investment into f mount
Cheers

GregWCIL Loc: Illinois

karno wrote:

WE refers to the invested.
WHEN, I am referring to years ahead when my zeiss lenses are looking at me wondering what I am doing next.
This question is about the future state of cameras and investing for the future of this, yes my D850 is amazing but if in 5 -10 years it is not being upgraded then the owner has a choice to make. So I ponder the future of cameras before buying more into the system, it is a logical step in evolution.

Shoot, I was going to buy a D850, but i sure won't if it's going to quit working in 5 years.

karno Loc: Chico ,California

GregWCIL wrote:

Shoot, I was going to buy a D850, but i sure won't if it's going to quit working in 5 years.

I fully recommend you not buying it

BebuLamar

Manglesphoto wrote:

Cameras & lenses are not an investment as far ... (show quote)

If I consider them as tools then they are certainly investment. I have significant amount of money invested in my tools which helped me earned a living. I wouldn't otherwise bought them if they were not to to earn money.
Now my cameras are not investment because they are my TOYS. There is no monetary return on buying them unless I can put a monetary value to my FUN.

karno Loc: Chico ,California

BebuLamar wrote:

If I consider them as tools then they are certainly investment. I have significant amount of money invested in my tools which helped me earned a living. I wouldn't otherwise bought them if they were not to to earn money.
Now my cameras are not investment because they are my TOYS. There is no monetary return on buying them unless I can put a monetary value to my FUN.

in the English language words definitions very depending on how they are used, it is just simantics and not what I meant in this thread.

karno Loc: Chico ,California

BebuLamar wrote:

If I consider them as tools then they are certainly investment. I have significant amount of money invested in my tools which helped me earned a living. I wouldn't otherwise bought them if they were not to to earn money.
Now my cameras are not investment because they are my TOYS. There is no monetary return on buying them unless I can put a monetary value to my FUN.

I see it as you have invested in your fun

wj cody Loc: springfield illinois

karno wrote:

I am on the fence about this and would like to her... (show quote)

while this latest digital iteration from nikon sounds great it is important to note that this will not be a full frame imaging device. the nikon f mount is made for cameras which can take all dslr mounts as well as all film bodies. it sounds as if this "mirrorless" device is a step down from nikon's flagship models.

BebuLamar

I think the long lenses with electronic diaphragm would be very much usable on the whatever new mirrorless. The wide angle and ultra wide angle lenses would be better designed for the new mount.