Ugly Hedgehog® - Photography Forum
Pumper zooms on Nikon z?
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Page: <<prev 1 2
Jan 12, 2019 16:12:11   #
Rich1939 (a regular here)
 
Architect1776 wrote:
Too bad there is no shutter to protect the sensor when the lens is off.


I wonder how long the design engineers struggled with, "do we or don't we".
Personally when I change lenses the one that will be put on is ready to go, lens rear cap off, and the amount of time the camera's inners are exposed is only a few seconds. Even then dust will find a way in and eventually find its way to the sensor

| Reply
Jan 12, 2019 16:33:40   #
CO (a regular here)
 
Rich1939 wrote:
Could it be that you are not used to seeing the sensor? When I lock my mirror up for cleaning the sensor sure looks vulnerable. On the other hand as long as there is a body cap or a lens on the camera (99.9% of the time) the sensor is protected.


I've cleaned a sensor before on a Nikon DSLR camera but it has a flange distance of 46.5mm and the shutter is closed when changing lenses. The new Nikon Z cameras have a flange distance of 16mm and the shutter is open when changing lenses. The sensor is much closer to the lens mount.

| Reply
Jan 12, 2019 17:17:08   #
Bill_de (a regular here)
 
aflundi wrote:
Yeah, I know about the 80-200/2.8 (I have one), but don't consider that current.


I have a Nikkor 17-35 in hand. It is internal focus and zoom.

--

| Reply
Jan 12, 2019 17:38:09   #
larryepage (a regular here)
 
Rich1939 wrote:
I wonder how long the design engineers struggled with, "do we or don't we".
Personally when I change lenses the one that will be put on is ready to go, lens rear cap off, and the amount of time the camera's inners are exposed is only a few seconds. Even then dust will find a way in and eventually find its way to the sensor

I suspect that shutters today are so lightweight and delicate that they offer very little real physical protection. Of course, they do provide some minimal protection against contamination, but maybe with the shorter distances involve, they have become targets for damage themselves.

| Reply
Jan 12, 2019 17:44:31   #
aflundi
 
Bill_de wrote:
I have a Nikkor 17-35 in hand. It is internal focus and zoom.

Thanks for checking it. So definitely on the internal zoom list.

| Reply
Jan 12, 2019 17:48:46   #
Bill_de (a regular here)
 
aflundi wrote:
Thanks for checking it. So definitely on the internal zoom list.






--

| Reply
Jan 12, 2019 17:50:31   #
Bill P (a regular here)
 
If you are contemplating moving from DSLR FF to FF mirrorless as a weight saving move, reconsider. The big part of the weight is the lens, which is going to be mostly the same for both. They may have been able to engineer a bit of weight saving into native mirrorless lenses, but there is still physics.

| Reply
Jan 12, 2019 17:56:30   #
Architect1776 (a regular here)
 
Bill P wrote:
If you are contemplating moving from DSLR FF to FF mirrorless as a weight saving move, reconsider. The big part of the weight is the lens, which is going to be mostly the same for both. They may have been able to engineer a bit of weight saving into native mirrorless lenses, but there is still physics.


Pretty much true but the large mount diameter od Canon and now Nikon allow for larger elements to be closer to the body and smaller elements towards the far end for the same aperture value. This produces a better balanced package than those cameras with smaller diameter mounts requiring large and heavy front elements to get the same aperture value creating unbalance and perceived heavier and more cumbersome to use system.

| Reply
Jan 12, 2019 18:04:49   #
karno
 
Bill P wrote:
If you are contemplating moving from DSLR FF to FF mirrorless as a weight saving move, reconsider. The big part of the weight is the lens, which is going to be mostly the same for both. They may have been able to engineer a bit of weight saving into native mirrorless lenses, but there is still physics.


I agree, though I was considering the new 14-30 f4 over the 14-24 2.8
And the a 1.8 prime over the 1.4 sigma prime and that would be a great weight saving, with little compromise.
Also may allow for a lighter tripod.

| Reply
Jan 12, 2019 18:33:40   #
Bill_de (a regular here)
 
karno wrote:
I agree, though I was considering the new 14-30 f4 over the 14-24 2.8
And the a 1.8 prime over the 1.4 sigma prime and that would be a great weight saving, with little compromise.
Also may allow for a lighter tripod.


I was thinking the same thing. I don't plan on replacing my DSLRs, so there is no sense going heavy with lenses on the Z.

--

| Reply
Jan 12, 2019 18:55:02   #
karno
 
Bill P wrote:
If you are contemplating moving from DSLR FF to FF mirrorless as a weight saving move, reconsider. The big part of the weight is the lens, which is going to be mostly the same for both. They may have been able to engineer a bit of weight saving into native mirrorless lenses, but there is still physics.


Oh and one thing I will add on the weight savings if the m mount lenses work well, then that would also be a weight saving benefit for travel or long treks also.
First I will weight for others to test it out.
Pun intended 😊

Still on the fence until I see steller optical capabilities and low coma for night stuff in the s lenses.

| Reply
Jan 13, 2019 03:31:18   #
TheShoe (a regular here)
 
In the bygone era of 4/3 (not M4/3 - I cannot speak for it) The Zuiko 12-60 and 50-200 were both internal zooms

| Reply
Jan 13, 2019 15:04:48   #
Gene51 (a regular here)
 
karno wrote:
I was thinking of making a move to Nikon z and go native s lenses, as I research I see that they are making lenses that extend when zooming? I have always avoided these type with the thought that they can suck dust into the lens and sensor, and that they are possibly more easily knocked out of alignment,
Is this prejudice at all logical or am I way off base.
I am a bit perplexed and feel to go Nikon mirrorless and enjoy the weight savings of going Native z mount is out for me.
The older Nikon wide zooms don’t do this?
My 70-200 does not do this.
I am curious if Sony and canons mirrorless zooms are pumper zooms?
Looks like either I use all primes for the z mount when they come out which kills the weight advantage or I am f mount forever.
Maybe Nikons future zooms will not all be pumper zooms?
I was thinking of making a move to Nikon z and go ... (show quote)


I think the bigger cause of dust on the sensor may be a dirty rear lens cap. I routinely wash mine - after each use - to eliminate as much dust as possible. I can go 2X or 3X longer between sensor cleanings.

I don't think it's a great concern - you can always remove the dust with no downside. The dust problem may not be unique to "pumper" zooms, either.

| Reply
Page: <<prev 1 2
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2019 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.