05-21-2017, 08:13 AM
Popo wrote;
"SLR lenses not working optimally with mirror-less is going to be a problem regardless of the registration distance so I don't see it as an argument either way. Adapters are not an ideal solution either. You retain all mount conversion problems and add a new one in the form of reduced mechanical stability. It is not a premium solution."
Wrong, IMO!
A "Nikon" adapter mounting a Nikon F mount to the new Nikon ML mount would have absolutely no reason not to function as well as it would on an F mount DSLR.
There is no reverse engineering going on there, it's just a question of electric contacts and if necessary the screw-drive through shaft.(if it were to be retained)
The mechanical situation would be no different from that of say a tele-converter or an extension tube, only it's AF would not be optimum, the new ML mount however would be.
It seems that folk are bundling together third party reverse engineered adapters with ones that OEMs "could" make for their own lenses and preconceiving ideas that any adapter can only produce reduced performance!
So existing mounts can be perfectly converted to new shorter ML mounts and this is what should be brought to the party, "crippling" a new ML system with a less well adapted existing mount will turn the party into a probable funeral!
Nikon/Canon would not however make adapters out side their own produced lenses so the miseries of poor third party adapters could still remain, but that's another improving situation.
"SLR lenses not working optimally with mirror-less is going to be a problem regardless of the registration distance so I don't see it as an argument either way. Adapters are not an ideal solution either. You retain all mount conversion problems and add a new one in the form of reduced mechanical stability. It is not a premium solution."
Wrong, IMO!
A "Nikon" adapter mounting a Nikon F mount to the new Nikon ML mount would have absolutely no reason not to function as well as it would on an F mount DSLR.
There is no reverse engineering going on there, it's just a question of electric contacts and if necessary the screw-drive through shaft.(if it were to be retained)
The mechanical situation would be no different from that of say a tele-converter or an extension tube, only it's AF would not be optimum, the new ML mount however would be.
It seems that folk are bundling together third party reverse engineered adapters with ones that OEMs "could" make for their own lenses and preconceiving ideas that any adapter can only produce reduced performance!
So existing mounts can be perfectly converted to new shorter ML mounts and this is what should be brought to the party, "crippling" a new ML system with a less well adapted existing mount will turn the party into a probable funeral!
Nikon/Canon would not however make adapters out side their own produced lenses so the miseries of poor third party adapters could still remain, but that's another improving situation.