Nikon Holy Trinity

[SgtDave]

Hello folks,

For those fortunate enough to own the Nikon 'Holy Trinity' of lenses, the question is this.....would these lenses be rendered obsolete if Nikon introduce a full frame mirrorless camera?

Just asking !

[Inkanyezi]

The answer is no. When Nikon introduces a full frame mirrorless camera, it will certainly have triangulating microlenses on its sensor (so called "phase detection"), and they will not abandon the F mount, but stand by it. So there is no reason to believe that a mirrorless FX body should need different lenses.

[SgtDave]

The answer is no. When Nikon introduces a full frame mirrorless camera, it will certainly have triangulating microlenses on its sensor (so called "phase detection"), and they will not abandon the F mount, but stand by it. So there is no reason to believe that a mirrorless FX body should need different lenses.

Many thanks for the prompt reply Inkanyezi. I suspected that the lenses would survive any shift to mirrorless but it's always best to consult the experts.

Thanks again

[inkista]

... they will not abandon the F mount, but stand by it. ...

However. I would reasonably doubt that Nikon will use the F mount on any FF mirrorless camera it makes, thus negating the advantages in size/weight that make mirrorless so popular these days. (See Pentax K-01). But, I do agree, they're liable to do something very similar in terms of making an F-mount/mirrorless-mount fully communicating adapter, like Canon's EOS -> EOS-M adapter. However, how such an adapter will affect AF performance with lenses that were designed for use with a separate AF sensor array will be interesting to see.

I would also expect that if they come out with full frame mirrorless zoom lenses, they may only be smaller than their dSLR counterparts by being limited to f/4, like the Sony e-mount full-frame zoom lenses.

[SgtDave]

However. I would reasonably doubt that Nikon will use the F mount on any FF mirrorless camera it makes, thus negating the advantages in size/weight that make mirrorless so popular these days. (See Pentax K-01). But, I do agree, they're liable to do something very similar in terms of making an F-mount/mirrorless-mount fully communicating adapter, like Canon's EOS -> EOS-M adapter. However, how such an adapter will affect AF performance with lenses that were designed for use with a separate AF sensor array will be interesting to see.

I would also expect that if they come out with full frame mirrorless zoom lenses, they may only be smaller than their dSLR counterparts by being limited to f/4, like the Sony e-mount full-frame zoom lenses.

So the apparent improvements brought by the mirrorless system will be more than negated by slower lenses. Doesn't seem much of an improvement to me.

Think I'll be sticking with the dSLR for a while....

[inkista]

So the apparent improvements brought by the mirrorless system will be more than negated by slower lenses. Doesn't seem much of an improvement to me....

Only where you'd expect to get f/2.8 zooms or superteles. Fast wide-to-short-tele primes are probably still going to happen. Think about what rangefinders are known for, and that's where mirrorless shines. Different tool for different tasks.

[pnodrog]

Regardless of any weight reduction or greater flexibility in design that a mirror less body enables the lenses will still need to be capable of covering the FF (FX) area. I cannot see that abandoning a mirror will have a significant impact on lens design. Like Urban I am absolutely certain they will retain compatibility with the F mount lenses. Adapter maybe, compromised lens performance highly unlikely.

However there maybe new lenses developed that will not be compatible with older cameras.

[lukaswerth]

Adapter highly likely, I'd say, as in a mirrorless camera the distance between sensor and lens can be significantly reduced - which opens up also new possibilities in lens construction (easier to make better lenses). I suspect one main reason why Nikon is hesitant to abandon mirrors is that their F mount is made for a mirror, all its lenses for two formats have been optimized for this mount, and any mirrorless construction would make any old lens look even more clunky and unnecessarily protruding from the camera (because of the adapter). One might say nikon is somewhat stuck with its f-mount, and unless it doesn't find a very good reason for keeping mirrors (I honestly can't see any), it faces a possibly painful transition in the not-so-distant future.
I am a Nikon-user, by the way.
So with regard to the original question: the three zooms would probably still be usable, but possibly impaired, and better alternatives would have to be brought on the way - and this is true for all the other lenses! On the other hand, there might spring up a whole cottage-industry for adapters, as on a mirrorless full-frame Nikon camera the sensor-lens distance would be short enough to use any, say, Canon lens.

Lukas

[Inkanyezi]

/.../ in a mirrorless camera the distance between sensor and lens can be significantly reduced - which opens up also new possibilities in lens construction (easier to make better lenses). /.../

Some old truths don't hold water when more closely scrutinised.

The digital camera has more lenses than one. In fact it has millions.

One major problem in digital camera design is that the micro-lenses in front of the sensor are supposed to focus the exit pupil of the lens onto the somewhat smaller area of the sensel, in order to capture more light. All digital cameras have them, the micro-lenses in front of the sensels. As any single one of these micro-lenses shall project the exit pupil of the lens on each relevant sensel, the exit pupil of the lens must be placed in the correct position for their images of it to fall in the right place.

This is the reason why fast wide angle or super wide angle lenses for rangefinder cameras don't produce the desired results on digital cameras. Their exit pupil is very close to the focal plane, and in the peripheral parts of the sensor, the micro-lenses will not cast the light from the exit pupil at the relevant sensel. Lenses for digital cameras preferably should always have their exit pupil in a correct position, a narrowly defined position that is necessary for the micro-lenses of the sensor to work as designed. The problem is evident not only with very fast lenses and super wide angles, but also with tilt/shift lenses.

So the DSLR design has an advantage optically with present construction of the sensor, as the lens by necessity must be rather far away from the sensor. Film was not sensitive to the direction from which the light came. An oblique angle only subdued the light received, but neither colour nor sharpness was corrupted. The digital sensor however needs a lens with a distant exit pupil, a telecentric design, that is not too wide for the micro-lenses to cast their light, the image of the exit pupil, in the right place.

So in order to open up new possibilities for lens design, the sensor must be different from what we presently use, insensitive to the direction from which the light falls upon it. Controversely, this design consideration might defy triangulation on the sensor, the so called "phase detection" focusing device, leaving only the contrast detection alternative, which cannot sense in what direction the focusing mechanism should move to find focus.

In fact, the sensor of a digital camera is a highly directional device, craving a rather narrowly defined position and size of the exit pupil of the lens. Lenses should be telecentric for best performance, and they work better at a large distance from the sensor than from a short distance.

[lukaswerth]

In fact, the sensor of a digital camera is a highly directional device, craving a rather narrowly defined position and size of the exit pupil of the lens. Lenses should be telecentric for best performance, and they work better at a large distance from the sensor than from a short distance.

Okay, this makes a certain sense to me, but mostly with respect to wide angle lenses. On the other hand, as far as I know, Nikon's sensor-to-lens distance is quite large, larger than Canon's anyway, which is why Canon lenses cannot be adapted to Nikon bodies. Also, today's mirror-less cameras do, for all I know, have smaller camera-to-lens distances.
Be that as it may, I hope you are right, because, as a Nikon user, I invested money into the system, and I would appreciate if my lenses remain a good choice.

An afterthought: Nikon's sensor-lens distance is much older than digital photography; that is to say it was certainly not optimized for digital.

Lukas

[jcuknz]

In days of film there was certainly a valid reason for the fast lens but since it is so easy to tweak in editing to gain a stop or two I see the fast lens as only of value to the speciality photographer with digital who actually needs both the fast lens and their editor ... still that is just ME

reducing the weight with an f/4 lens instead of an f/2.8 would be a valid improvement ... even f/5.6 is not that bad as I currently have at full zoom

edit to Lukas ... MFT has a shorter lens-body distance for a given angle of view lens but the same distance with adaptors to use lens designed for bigger sensors.

[Saorsa]

In days of film there was certainly a valid reason for the fast lens but since it is so easy to tweak in editing to gain a stop or two I see the fast lens as only of value to the speciality photographer with digital who actually needs both the fast lens and their editor ... still that is just ME

reducing the weight with an f/4 lens instead of an f/2.8 would be a valid improvement ... even f/5.6 is not that bad as I currently have at full zoom

There are a couple of reasons a fast lens is better.

1 - Focusing is at full aperture and shallow DOF makes for quicker and more accurate focus.

2 - DOF control is still critical in some applications

3 - Yes, you can add a stop or two in processing, you can do that with an f2.8 lens too.

[inkista]

One major problem in digital camera design is that the micro-lenses in front of the sensor are supposed to focus the exit pupil of the lens onto the somewhat smaller area of the sensel, in order to capture more light. All digital cameras have them, the micro-lenses in front of the sensels. As any single one of these micro-lenses shall project the exit pupil of the lens on each relevant sensel, the exit pupil of the lens must be placed in the correct position for their images of it to fall in the right place. ...

So, you don't think Nikon would use offset microlenses on a full frame mirrorless as Leica does in the digital Ms and like Sony does for the A7 models?

[Inkanyezi]

So, you don't think Nikon would use offset microlenses on a full frame mirrorless as Leica does in the digital Ms and like Sony does for the A7 models?

Perhaps they will, but it does not solve the microlens problem entirely, it inverts it and makes lens design even more complicated. Offset microlenses for the sensor to focus upon a more nearby exit pupil may create a similar problem when the back focal distance is large, as with long focal length or using extensions for close-up. Present microlenses are optimised for a rather long back focal distance, which makes them work well with all back focal distances except very short ones.

With the usual microlens arrangement, the same optics can be used as for SLR cameras, due to their rather large flange distance because of room needed for the mirror movement. Also, as image-side telecentricity is preferred, inner focusing lenses may be advantageous, as the exit pupil can be designed to more or less stay in place instead of moving away when focusing on very close objects for large reproduction scale. One reason why image-sided telecentricity is not applied in all lenses is that such lenses are mostly larger. Olympus has done it on a few zoom lenses, and inner-focusing macro lenses to some degree keep their exit pupil rather fixed when focusing.

For a camera with dedicated lenses, or a camera with a very small sensor, this is not a big deal, but with a larger sensor and shorter flange distance, there are optical drawbacks with making the optics more compact, most of them stemming from the more oblique angle for the rays toward the sensor's more peripheral parts.