Nikon have 3 main options. With respect to the alleged take over of Samsung.

[MattH]

Nikon have 3 main options. With respect to the alleged take over of Samsung.

 

 

Before we look at the options let’s just summarise Nikon’s and Samsung’s current systems:

 

Nikon F- mount.  A very long running mount with a 46.5mm flange focal distance. For 135 format (full frame) and APS-C sensors. This clearly isn’t going anywhere.

 

Nikon 1 mount.  With a 17mm flange focal distance designed for one-inch-type sensors.

 

 

Samsung NX mount.  25.5mm flange focal distance designed for aps-c sensors.

 

Samsung NX mini mount 7.5mm flange focal distance designed for one-inch type sensors.

 

 

 

First lets look a the possibilities for one-inch-type systems.  I was first thinking that NX-mini lenses could be adapted for Nikon 1, but after checking the flange focal 

distances it seems that this will not be possible.

 

A. Continue With Nikon 1 mount and discard nx-mini mount and lenses. likely.

 

B. Take on the NX-mini mount to utilise the lenses and provide an adapter to use Nikon 1 lenses. I think this is unlikely because there are only 3 NX-mini lenses and

     the Nikon 1 system is quite established. Although this would be a shame in the long run because Samsung sure beat them when it comes to compactness.

 

C. Discontinue one-inch-type system.

 

 

Now for the main options.

 

1. Discard NX mount and lenses completely and just plunder the technology. Probably keeping Nikon-1 as the primary compact system.

 

2. Take over NX mount, simply re-branding the lenses. And creating a smart adapter for F-mount lenses.  The NX flange is awkward but Nikon flanges are long anyway and there wouldn’t be much point making a new aps-c mount.  At this point they could either keep Nikon-1 and have 3 parallel systems or discontinue Nikon-1 to have two systems.

 

3. Create a new short flange full frame compatible mount to compete directly with Sony E-mount.  They could then provide smart adapters for existing NX-mount and F-mount lenses. And posibly create new full frame mirrorless lenses.  In this case they would probably keep a one-inch-type system for compactness.

 

[Gpanazio]

They'll build something with Samsung tech that can make use of the Nikon F- mount. Anything different from that would be a surprise.

[Andrew Reid]

If Samsung in the contract had to pull their NX system from the market entirely, I'd bet on it going further than just a tech supply chain of sensors and processors for Nikon, like Nikon currently have with Sony.

I think Nikon will do a mirrorless camera like the NX1, but with different mount and lenses.

Nikon F mount on mirrorless camera wouldn't be too bad... Imagine a D750 with 4K and EVF...

[Cinegain]

If I were Nikon, I'd make something like the versatile E-mount and forget about ever having heard of the term 'NX'.

The thing interesting about Samsung is their hardware and processing structure capturing stuff from the sensor, not the mount I'd say.

[Marco Tecno]

The only smart move would be use nx mount for apsc and a shorter flange/larger hole for mirrorless ff. 

So it could adapt all the existing dx and fx lenses to both, via intelligent adapters, would have a base of very good nx lenses designed for mirrorless from the beginning and could adapt legacy manual lenses.

 

Really, the inly clever choice, imo.

 

Add that, if we believe in the rumor, it's samsung that will announce something at ces, so they could announce the co-development of new cameras continuing the nx system.

[ntblowz]

If I were Nikon, I'd make something like the versatile E-mount and forget about ever having heard of the term 'NX'.

The thing interesting about Samsung is their hardware and processing structure capturing stuff from the sensor, not the mount I'd say.

All the Nikon mount are have longer flange compare to other mount, so NX fit that legacy lol.

[Cinegain]

All the Nikon mount are have longer flange compare to other mount, so NX fit that legacy lol.

Metabones stated they can do nothing for the NX-mount. Therefor E-mount wins. Nikon should do something more or less exactly like Sony's E-mount. It will fit legacy too, it will fit APS-C, it will fit their new mirrorless line-up, because that's to me a big win, keeping lens sizes down as they influence compactness more than the body. Forget about NX already!

[nougat]

Nikon bought the Samsung tech to compete with Sony in the fast-growing FF mirrorless market before Sony runs away with it.  Nikon will not use the NX mount or create a new mount, because Nikon's biggest advantage over Sony is their huge and critically acclaimed F mount lens catalog and they want to use it now.  Creating a new mount would only allow for the introduction of 4-5 new lenses a year even if they are extremely aggressive.  It will mean a bigger body, but so be it.  Who really cares if you have a new Nikon mirrorless camera with FF, 4K, Nikon or Samsung's color science and AF system and Samsung's H.265 codec, processing power and software UI... and, of course, the huge selection of awesome glass.  It's a dream camera and it's probably less than a year away.

[TheRenaissanceMan]

Most likely, they'll create two mirrorless lines: A full frame F-mount mirrrorless for pros, and new Nikon 1s with Samsung sensor tech for consumers/enthusiasts. Maybe they'll introduce an F-mount APS-C body once the FF model gets a foothold. They need a new source of 1" sensors now that Aptina has been acquired, and there's zero--ZERO--chance they'll use Samsung's lens mounts over their own. 

[MattH]

Reading the other thread and this one I am now pretty convinced that option 1A will be taken.  The current systems are too well established and changing them will just confuse things.   One big advantage for E mount is that you can use virtually any manual lenses.  An advantage for the consumer, but would nikon see it as an advantage for themselves?  You might think flexibility would encourage customers to the system.  It would with me, But from nikons perspective they are probably more comfortable locking people into nikon lenses.   The A7 cameras and FE lenses are already at the stage where there isn't much of difference between them and a DSLR in size. They aren't exactly pocketable.  So really theres no big disadvantage to having an F-mount mirrorless.  In fact this rumor apears to be on the money: http://nikonrumors.com/2015/04/20/new-nikon-full-frame-mirrorless-camera-on-the-horizon.aspx/

Also, a good thing about f-mount for a hybrid camera is that there would be plenty of room to integrate behind the lens filters.

But thinking again about the NX-mini lenses, perhaps the primes could be rehoused in a recessed configuration which would make them look like body cap lenses.

[Inazuma]

I think there is a gap in the market for a "big" mirrorless. I'd really like to see an F mount with fast AF through EVF/LCD. Plus a lot of people have bought Nikon mount lenses anyway because of their compatibility with oher systems.

[Nikkor]

 

But thinking again about the NX-mini lenses, perhaps the primes could be rehoused in a recessed configuration which would make them look like body cap lenses.

 

 

21mm f4, looks fun.

[richg101]

They'll stick their crappy F mount on there and kill any chance of the camera being popular with lens heads.  I love to think they'd make a mount with an ffd of 20mm or less and then sell f-mount adaptors to those who want to use nikon glass with electronic contacts.  the short mount would allow metabones to manufacture a suitable speed booster as well as adaptors for almost every lens ever made.  M4/3 and e-mount are where it's at.  Sony even do a e-mount to a-mount adaptor.  copy that and you;re onto a winner.

[jhnkng]

One of Nikon's strengths is that they have a mount that's compatible with lenses dating back 50 years, why on earth would they change that now? Especially for a full frame sensor? Plus Nikon makes a ton of money on lenses, why would they make it easier for people to swap to different brands of lenses? All this talk about wanting adaptable mounts is just what a very specific kind of user wants. Regular consumers will use whatever lens came with the camera, and maybe a 50mm prime or some such. Professionals making an investment in a system and making money off that system wants reliability, and lens adaptors are just one more point of failure. See it from Nikon's perspective -- for those who really want lens adaptability they already have Sony and m43, it potentially eats away at their lens sales, and pros who already have a bunch of F-mount Nikon lenses are crying foul because they have to use an adaptor. It's lose lose lose for Nikon, and they need a solid win to boost sales right now.

Unless Nikon debuts a new camera with a new mount with at least a native 24-70 and 70-200, and offering a figleaf to existing pros with an F-Mount adaptor. In which case everything I've written is total BS!

 

[tupp]

One of Nikon's strengths is that they have a mount that's compatible with lenses dating back 50 years, why on earth would they change that now? Especially for a full frame sensor?

Again, using a shallow, versatile mount does not negate the use of their old lenses, and there is no need for a distant F-mount with a mirrorless system.  So, (if they are smart) they might want to change that so that they have a compact, versatile camera that sells more units and that could "change the game."

 

 

Plus Nikon makes a ton of money on lenses, why would they make it easier for people to swap to different brands of lenses?

They would still sell "a ton of" lenses for their DSLRs.  Making a fat mirrorless camera might not sell, and thus would not sell many F-mount lenses anyway.  A shallow mirrorless camera would probably sell more.  Blackmagic, Sony, Panasonic and JVC have been very successful selling cameras that make it easy for people to swap different brands of lenses.

 

Don't know if the Nikon folks are smart enough to realize all of these points.

 

 

All this talk about wanting adaptable mounts is just what a very specific kind of user wants.

Tell that to the pros who are using Blackmagic M4/3s cameras, Sony E-mount cameras and Panasonic M4/3s cameras with various lenses.

 

 

Regular consumers will use whatever lens came with the camera, and maybe a 50mm prime or some such.

By having a shallow mount, nothing is stopping consumers from using "whatever lens came with the camera."  Nikon could make a separate lens set if they really wanted to, or they could just make a fancy adapter for F-mount lenses.

 

Furthermore, consumers can keep using the pre-existing DSLRs and mirrorless and compact Nikon systems.

 

 

Professionals making an investment in a system and making money off that system wants reliability, and lens adaptors are just one more point of failure.

Ultra Primes with a $1000 precision adapter aren't reliable?

 

Also, if you are thinking of the still photo market, the still pros are probably not interested in mirrorless.

 

 

See it from Nikon's perspective -- for those who really want lens adaptability they already have Sony and m43, it potentially eats away at their lens sales, and pros who already have a bunch of F-mount Nikon lenses are crying foul because they have to use an adaptor.

I am afraid that they might see it that way, as most corporations these days are myopic, driven mostly by immediate sales and short-term bottom-line.

 

In regards to pros who already have a bunch of F-mount Nikkors, I am one of those.  I have seven Nikkor lenses and two Nikon cameras.  Do I want a camera with a Nikkor F mount instead of with a very shallow versatile mount? -- HELL NO!!!  I use lenses for their look and performance, so I want a camera that can accept as many different lenses and adaptors as possible!

 

 

It's lose lose lose for Nikon, and they need a solid win to boost sales right now.

Not really.  Not if they are smart (and not as desperate as you seem to portray them to be).

 

 

Unless Nikon debuts a new camera with a new mount with at least a native 24-70 and 70-200, and offering a figleaf to existing pros with an F-Mount adaptor.

Again, it is doubtful that most pro still photographers would go for a mirrorless system at this point in time.

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

F-mount this clearly isn’t going anywhere

I laughed and then frowned when I read this. Nikon's F mount is their highest end strength for the company and the one keeping the company together, achieving higher sales than anything from Nikon and most other mount from all manufacturers. F mount is their most valuable resource and it's going places. 

-Lets be realistic on this rumor. Nikon does not have the financial power or even need to "buy off" the entire Samsung camera division and sensor semiconductor divisions, simply too far fetched for Samsung to throw it ALL away for some money and for Nikon to buy it all. What's going to happen if any true is only one possible way: A partnership. 

A normal collision between two companies to share technology as all companies do. Each company keeps its own staff and entirety but a new division is created for the communication between both and the extent of the partnership is agreed upon. 

Nikon have a high history of out sourcing imaging sensors, it's very very likely one of the partnership elements is to make use of Samsung's imaging sensors, such as the 28mp BSI APS-C sensor for Nikon's next update of their 24mp APS-C line. 

The partnership might even end their. 

But rumors almost confirm Samsung has already developed a full frame sensor, which if has higher performance than the competetion, it might also be the next Nikon FF update over the 36mp ones. 

Samsung will have to get something is return, most likely just money for buying technology. 

Outside of the semiconductor division nikon has no nees for the NX line buy off. They can procide 4K, fast bursts, better builds, better designs, they're very capable. 

One other need is perhaps the mirrorless market where Nikon lacks, a far fetched idea that I don't believe at all as Nikon need a new mount and new lens line up which they need no Samsung for (using the NX mount is far fetched as they'd need an adapter then lose the mirrorless size advantage, which nikon always emphasizes on size being the main point of mirrorless, or Nikomn creating affordable NX mount lenses, which again seems even more far fetched). 

 

*The most likely scenario, a partnership where Nikon improves upon their DSLRs. 

[jhnkng]

Again, using a shallow, versatile mount does not negate the use of their old lenses, and there is no need for a distant F-mount with a mirrorless system.  So, (if they are smart) they might want to change that so that they have a compact, versatile camera that sells more units and that could "change the game."

They would still sell "a ton of" lenses for their DSLRs.  Making a fat mirrorless camera might not sell, and thus would not sell many F-mount lenses anyway.  A shallow mirrorless camera would probably sell more.  Blackmagic, Sony, Panasonic and JVC have been very successful selling cameras that make it easy for people to swap different brands of lenses.

CIPA numbers aren't broken down by manufacturer, but looking at these numbers for April, mirrorless manufacturers don't sell as many cameras as DSLR manufacturers. I'd hazard a guess and say that Nikon sells more DSLRs than at least Blackmagic, Panasonic and JVC combined.
http://nikonrumors.com/2015/06/08/spike-in-dslr-camera-shipments-in-april.aspx/

As for mounts and camera size, I have two observations. My D750 is only marginally bigger than my GH4, and the difference in weight pretty much disappears when I mount a Speedbooster and a Nikon lens to the GH4 vs putting that lens on the D750. There's a reason that most of Sony's e-mount are f4 lenses -- f2.8 lenses would be huge compared to the body.
http://cameradecision.com/sizecomparison/Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GH4-vs-Nikon-D750-size-comparison.jpg 

But with mirrorless I have access to an EVF that lets me see exactly what I'm shooting. I can have a true silent mode like I have on my GH4 so I can shoot BTS stills on motion sets without a bag. I can have better video, both in quality and in ergonomics. These are also features that make mirrorless the future, size isn't the only thing that's great about mirrorless.
 

Ultra Primes with a $1000 precision adapter aren't reliable?

Also, if you are thinking of the still photo market, the still pros are probably not interested in mirrorless.

In regards to pros who already have a bunch of F-mount Nikkors, I am one of those.  I have seven Nikkor lenses and two Nikon cameras.  Do I want a camera with a Nikkor F mount instead of with a very shallow versatile mount? -- HELL NO!!!  I use lenses for their look and performance, so I want a camera that can accept as many different lenses and adaptors as possible!

For ultimate reliability you want the least number of places where something can fail. Adaptors means one extra link in the chain, and each link is a potential point of failure -- no matter how expensive or well engineered it is. And let's be perfectly honest, my Speedbooster rattles, and I've used other Speedboosters that also rattle. They tolerances are good, but not mindblowing. I've never had a problem with my GH4 + Speedbooster combo, but that doesn't mean I don't take the 12-35 with me as a backup.

I like using a range of lenses as well, which is one reason I chose a GH4. But if my job was to pump out corporate video after corporate video, or one event after another, or if most of my work has a reasonable budget, I'd probably get a C300 with a set of Cinema Primes and be done with it. Which isn't to say that you're wrong, but its just that you're willing to go the extra mile to find the look you want for a project, whereas lots and lots of people just need a reliable piece of equipment that works exactly the same way, and pumps out the same quality, time after time, with no surprises. I lean towards the no surprises camp, I'm willing to trade versatility for not having to have an uncomfortable conversation with my client.

All I'm really saying is that there is a huge market for people who are conservative with equipment, who are risk averse to any equipment changes that has the potential to hurt their business. And those are the people who I think would prefer an F-mount Nikon mirrorless over a brand new/different lens mount.

[tupp]

CIPA numbers aren't broken down by manufacturer, but looking at these numbers for April, mirrorless manufacturers don't sell as many cameras as DSLR manufacturers. I'd hazard a guess and say that Nikon sells more DSLRs than at least Blackmagic, Panasonic and JVC combined.
http://nikonrumors.com/2015/06/08/spike-in-dslr-camera-shipments-in-april.aspx/

Not sure what is your point here.  At any rate, Blackmagic, Panasonic and JVC don't make any DSLRs.

 

 

As for mounts and camera size, I have two observations. My D750 is only marginally bigger than my GH4, and the difference in weight pretty much disappears when I mount a Speedbooster and a Nikon lens to the GH4 vs putting that lens on the D750. There's a reason that most of Sony's e-mount are f4 lenses -- f2.8 lenses would be huge compared to the body.
http://cameradecision.com/sizecomparison/Panasonic-Lumix-DMC-GH4-vs-Nikon-D750-size-comparison.jpg 

Again, not sure what is your point.

 

 

But with mirrorless I have access to an EVF that lets me see exactly what I'm shooting. I can have a true silent mode like I have on my GH4 so I can shoot BTS stills on motion sets without a bag. I can have better video, both in quality and in ergonomics. These are also features that make mirrorless the future, size isn't the only thing that's great about mirrorless.

I agree with you on the advantages of mirrorless.  However, I don't think most still photographers share that view -- they generally want the viewfinder.  Anyway, many DSLRs have a "live" mode in which the mirror locks up.  Of course, a lot of DSLRs have a "video" mode, too.

 

 

For ultimate reliability you want the least number of places where something can fail. Adaptors means one extra link in the chain, and each link is a potential point of failure -- no matter how expensive or well engineered it is. And let's be perfectly honest, my Speedbooster rattles, and I've used other Speedboosters that also rattle. They tolerances are good, but not mindblowing. I've never had a problem with my GH4 + Speedbooster combo, but that doesn't mean I don't take the 12-35 with me as a backup.

I have never had an adaptor "fail."  I've had cheap adapters that rattle, but they never caused any problems.

 

The only problem that I have had is that my current focal reducer accepts Nikkor G lenses as well as Nikkor F lenses, so it has it's own aperture adjustment ring, which can inadvertently get bumped and change the aperture.  However, one piece of tape and "problem solved."

 

 

I like using a range of lenses as well, which is one reason I chose a GH4. But if my job was to pump out corporate video after corporate video, or one event after another, or if most of my work has a reasonable budget, I'd probably get a C300 with a set of Cinema Primes and be done with it. Which isn't to say that you're wrong, but its just that you're willing to go the extra mile to find the look you want for a project, whereas lots and lots of people just need a reliable piece of equipment that works exactly the same way, and pumps out the same quality, time after time, with no surprises. I lean towards the no surprises camp, I'm willing to trade versatility for not having to have an uncomfortable conversation with my client.

Well, I have done one or two corporate gigs with a few different cameras, and I would probably get a camcorder with a fixed zoom if I had to do such jobs on a regular basis.  That choice has nothing to do with reliability -- it has to do with speed and ease of use.  Zoom camcorders are more than sufficient for most corporate work,  and there is no need to constantly change primes.

 

You keep insinuation that using a variety of equipment can result in reliability problems and "surprises."   I have been using a variety of cameras, lenses and adapters for a while, and I have no idea as to what you are talking about.

 

 

All I'm really saying is that there is a huge market for people who are conservative with equipment, who are risk averse to any equipment changes that has the potential to hurt their business. And those are the people who I think would prefer an F-mount Nikon mirrorless over a brand new/different lens mount.

Yes, there is a market for such consumers and newbies, and it is already thoroughly addressed by Nikon's existing product lines.

 

Again, Nikon can make a mirrorless camera with a shallow mount and one could still use F-mount Nikkors.  If you are concerned about "reliability" and rattle, Nikon could use a shallow mount and have an adapter that additionally "bolts on" snugly with a outer flange and a few screws (although that really would be overkill).

[MattH]

I laughed and then frowned when I read this. Nikon's F mount is their highest end strength for the company and the one keeping the company together, achieving higher sales than anything from Nikon and most other mount from all manufacturers. F mount is their most valuable resource and it's going places. 

'It's not going anywhere' - as a figure of speach - doesn't mean the same as 'it's not going places'. It means 'it's here to stay':

The opposite of NX mount.

[Guest Ebrahim Saadawi]

If an adapter is built by a mother company to the same standards as they would for a native mount, there's absolutely no difference in strength and reliability. BUT, these adapters with micro-meter tolerqnce accuracy and tank built are expensive, metabones are not one of these adapters, metabones are just fine. Very very good for all normal applications. 

For those who really need the reliability and require absolutely no failure potential, adapters like the Sony-made FZ to PL that ships with the F3/F5/F55 (people wonder why they dont use E mount on these cameras until they actually see the FZ mount and PL adapter in reallife, worlds apart from an E-mount plus a Metabones/PL adapter for using heavy real Cine lenses requiring zero tolerance in focus calibration) 

Point is, adapters can be made to be as good as a native mount in terms of reliability, tolerances, electrical contacts, etc.