View Full Version : Will the D90 have a built in AF motor ?
Curious what the consensus is here. consider this...
the d40 series has been a resounding success
the d60 is likely to be the same
tamron and sigma are increasing their built in AF lens' all the time
i wonder if the move is on soon for none of nikon's consumer grade dslr's to have a built in AF motor.
what say the masses ?
tim11
03-17-2008, 03:30 PM
is this a bet?
VTEC_EATER
03-17-2008, 03:32 PM
I believe it will have the focus motor.
I voted you're crazy:D Of course it will!!!!!!:confused::confused:
You actually have two different polls there.
The first two questions are one poll and the second two are an entirely different poll.
FWIW I HOPE that the D90 will have an AF motor but I believe that ultimately AF motors will disappear from camera bodies, probably at about the same time as CF disappears from usage as a memory media.
Visual Reality
03-17-2008, 06:13 PM
You can bet on it.
How else would people use the older lenses?
How else would people use the older lenses?
It's actually in Nikons financial interests to force everybody over time to buy new lenses.
Jason25
03-17-2008, 07:20 PM
I think the D90 or whatever it's ultimately called will have an internal motor, but the higher end consumer body after that will not. The semi-pro and pro bodies will probably continue to have them for quite awhile. Just my forecast :)
Screenclutter
03-17-2008, 07:22 PM
If the D90 ends up being around twice as expensive as the D40 (about the same price as the D80), I'm not sure how they could not include the AF motor.
ssil2000
03-17-2008, 07:48 PM
yes it will have a motor, yes you are crazy. :D
I think the D90 or whatever it's ultimately called will have an internal motor, but the higher end consumer body after that will not. The semi-pro and pro bodies will probably continue to have them for quite awhile. Just my forecast :)
i agree. and i wouldnt be surprised to see it happen with the d90.
If the D90 ends up being around twice as expensive as the D40 (about the same price as the D80), I'm not sure how they could not include the AF motor.
live view, 3inch screen, cmos sensor, 5fps etc etc etc
lotsa reasons.
Realistically it will depend on how Nikon want to position the Dwhatever.
If it follows on from the "Advanced Amateur" positioning of the D80 then it would probably be foolish of Nikon to remove the screw drive because many of the potential buyers will be D80, D70, D50 owners who will have collections of lenses that require a screw drive. It won't matter for any D40 or D60 upgraders.
If Nikon aim the camera squarely at D40, D60 upgraders only then they will be able to delete the screw drive and us D80, D70, D50 owners will be forced to grumble and buy D300's.
Not having the screw drive on the D40, D60 is easy because those cameras are aimed at first time buyers so older lens collections are not really an issue.
As I said earlier I'm sure the drive will ultimately disappear but I'm not sure that the market is ready for it to do so on an "Advanced Amateur" camera just yet. Maybe the next model.
Visual Reality
03-18-2008, 03:05 AM
If the D90 ends up being around twice as expensive as the D40 (about the same price as the D80), I'm not sure how they could not include the AF motor.
It most likely will not be the same current price as the D80, but the price it was at intro ($999). Just my opinion.
Screenclutter
03-18-2008, 04:04 PM
live view, 3inch screen, cmos sensor, 5fps etc etc etc
lotsa reasons.
It would be hard for me to get in-focus 5 fps pictures if I was using a non AF-S lens. By the time the 900,000 pixel screen comes out on the D80 replacement, it will be a year old technology and probably cheaper.
On the other hand, a new very-high ISO sensor with little noise but with no AF motor would still get me interested.
It would be hard for me to get in-focus 5 fps pictures if I was using a non AF-S lens..
so get an af-s lens. lol
the pain will come sooner or later. maybe not with the d90, but it WILL come. these same arguments will be had, they will come and just like they did when the d40 came out, they will go.
XaiLo
03-19-2008, 10:15 AM
The hand writing is on the wall... I think it can be agreed on that AF-S lenses and VR are a compelling reasons to want to up grade from most older glass. On the same token I believe the mindset for the D80/D90 is for the most part than that of the a typical D40/D60 where the latter group wants a better optical solution than current superzooms. The former owner a typically wants more control by virtue of the options offered on the D80/D90. And current lens selection due to available options are still slanted in some instances towards screw driven lenses primarily prime low light, inexpensive, and 85mm portrait lenses. But the upgrade path for a D50/D70/D80 user will be a prosumer option D200/D300 and both retain the focus motor. But who really knows. Maybe a Nikon R&D rep will join the forum:rolleyes: lol
Screenclutter
03-19-2008, 05:12 PM
so get an af-s lens. lol
Most of my photos are indoor low-light with no flash or tripod. None of the AF-S lenses I know of are faster than f/2.8. The Sigma HSM 30mm lens is an idea, but I'd get an 85mm first.
I'd like to see Nikon AF-S prime updates. Maybe they'll throw in VR too.
understand your issue with indoor low light. sometimes there's no alternative, i understand that. however, there are limitations of using a small aperture lens in low light anyway. an f1.4 lens gives you more light flooding in sure, (how much more light s debatable...saving 1 stop or 2 stops ? hell you can get that in shutter speed just by holding your breath), but its not the sharpest point for the lens, often its pretty ordinary at that aperture....particualrly for contrast. its also an extremely narrow dof which is a limitation in itself alot of times. add to that the fact that in really low light you will struggle to get AF to work well enuf, so you use MF anyway. then add again the degrading IQ by shooting at really hi iso's.
so really, are you getting the most out of your gear and photo opportunity or is it just a false economy ? i would probably suggest that if thats what you mostly shoot, you need to learn how to use flash otherwise you are severly limiting your ability to get the best shot you can get.
Screenclutter
03-19-2008, 07:45 PM
Flash is 2nd on my list, I need a telephoto first. Indoor sports is way out of my budget.
ssil2000
03-19-2008, 08:03 PM
i would probably suggest that if thats what you mostly shoot, you need to learn how to use flash otherwise you are severly limiting your ability to get the best shot you can get.
couldnt agree more, best money i spent sb600... plan ona couple more eventually! maybe some umbrellas too!
mugsisme
03-19-2008, 08:45 PM
Rooz (or anyone), I hate to ask a dumb question. Does it matter for IQ which has the focus, the camera or the lens? Is the only reason people get worried about losing the focus screw on the camera is because of older lenses? Would it really be an awful thing if the next new camera (or the one after that) did have af?
I love this. Something to get all pedantic and picky about (Coldie is no longer here so somebody has to from time to time).
(how much more light s debatable...saving 1 stop or 2 stops ? hell you can get that in shutter speed just by holding your breath),
Holding you breath when you take photos will make you more UNSTEADY as it causes your body to tense. It is exactly the WRONG thing to do.
The correct technique is exactly the same as shooting a rifle. Calm down, brace yourself, breathe in steady normal breaths, squeeze the trigger (substitute push the shutter here) when you are half way through exhaling. DO NOT shoot while you have either full or empty lungs.
Okay, I didn't quite manage the best Coldie technical mumbo jumbo slightly confusing response or any vitriol but I tried. :)
Rooz (or anyone), I hate to ask a dumb question. Does it matter for IQ which has the focus, the camera or the lens? Is the only reason people get worried about losing the focus screw on the camera is because of older lenses? Would it really be an awful thing if the next new camera (or the one after that) did have af?
As a general rule lenses with in built focus motors (AF-S or HSM) focus faster than those without in built motors.
I've never seen anything to indicate that one sort or another in inherently more accurate than the other. I think that is more specific to individual lenses.
The issue that prompted this thread is that if the camera body does not have the focus motor the use must manually focus when using non AF-S lenses and we will know the manual focus on a DSLR is much more difficult that it used to be on SLR's simply because the camera viewfinders are not designed for manual focus use. If every DSLR had a 900,000 pixel live view display like the D300 it may not be so bad.
Rooz (or anyone), I hate to ask a dumb question. Does it matter for IQ which has the focus, the camera or the lens? Is the only reason people get worried about losing the focus screw on the camera is because of older lenses? Would it really be an awful thing if the next new camera (or the one after that) did have af?
it doesnt effect IQ in the slightest. yes, the only reason people complain is cos they have to MF alot of lens'. its a whole lotta worry over a whole lotta nothin imho.
thanks for clarifying kiwi. it was more of a flippant remark i was making about the use of f1.4 vs f2.8. i have never tried that technique and given your response probably never will ! lol then again, i prefer to have sharp photos so i use a flash. :)
righto...dxrocnxj (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/member.php?u=22735), Ray Schnoor (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/member.php?u=19), T06 (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/member.php?u=14048), tim11 (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/member.php?u=8400), toriaj (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/member.php?u=13306), Turo (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/member.php?u=16467), Visual Reality (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/member.php?u=23844)...
i got my eye on you lot.:mad::mad:
:D
Visual Reality
03-19-2008, 09:37 PM
righto...dxrocnxj (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/member.php?u=22735), Ray Schnoor (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/member.php?u=19), T06 (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/member.php?u=14048), tim11 (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/member.php?u=8400), toriaj (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/member.php?u=13306), Turo (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/member.php?u=16467), Visual Reality (http://www.dcresource.com/forums/member.php?u=23844)...
i got my eye on you lot.:mad::mad:
:D
Where's the innocent smiley when you need it :D
erichlund
03-20-2008, 01:34 PM
I love this. Something to get all pedantic and picky about (Coldie is no longer here so somebody has to from time to time).
Holding you breath when you take photos will make you more UNSTEADY as it causes your body to tense. It is exactly the WRONG thing to do.
The correct technique is exactly the same as shooting a rifle. Calm down, brace yourself, breathe in steady normal breaths, squeeze the trigger (substitute push the shutter here) when you are half way through exhaling. DO NOT shoot while you have either full or empty lungs.
Okay, I didn't quite manage the best Coldie technical mumbo jumbo slightly confusing response or any vitriol but I tried. :)
See, the U.S. military, at least when I was in it, teaches a slightly different technique (during qual shooting). The only difference is to stop the exhale at the halfway point. That relieves the pressure, but stops the movement associated with the breathing itself. It's particularly effective for prone shooting, since you are laying (essentially) on your lungs.
For those that don't want the REALLY pedantic stuff, ignore the rest:
The reason for not leaving the lungs empty is oxygen depletion, which makes you shaky. The reason for not keeping full lungs is CO2 build up, which makes you shaky. Both are in the blood and muscles, not in the lungs. Lungs only make you move when they move. Muscles get shaky when they cannot get O2 or when they cannot get rid of CO2. Just like an engine, the body burns carbon based compounds with oxygen to produce energy. Lungs that are half full can meet the bodies transfer needs for both oxygen and CO2. Transfer occurs even when you are not taking a breath, because it is a factor of the blood moving through the lungs, not the act of breathing.
Benjamin2007
04-02-2008, 03:35 AM
Came across this interesting thread, while browsing the Nikon dSLR area, hope the regulars/old hands don't mind my chiming in with my 2c...
Eric, I couldn't have written that ^^^ any better myself. Spot on.
BTW, the (rifle) shooting method you described was how the Australian Army taught me how to shoot about 25yrs ago, for the same reasons, perhaps K1W1 was referring to a sporting shooter's technique?
I try to remember to use the Army method when I'm shooting photos now. :)
[Off topic: just read some D300 reviews yesterday :cool:, ... wow that there is a seriously good camera, ... pity I don't have a spare AUD2.5k to buy the body :(, ... oh well, the D80 is still a fine camera :D and is still my No1 choice when I take that step, regardless of when the "D90" is released...]
FWIW I think the D90 will probably still have an in-built AF motor, but agree with most posters above that the trend is probably away from in-camera motors & that succeeding models probably wont have one.
cheers,
tim11
04-02-2008, 03:49 AM
---
Holding you breath when you take photos will make you more UNSTEADY as it causes your body to tense. It is exactly the WRONG thing to do.
---
Only for about one second? Maybe that's right scientifically but holding my breath works well for me.
The best post I've seen on this subject:
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=26722323
XaiLo
04-02-2008, 10:39 AM
Thanks for the link. ;)
not sure i agree with that post. i supect that the vast majority of d40 owners dont even know what a prime is. this is an entry level dslr for entrry level people. now before my d40 brethren on this forum attack me for saying that. lets keep in mind that 99% of d40 owners don't frequent forums. you guys are here, like the rest of us, to learn more and discuss photography but most people dont do that. just becasue a regular question on forums realtes to primes doesnt mean that its a regular question in general becasue forums make up a miniscule proportion of the total sales volume.
People should also remember that the D40/x have been wildly successful for Nikon - their best selling SLR or DSLR cameras ever by a huge margin. That indicates two things, 1. The market is happy with the product 2. Nikon are correct about what entry level DSLR buyers want in a camera.
not sure i agree with that post. i supect that the vast majority of d40 owners dont even know what a prime is. this is an entry level dslr for entrry level people. now before my d40 brethren on this forum attack me for saying that. lets keep in mind that 99% of d40 owners don't frequent forums. you guys are here, like the rest of us, to learn more and discuss photography but most people dont do that. just becasue a regular question on forums realtes to primes doesnt mean that its a regular question in general becasue forums make up a miniscule proportion of the total sales volume.I should have clarified. I think the salient point is that if the D90 does not have a focusing motor (as I guess you suspect) then we can expect to see some AF-S primes on the horizon sooner rather than later. Makes perfectly logical sense (to me, at least! :D). Of course, none of us really have a clue...;)
yeah, definately. now that i totally agree with. its a good point. we will see by the end of the year i guess.
mind you,i think the pressure from the number of pro's who have switched from canon to nikon becasue of the D3, (and those that wont switch becasue the primes are outdated and/ or not available), will probably be putting far more pressure on nikon as opposed to newbs buying d90's or d60's.
if everything keeps going as its going, touch wood, i'll be buying a D3 next year so the timing i'm hoping will be close to perfect for a D3 and 85mmf1.4 AF-S VR. if they can carry over the unbelievable optics from the new 24-70/ 14-24 2.8's, add VR and AF-S while retaining the legendary 85/1.4 bokeh...well, now THAT's a lens anyone would kill for.
ssil2000
04-02-2008, 07:04 PM
not sure i agree with that post. i supect that the vast majority of d40 owners dont even know what a prime is. this is an entry level dslr for entrry level people. now before my d40 brethren on this forum attack me for saying that. lets keep in mind that 99% of d40 owners don't frequent forums. you guys are here, like the rest of us, to learn more and discuss photography but most people dont do that. just becasue a regular question on forums realtes to primes doesnt mean that its a regular question in general becasue forums make up a miniscule proportion of the total sales volume.
i think you will find a fair chunk of d80 owners dont know what primes are... i hope the same cant be said about d200/300...
XaiLo
04-02-2008, 07:30 PM
I'm not going to jump on you Rooz quite to the contrary, I've spent quite a bit of time trying to get that very point accross. The D40 was aimed at a new market segment. It's greatest appeal to me was it's compactness and as an early adapter. I can say it got me over my superzoom with a quickness. And the S3 is no slouch on many fronts. I'm not going to knock the 50mm it is a nice cheap lens but it's not for everybody. I purchased it used it, but it did not fit into the way I shoot. For me it wasn't wide enough. Yeah, I know you could use foot zoom. :rolleyes: But why? I couldn't find a compelling reason to do so hence it was returned.
I'd also say if looking at Nikons current offerings the majority of lenses are AF-S lenses. And their consumer line-up is pretty sweet from what I've seen and the price point is acceptable. I haven't read anywhere complaints about the 18-55mm and the 55-200mm VR. Those two lenses should keep the average D40 user very very happy.
Most people just want a good picture and to them that probably means seeing everyone that was there, darn lighting to heck with manual. just give me a picture that I can make out who's their. I sell plenty of pictures to people who have cameras even SLR's and DSLR's... and I do it with a D40.
With that said I believe I would be right at home with a D3x ;) :D
Screenclutter
04-04-2008, 12:35 PM
Does this dpreview post have any merit to it?
http://forums.dpreview.com/forums/read.asp?forum=1034&message=27427306
Edit: Never mind, I just noticed it was an April Fools joke.
XaiLo
04-04-2008, 12:49 PM
I wouldn't bet on it!
tombo
04-05-2008, 12:52 AM
The D40 was aimed at a new market segment. It's greatest appeal to me was it's compactness and as an early adapter.
i think thats a big call to suggest a new market segment was formed.
Visual Reality
04-05-2008, 08:09 AM
I think the D90 will have a CMOS sensor this time around, like the D300. However I don't think it will be the same one. It will be in the 10-11MP range, with lower burst shooting than the D300, the same 3.0" 640x480 screen and revised controls. It will also have the same live view mode and a few other odds and ends. The sensor and a few software tweaks will boost the battery life much beyond the D80.
Anyone disagree?
tombo
04-05-2008, 09:51 AM
that sounds like a great forecast vis.real. if at least most of that doesn't come true ill be truly shitty and will probably jump shit for a 40d. im over my d40 and the d80 doesn't really offer me any particularly modern upgrades for the price.
XaiLo
04-05-2008, 02:56 PM
i think thats a big call to suggest a new market segment was formed.
Why? Digital cameras in mass have only existed for less than a decade. As has been greatly noted and discussed here, the D40 was a vast departure from the Nikon norm. It's target audience were those who were frustrated in P&S land, and those who want DSLR quality without the headache. Would you classify it as an entry level DSLR "yes" but the average D40 user is not looking to necessarily grow as a photographer they just want better pictures. I can only say that all the people that purchased the D40\D40x and caused record sales came from somewhere that wasn't on the map before. Whatever you call it I'm sure Nikon is happy with it. :)
The "D40 Effect" should not be under estimated. The D-Reb started a revolution and Nikon took that revolution to the next level...with an affordable entry level, high-quality, mass-market DSLR that takes great pictures out of the box. It is nothing short of revolutionary from a market impact perspective and is helping to drive the entire DSLR market.
Now, if they don't screw it up...but judging by the brilliance of D3 and D300 I don't think there's any chance of them dropping the ball with the D90.
vBulletin® v3.8.4, Copyright ©2000-2010, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.