karno Loc: Chico ,California

Is this going to be the downturn of the f mount for Nikon, or is effort going to be made in development of f mount products ?
Should us dslr users start to make the transition to mirrorless?

I don’t believe this post will answer my questions though as I attempt to work this out in my mind through the next few months my hope is to formulate a plan.

UTMike Loc: South Jordan, UT

As a Sony user I can suggest that mounting adapters are going to be necessary. Even within the mirrorless system, Sony changed from the A mount to the E mount. With the big push toward capturing the growing mirrorless market, I think Nikon (and Canon) will put their development into mirrorless products for the foreseeable future. Just my opinion. In the meanwhile, keep producing those beautiful photos.

karno Loc: Chico ,California

Thank you for your insight,

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

The biggest flurry of research, development, and design/manufacturing improvements in 110 years of phonographic history took place in the last five years or so of the commercial lifespan of vinyl recordings in the late 1970s and early 1980s. Building on the final generation of phono cartridges and turntables by Bang & Olufsen and three or four others, and by significant improvements in vinyl disc recording and manufacturing by Telarc, MFSL, and a couple of others, a final generation of truly innovative and outstanding albums and replay equipment came onto the market for a short while. I still have two turntables and a number of these "ultra high quality recordings." They still today offer sound that is not fully attainable even by the best CDs or other digital formats. (Although x.1 sound systems are really impressive and fun and were never achievable on vinyl.)

It didn't matter. The public spoke (loudly), and not too much later, vinyl disappeared from the commercial market, almost overnight. The CD, which started as an audiophile curiosity and broadcaster convenience, ended up democratically providing "pretty good audio" to the masses. Fortunately, CDs are good enough and provide enough real benefit that the real audio hobbyists did not lose out entirely. But it wasn't our (audiophiles') choice. It was a choice dictated to us by masses of less experienced and less well-informed listeners, but which fit very nicely with corporate business models.

There are portions of the DSLR/mirrorless debate that parallel the vinyl/CD history and portions that do not. I, for one, am watching with great curiosity to see what happens and to see how well what we finally get matches up with what we thought we wanted. Right now, I'm not overly excited by ILMCs. I think that they just represent something less than the hype associated with them. Once a critical mass is switched over, the manufacturers will probably settle into a maintenance mode with much slower development and improvement. So I'll stick with what I have, at least for now. A time may come when I wear out or lose my current DSLRs. If I'm still interested in and able to pursue photography, I'll either buy a used antique or a new "whatever is current," whichever seems to make more sense at the time.

Steve Perry Loc: Sylvania, Ohio

IMO it depends how quickly mirrorless is adopted by the masses. Keep in mind that Nikon launched the 500PF (F-Mount Lens) the same day they launched the mirrorless cameras. While there's no doubt mirrorless will be the platform of the future, how quickly people adopt that future will ultimately decide how long Nikon will continue to make new F-mount glass. I doubt even Nikon knows for sure.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

I understand this is “audiophile heresay”, and I expect a heated response, BUT pretty good audio? In every measurable way, from dynamic range to frequency response, IM, THD, transient response, S/N, channel separation, and any other objective and quantifiable measurement, CDs are superior to vinyl, not to mention SACDs. This from an audio designer that listens exclusively to tube amps (and CDs). I understand that you can hear the difference. Can you also hear the difference in AC power cables to your amplifiers? Sorry to be argumentative, but I hear this so often. A good friend who owned a serious audio company and mastered everything with high-end Ampex dbx encoded professional decks at 15-30 IPS (before moving to a Sony digital encoding system) had this advice about 30 years ago: “buy the least expensive CD player with a name you can recognize and you’ll be able to immerse yourself in the music without being distracted by the inevitable noise of vinyl, which ruins the image and the illusion” if you love the sound of vinyl, spent thousands on a turntable, thousands more on a cartridge, more on an excellent phono preamp, a cleaning machine, granite base for the turntable, disc “clamp” and maybe even signal processing (I know that’s a dirty word) to increase separation, S/N or noise reduction, and dynamic range (that are all lacking), then God bless and enjoy your music.

Mac Loc: Pittsburgh, Philadelphia now Hernando Co. Fl.

Nothing lasts forever, but with the number of F-Mount lenses Nikon has available combined with the fact that the Z-Mount is in it's infancy and that Nikon is still developing DSLRs I would not expect the F-Mount to disappear anytime soon.

Bill_de Loc: US

I'm sure you can find better things to think about in the next few months. If everyone in the world but you went mirrorless tomorrow, you would still have all your gear. On top of that you'd have your pick of very lightly used equipment at below Black Friday prices.

Unlike when the transition was from film to digital, there will still be an unlimited number of zeros and ones to last a lifetime.

--

rook2c4 Loc: Philadelphia, PA USA

If you don't have any issues with your DSLR, then why make a transition? Because some article suggests to do so?

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

Just to clarify...I said, "pretty good audio to the masses. The vast majority of CD players which came along had nowhere near the capability of properly reproducing the sound on any CD, and if they were, the headphones and preamps and amplifiers and speakers to which that vast majority were connected did not either. In addition, when CDs became the predominant distribution mechanism for distribution of recorded music, much of what was available was about a half step above what came before, if that. This was especially true for recordings that were either analog mastered or analog mixed, or both, of which there were many.

There is no argument with the slightly better frequency response (primarily audible as better transient response) and less surface noise, and "rumble," but a clean, half-pound UHQR or Telarc album played on a good $300 direct drive Sony turntable with a premium B&O cartridge (another $275 or so), and a good $30 electrically conductive (to dissipate static charge) isolation mat produced a signal with no discernible noise, rumble, flutter, or "wow" (because the thicker disc didn't warp and special care was taken to get the spindle hole in the center). The rest of my audio system was a good mid-range system. It did have a McIntosh C28 preamp (which I wish I still had), dbx equalizer and McIntosh ML1C speakers, properly equalized.

At a listening party later on down the road, a knowledgeable group of people listened to the 1812 Overture (can't remember which orchestra) from Telarc both on their high quality vinyl and on their CD. The sound of the vinyl recording (including the cannons) was preferred by all but one of the 8 or 10 folks. And the group agreed that by then we all generally preferred CDs most of the time.

The point of all this is that the migration to CDs was fine. But from the perspective of the CDs being a new way to store and reproduce music, they were in no way revolutionary. I don't think that any of us would have wanted not to have CDs, or to go back to vinyl now (I have not bought a vinyl album in 32 years, except for two Camarata trombone choir recordings from the 1960s that are not available in any other format.) But the functionality "after" has been, for almost everyone, essentially the same as the functionality "before." I expect that when the dust settles, it will be pretty much the same for photographers.

Bipod

Global shipments of digital cameras (all types, all manufacturers) have declined by more than
70% since 2011.

Put yourself in the CEO of Nikon's shoes. You just doubled the number of lens mounts in production
(from just F to F and Z). Hence you don't just make NIKKOR AF-X 50 mm f/1.8D lens,
you now also make NIKKOR Z 50 mm f/1.8 S -- basically, the same lens -- just two different
final assembly lines, two different boxes, two different catalog entries.

Potentially, you have doubled the number of lenses you must ship and your distributors and
dealers may want to stock. And for any particular lens, volumes will go down because some
will order F-mount, and some will order Z-mount.

What impact do you think this will have on corporate earnings? If you were a Nikon shareholder,
how would you feel about this doubling of products in production in a declining market?
If you were CEO of Nikon, would you continue to support both mounts?

I suggest that the views of Nikon shareholders matter a lot more than the views of UHH members,
Nikon enthusiasts, or Nikon's statements that it will support F-mount until the cows come home.

Business reality suggests that one or the other mount will be dropped. But we shouldn't automatically
assume it will be F-mount.. Whatever happened to the New Coke--or to 110 cartridge film and
Kodak disk film? Where are quadraphonic sounds systems? All were "innovations" -- that failed.

So in the end, it's Nikon customers who will determine what Nikon does. It would prefer to
cancel F-mount, but it will cancel one or the other as soon it feels customers won't revolt.

And to be clear: there is no reason to prefer a flange-to-frame distance of 16 mm (Z-mount) to
46.5 mm (F-mount) when designing a 50 mm or longer lens. There is some small advantage
when designing a wide-angle lens, and considerable advantage for ultra-wide angle lens.

But you're willing to replace all your F-mount cameras and all your F-mount lenses to get a
slightly better ultra-wide angle lens, right? Even if it reduces battery life or you can't
recognize people though the viewfinder.

What's that going to cost you? After to spend all that money, you'll be back where you started
but you get a nice Christmas card from Nikon.

So why is Nikon doing this? It didn't want to -- it's had F-mount since 1958. It dragged its feet and got
criticized by the fanboys on Youtube. But Sony is a marketing beheamoth and has been successful at
convincing Joe Consumer that "mirrorless" is some new innovation (in fact, before 1861 all cameras
were mirrorless). Also, getting rid of the DSLR mirror and associated mechanical linkages greatly
reduces manufacturing costs, particularly assembly labor. And in a shrinking market with most customers
locked into one brand, the only way to increase sales is to force existing customers to replace their grear.

What is new in EVIL/MILC cameras the electronic viewfinder. An EVF offers lower resolution
and lower contrast than an optical viewfinder. However, it can do three things an OVF can't do:
* introduce a time lag
* mess up the color
* drain the battery (an OVF pulls 0 mA)

Now you gotta white balance your sensor and hope your viewfinder (which has a screen) is
white balanced. Otherwe what-you-see isn't what-you-get.

EVIL/MILC could be wonderful if there was a better screen technology and if the mechanical
focal plane shutter could be eliminated. But display technology has been heavily researched by
very large companies for decades, and nothing better than OLED has been found. Shutters have
been researched even longer, and the best optical shutter is an LCD -- much too slow for cameras.

"Global shutter" are probably the biggest R&D area cameras today, but so far no high-end camera
uses one. They still have gaps between the rows of photosensors that reduce resolution, and/or a
slow frame rate, heat problems, and the better ones are very expensive and hard to fabricate in FF.

Business plan:
Step 1. Market the heck out of "mirrorless" (EVIL/MILC). Promise to support F-mount indefinitely.
Step 2. Discontinue F-mount. Drop all support.
Only Nikon customers can prevent this: but not drinking the EVIL/MILC.

Something similar already happened in P&S cameras -- a far larger market than DSLRs or EVIL/MILC.
First some P&S cameas started appearing that had a LCD screen on the back for reviwing photos.
Then some appeared that could use the LCD for live view or viewfinder use. Eventually, all the
manufacturers--from Sony and Samsung to Nikon and Canon--stopped making OVFs P&S cameras--
even though the LCD screen on the back of the camera is unusable in bright sunlight! They didn't
care: it was cheaper to manuacture.

So today, there isn't a Nikon Coolpix or Canon PowerShot camera that is usable in bright sunlight--
unless the customer wants to put a black focusing cloth over his head or shoot blind. That's progress!
No, that's corporate profit motive in action. No matter how dedicated the CEO of a public company
is to photography, he has a legal duty to his shareholders to maximize earnings. So he can force all
existing customers to replace their gear, he has to do so.

Of course, the danger is that people will say "screw this!" and just use their smart phone to take pictures.
70% of digital camera buyers have already made that decision.

User ID

`

The F-mount is embedded in the
hardware designs for the NASA
Pluto Rover, so it will be around
for another few billion dollars ...
I meant miles ... or years ......

.

Bipod

Exactly right! CDs were over-sold -- like every new technology is over-sold.
"It will change your life!" But usually, all it does is lighten your wallet.

And there are many variables in any sound system or any camera.
The sound chain or optical chain is always only as good as the weakest link.

I was happy to go to CDs; I would have been happy to stay with vinyl.
With a good CD player, a good turntable and a little EQ, nobody can tell
the difference for most recordings.

But sometimes a suppliers push a technology on to the market because it's
cheaper to manufacture or gives them more control. LCD screens replaced
optical viewfinders on all P&S cameras -- and yet they aren't usable in
bright sunlight.

Sometimes consumers have no choice: they get region codes and digital
rights management whether they want them or not.. (But DVD made in the USSR
were all region-free. My Tarkovski DVDs will pay on any player!)

"Greed is good"--for executives. It's just not good for photography, music,
film, or the free interchange of ideas.

TriX Loc: Raleigh, NC

Larry, if you want to see where I’m coming from and my audio philosophy, this is my website: http://www.busch-design.com . You’ll have to excuse the badly executed website - I wrote the code about 20 years ago. My background is in Human Factors Design and test and measurement - Tektronix and Bruel & Kjaer (the world standard in audio measurements and transducers) before I “sold out” and went to the dark side of high performance computing/storage. Oddly enough, I actually have a Sony direct drive turntable and a good quality cartridge, a pair of original Koss electrostatic headphones and a collection of pristine vinyl including some Telarc and Command 35 discs. But now I listen almost exclusively to a CD player directly connected (no preamp) to my dual quad KT88 tube type monoblocks with seperate power supplies driving transmission line loudspeakers with SEAS drivers of my own design. I prefer tube amps in the same way many prefer analog (vinyl) sources (some describe as more “musical”) but I actually know why - I can quantify the difference with spectrum analyzer plots. Anyway (and apologies for taking the thread off on an audio tangent), I’ll defend to the death your preference for vinyl, I just disagree that there is any measurable way that they are equivalent (much less superior) in performance to CDs. BTW, I detest MP3s and other compressed audio 😼.

Cheers

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

I do understand that there is a real audible benefit of vacuum tube amps. And I think there is a real reason for it, even though it sort of flies in the face of Ohm's law. But my belief is that vacuum tubes, which are voltage-based devices are just more suited to audio signals than transistors, which are current-based devices. And in the case of double-sided (push-pull or push-push) solid state amps, there's that nasty business of the barrier voltage in the zero crossing area. Of course, the other side of the problem was building (and later lifting) output transformers with enough iron in the cores to efficiently couple the low frequencies.