I'll just say, use whatever brand you want, and let it go... this whole argument has been rehashed countless time before, and it's all very repetitive. Or is this more of an arm-wrestling match?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Body autofocus motors: Canon always has them, but Nikon lacks them. Why?
- Thread starter cleanup
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Pissing contest is the term I would have picked. And I think that was a rhetorical question you posed.
There's no reason to look at it that way.
The OP's curiosity brought us to this. There is no harm in stating some facts that might help others in a future purchase.
I think it's completely worth noting for people interested in the entry level Nikon bodies. It might not affect them at the beginning but it may come back to bite them later on. Why try to hide from that fact?
The OP's curiosity brought us to this. There is no harm in stating some facts that might help others in a future purchase.
I think it's completely worth noting for people interested in the entry level Nikon bodies. It might not affect them at the beginning but it may come back to bite them later on. Why try to hide from that fact?
Nikon has sold a ton of entry-level bodies. This seems to indicate that your concerns are not shared by most consumers. Most DSLR owners never buy more than the kit lens, or a package deal with multiple lenses.
And they also sell a ton of midrange bodies.
http://www.amazon.com/gp/bestsellers/photo/3017941/ref=pd_ts_p_nav
The D7000, at double the price of the D3100, is right behind it.
Until someone finds reliable sales numbers for individual models, there is no telling how the units sold are distributed.
If I remember correctly, but cannot find a reliable source, the D80 was and quite possibly still is Nikon's top selling digital SLR. But that's just a random unverified statement.
Theoretically, you could have a million people buy Nikon's entry level bodies and never realize they cannot fully use AF lenses until it's too late to return it. Those million people will only find that little tidbit later on, meanwhile, a million entry level Nikon bodies have been sold. That doesn't mean people aren't turned off about it.
But hey, just stating the facts. I like to think it helps people in their purchase decision. And again, I really can't see why people actively want to believe this is a good thing that Nikon did.
Thom Hogan publishes the figures annually, I believe. You know that as well as I do.
At any rate, it's irrelevant. The sales numbers are what speak the loudest, and Nikon sold a staggering number of D40s. What you seem to be getting at, ultimately, is a sophisticated version of "don't you get it!" toward each person who buys an entry level body that doesn't realize its limitations.
What you don't seem to understand is that, in the end, most people don't care about those limitations, and indeed never learn about them at all. If it wasn't very profitable for Nikon to do what it does, it wouldn't keep doing it.
At any rate, it's irrelevant. The sales numbers are what speak the loudest, and Nikon sold a staggering number of D40s. What you seem to be getting at, ultimately, is a sophisticated version of "don't you get it!" toward each person who buys an entry level body that doesn't realize its limitations.
What you don't seem to understand is that, in the end, most people don't care about those limitations, and indeed never learn about them at all. If it wasn't very profitable for Nikon to do what it does, it wouldn't keep doing it.
You might have a point if Nikon ever stated their goal was to be the cheapest camera manufacturer around.
Besides if you really want to get esoteric, Canon was the one who really screwed over their customers when they dumped the FD mount in 1987 for the EOS mount. You wanted to upgrade your body? You trashed/sold your entire FD lens collection. Sony's lens lineup didn't exist until 2006, and even if you include the old Minolta stuff, the Minolta AF mount was only introduced in 1985. Olympus' 4/3 format only existed from 2003 onwards. Since Nikon's last AF release was in 2004, they're running pretty par for the course regarding lens releases within the last 7-8 years being compatible on all current bodies. Except Nikon's also got an additional 50 years of F mount lenses behind it. How can you fault Nikon for having poor compatibility in this case?
As are the number of AF lenses. Aside from a very few, Nikon has largely stopped making AF lenses and has been in the process of replacing them all with AFS versions. They have not released an AF design in 7 years. That's almost as long as they have been making DSLRs. The vast, vast majority of the population who buys a camera (and especially one buying an entry-level model) is never going to buy a second lens, and if they do it is most likely going to be a new model. The lack of in-body motor is completely moot to them.
Again, it does not only hurt the consumer. The buyer who purchases a D3100 w/kit lens and never buys anything else? He was not hurt by the lack of an in-body motor. In fact it probably benefited him because he paid less money for his camera body that did not have it, a feature he would never have used anyways. It's cheaper for both Nikon and the typical consumer, a sound business decision. Don't blow it up any bigger than that. It is an economic decision, no more no less. And one that actually benefits both Nikon and the vast majority of entry-level DSLR customers.
To put it bluntly, it's not Nikon's fault that someone is too poor to afford their products. You can't stand the heat? Get out of the kitchen. Nikon's sales seem to be doing just fine, even though they are not the cheapest option available. If budget is an extreme concern for someone, then yes maybe Nikon is not the route to go. But that should not come as a surprise to anyone- Nikon's products have always been about being better than the rest of the competition, and charging a premium for it.
Ruahrc
No, I don't. Why would I know that?
Where exactly on his website does he state them and a photographer who doesn't seem to be affiliated with Nikon have those numbers?
In any case, feel free to show me.
Is that a fact or are you just saying?
I have no doubt they are selling a large number of D40s. I also have no doubt the sold a large number of D80s.
Again, until someone finds reliable sales numbers for individual models, there is no telling how the units sold are distributed.
What?
I am stating simple facts, that so far have not been proven wrong. You can choose to read it however you like or to ignore it. It still doesn't change that it's true.
Is that your complete speculation or do you speak for all users?
I have no doubt it is profitable for Nikon. And of course they would keep doing it.
And:
I am asking: What is the advantage to the consumer that Nikon decided to not put focus motors in entry level bodies?
To which some may answer, the body costs less.
But they don't. Or not nearly enough to be a worthwhile non-tradeoff to the user. Canon, Sony, Pentax, Olympus have all shown that they can build entry level camera bodies that are fully compatible with their entire lens without sacrificing something.
What is Nikon's excuse for doing so, in the advantage of the buyer?
Because a portion of users may never use it that it's suddenly okay to condemn more enthusiastic users?
Again, I have to question people defending Nikon in this argument.
Do you truly believe this is a good thing? Really?
How can I?
Nikon is the only one who, right now, has current camera bodies that will not fully work with some of their lenses in their current lineup. That is how I fault them.
I actually don't want to bother checking if that is true for Sony and Pentax but I should be good with Canon and Olympus at the very least.
With that said, I wouldn't use the word fault as you put it. It's a caveat for the user to know. Keeping that legacy has advantages and disadvantages as we can see.
They are still making AF lenses.
Until every AF lens in their current lineup has been replaced, the point still stands.
Do you know this for a fact? Can you provide a source for that?
What does happen to the consumer who decides to buy an AF lens to use with his D3100?
He is forced to focus manually with an autofocus lens? He has to look for third-party options? He has to upgrade his camera body? Or it's okay for him to suck it up and use it manually, as part of the learning curve, as some of you will want to put it.
The fact remains, entry level Nikon bodies cannot autofocus with Nikon's own AF lenses. It was a simple fact that I brought to people's attentions. But some of you felt the need to get defensive over that.
The $50-100 he saved on the camera body is worth the gripe he will get down the line and resort to the options outlined in my previous paragraph?
You truly think that is a good thing?
See:
I didn't blow it up. The people who chose to question me stating simple facts were.
I guess I did find someone who truly believes Nikon did the right thing with this.
What we can gather from this thread, for people in the market for a new camera, if you decide to go with Nikon digital SLRs, according to some MacRumors users, you should:
- Look for used models from 2005.
- Get an entry level body and not buy AF lenses or just not get any other lenses at all as you can save both Nikon and yourself some money.
- Look elsewhere if you can't afford it as their products are better than the rest of the competition.
The $50-100 he saved on the camera body is worth the gripe he will get down the line and resort to the options outlined in my previous paragraph?
Well, you're worth a good laugh, at least.
Most DSLR owners never get "down the line". Ever.
Well, you're worth a good laugh, at least.
Most DSLR owners never get "down the line". Ever.
The most sensible thing you said in the whole thread.
You seem to be jumping back and forward with your opinions and just trying to get the fire burning. Are you some teenager whos mommy bought him a entry level Nikon and now he is pissed off because he cannot use AF lenses in AF?
Like mentioned previously, LET IT DIE. The argument is moot, canon has their quirks at least you CAN mount the lenses on the bodies. But again, this is like talking to a brick wall. Stop d!cking around and just say it out loud, you are a fanboy of X and nikon is crap because they left the focusing motor out of the entry level cams which, as stated by luminosity before, most consumers will NEVER leave and go "down the line".
geez.
Also, basic research into various Nikon bodies by a prospective buyer will inform said buyer about what they're getting to.
The people who are most likely to care about a lack of an in-body focus motor are the ones most likely to get a higher-end body with one in it or just not care for other reasons (like not owning/using any screwdriver lenses).
The people who are most likely to care about a lack of an in-body focus motor are the ones most likely to get a higher-end body with one in it or just not care for other reasons (like not owning/using any screwdriver lenses).
As a D80 owner I disagree. Perhaps the D90 is one of their top selling DSLRs but I think the D80 never enjoyed runaway success that the D90/D7000 had, nor the success of the D40/D40x/D3000/D3100.
The phrase you're looking for is "the body costs less than it would have cost had Nikon included the in-body focus motor". It does not matter what Nikon's cost is relative to the competition, the fact remains that if Nikon put extra parts in their DSLR, it would cost more than it currently does. Therefore, a buyer of the D3100 would have paid more money for his body had it included an in-body focus motor.
Please provide a verifiable source that a significant portion of D3100 users eventually look towards AF lenses. You said it yourself earlier in the thread, that probably very few low-end body owners ever purchase a 2nd lens, let alone an older AF model.
A wonderfully myopic view. If you include lenses made in the past 50 years, Nikon is by far and away the most compatible manufacturer of the bunch. Besides, you cannot use EF-S lenses on Canon's FF bodies. Nikon's DX lenses work both on DX and FX. Having that ability helps the transition while you pick up new FX lenses to replace your old DX ones. Where's the butthurt and outrage over that? A user upgrading from crop to FF is not that uncommon, and once again Canon leaves you out in the cold if you bought any EF-S lenses for your crop body. Definitely not in the interest of the consumer there!
Sony, Pentax, and Olympus don't really count for valid comparison as their lens lineups are very small and limited compared to Nikon and Canon. And of those two, it is clear which philosophy each manufacturer took. Nikon chose to preserve their mount compatibility while Canon decided to draw the line and cut it off in favor of a more modern redesign. As you again stated earlier, we know the advantages and disadvantages of each method, and that fact has been already covered.
Frankly, yes. He will either have to find an equivalent AFS model, upgrade his body, or use it in MF mode only. And if he has a problem with that- well I guess it is his own fault for not doing proper research beforehand. That these bodies are only compatible with AFS lenses is not a secret Nikon keeps from their customers. Again, please provide verifiable sources that indicate that a significant portion of D3100 users come across this scenario. Nobody's arguing it doesn't happen, just that it happens so rarely that the "better" or "more effective" decision was to remove the in-body focus motor.
You blew it up when you said:
"Did the right thing" may be overstating a bit, but honestly I don't have a problem with it. I can even understand their motivation and logic in doing so- something you fail to grasp. I don't believe this affects even a small portion of the userbase. And of those that it does affect, it is usually their "champagne tastes on beer budget" attitude that is the source of the outrage. I guess I should hate Porsche or Ferrari for making such expensive cars...
1) It was offered that if you want a cheap Nikon DSLR with an in-body focus motor then a used model from previous generations is a good alternative. And I contend that the small fraction of "poor but enthusiastic amateurs" who need this should find sufficient supplies available on the used market.
2) This is the option that the majority of users take, whether it is consciously made or not. Do you not agree that the vast majority of D3100/D5000 users only own one or two lenses? And that whatever lenses they bought came with their body in the form of a kit?
3) If you cannot afford the Nikon body with in-body focus motor, would it not be logical to choose another manufacturer?
Ruahrc
=-) Funny you should mention this. I once purchased a used film body, and the little shaft that's powered by the body's internal motor had a weak spring and was lodged inside the camera, thus making it unable to focus.
And in response to the rest of this thread, I've found that the lenses with internal motors focus much faster.
You believe that saving $50-100 is worth not being able to fully use a significant amount of lenses?
I don't know what that means.
You're being ridiculous.
How is stating a fact being a fanboy?
Again, I don't know what you mean by that.
Do you mean that most consumers will not be using their camera to the extent that this will affect them?
If yes, I'm asking, what about the ones who do? Does that make it okay for them not being able to fully use certain lenses because a feature was left out?
What of people only being able to afford entry level bodies but do want to make full use of AF lenses?
Do we have to suggest them buying used camera bodies? Do we tell them to get out of the kitchen if they can't stand the heat as Ruahrc said?
Unless the D90 has dethroned the D80, I believe the D80 is or was the top selling digital SLR for Nikon.
I remember once being proven wrong when I stated the D40 was the top selling model when someone showed me that it was the D80, or quite possibly the D70 now that I think about it. That does not happen often, so I remember it somewhat.
In any case, this reminds me that luminosity still needs to show me those sales figures from Thom Hogan. But I can't really expect everyone to be as careful as I am.
Assuming everything you said is true, this brings me to ask:
Do you believe that saving $50-100 is worth not being able to fully use AF lenses for the number of people who would like to do so on entry level bodies?
This practice forces them to buy used camera bodies or to spend more money on a more expensive camera body.
I believe I wasn't stating anything other than presenting a question.
"Because a portion of users may never use it that it's suddenly okay to condemn more enthusiastic users?" was a followup question to "What is Nikon's excuse for doing so, in the advantage of the buyer?"
So I am not saying "very few low-end body owners ever purchase a 2nd lens, let alone an older AF model" unless I said it somewhere else, so you may correct me on that if you point out where.
But EF-S lenses aren't part of the EF family. It's a different mount.
I don't think there's an outrage.
I'm just stating entry level bodies cannot autofocus AF lenses. No outrage.
I have no issue with that at all and if someone were to start a thread about it, I would chime in on it.
This was not the initial question or issue.
Your argument, which isn't directly related to the question and issue at hand, is brought in simply to counter mine and change our argument's direction.
This does not address the issue at hand. And this is why I choose to dissect every post as we can clearly so where we're diverging. And also as to see where parts are omitted.
Thank you.
And all I've been saying is that this is simply a bad thing for users in that situation. It hurts the consumer.
I believe I don't have to provide anything as we are both working on hypothetical situations, which if we have to trace back, others have thrown at me first before I throw my own back.
Nobody is arguing it doesn't happen but more than a few are arguing this is a good thing.
If we go all the way back to my first post, this is my original statement: "This only hurts more enthusiastic amateurs."
I'm not stating numbers, I'm not stating situations. I'm saying it can generally be considered "This is not a good thing" thing.
Your perspective may change if you were affected by the situation.
I don't think that analogy works.
Other companies are offering entry level bodies that are fully functional with their current lens lineup.
Nikon willfully chooses to preclude their entry level bodies to be fully functional with their current lens lineup for their own reasons.
I'm just saying it's not quite right.
I believe I said earlier that there's a little something off when you have to suggest a much older camera body with significantly less features if you want to autofocus AF lenses.
This option, while viable, is much less attractive when it could've been avoided altogether if the newer entry level bodies didn't omit a certain feature.
That is possible.
It's also possible they would like to use AF lenses for whatever reason and will have to use them manually.
This is where my issue is.
That is also another viable option.
I could go back and argue your post point-by-point but it's not worth the effort when you have shown you simply want to counterpoint people's posts and not have constructive, progressing debate. Pretty much your entire post(s) can be paraphrased by: (emphasis mine)
My stance is that "that situation" (i.e. the one where a D3100/D5000 user wants to buy an AF lens) is not as common as you make it out to be. That "the consumer" is really only a minor portion of the D3100/5000 userbase. Since you won't accept any premises without facts, this is as far as the debate will ever get.
You repeatedly mis-state and generalize my argument when you say that I believe this is a good thing without qualification. I freely admit that it is not a good thing for that small fraction of users who wants the cheapest body and then some old glass. My argument is that it hurts far less people than it helps- that the majority of D3100/5000 users benefit from the decision (by way of a cheaper body), whereas only a small minority are disadvantaged. And for that minority, it's not like there is no other option, or that this fact was hidden from them before buying. If they have a problem with it, or did not realize, it is their fault for buying into the Nikon brand without full and reasoned decision making.
You could extend this debate to other features such as, "why doesn't the D3100/D5000 have a built-in flash commander mode?" Why does the "enthusiastic amateur" who owns a D3100 need to upgrade to a D7000, or buy a separate hotshoe flash commander in order to do Nikon CLS wireless flash? This hurts the consumer.
Or, "why doesn't the D3100/D5000 have a pentaprism viewfinder"? Why does the "enthusiastic amateur" need to buy a D7000 just to get a reasonable viewfinder? This hurts the consumer.
Or, "why do I have to buy a $2000+ body to get a full-frame sensor?" What if the "enthusiastic amateur" who is used to working with 35mm film need to adjust to this smaller crop format, losing his wide angle FOV when he buys that D3100? This hurts the consumer.
The reason is, you quickly begin to realize that all these arguments are just really "why isn't the stuff I want to buy cheaper so that it is more affordable to more people?" And that "enthusiastic amateur" really means "cheap amateur" or "poor amateur". And while this may be a noble and valid position, it is little more than whining, and there is nothing one can do about it. Nikon is under no obligation to provide its products at the cheapest price point, or serve the bottommost segment of the market.
Feel free to do your line-by-line requoting thing again. I've made my points as clearly as I can, and if you still have issue we will just have to agree to disagree because I see no point in debating this further.
Ruahrc
My stance is that "that situation" (i.e. the one where a D3100/D5000 user wants to buy an AF lens) is not as common as you make it out to be. That "the consumer" is really only a minor portion of the D3100/5000 userbase. Since you won't accept any premises without facts, this is as far as the debate will ever get.
You repeatedly mis-state and generalize my argument when you say that I believe this is a good thing without qualification. I freely admit that it is not a good thing for that small fraction of users who wants the cheapest body and then some old glass. My argument is that it hurts far less people than it helps- that the majority of D3100/5000 users benefit from the decision (by way of a cheaper body), whereas only a small minority are disadvantaged. And for that minority, it's not like there is no other option, or that this fact was hidden from them before buying. If they have a problem with it, or did not realize, it is their fault for buying into the Nikon brand without full and reasoned decision making.
You could extend this debate to other features such as, "why doesn't the D3100/D5000 have a built-in flash commander mode?" Why does the "enthusiastic amateur" who owns a D3100 need to upgrade to a D7000, or buy a separate hotshoe flash commander in order to do Nikon CLS wireless flash? This hurts the consumer.
Or, "why doesn't the D3100/D5000 have a pentaprism viewfinder"? Why does the "enthusiastic amateur" need to buy a D7000 just to get a reasonable viewfinder? This hurts the consumer.
Or, "why do I have to buy a $2000+ body to get a full-frame sensor?" What if the "enthusiastic amateur" who is used to working with 35mm film need to adjust to this smaller crop format, losing his wide angle FOV when he buys that D3100? This hurts the consumer.
The reason is, you quickly begin to realize that all these arguments are just really "why isn't the stuff I want to buy cheaper so that it is more affordable to more people?" And that "enthusiastic amateur" really means "cheap amateur" or "poor amateur". And while this may be a noble and valid position, it is little more than whining, and there is nothing one can do about it. Nikon is under no obligation to provide its products at the cheapest price point, or serve the bottommost segment of the market.
Feel free to do your line-by-line requoting thing again. I've made my points as clearly as I can, and if you still have issue we will just have to agree to disagree because I see no point in debating this further.
Ruahrc
Eh. This would be solved by a simple survey on how many people that buy the Nikon entry-level bodies even want a older lenses. D40s and D40xs sold like crazy even though they lacked the in body AF. Most likely the people buying these entry-level bodies did not even consider it as an issue at the time of purchase. At least the older Nikon lenses can mount on the entry-level bodies. It is not like manual focus is all that hard. The only reason I did not go with the D40x and went with a D80 was because I didn't like having to go through menus on the LCD to change exposure settings that are accessible via the dials on the D80. The fact that I can use older lenses with my D80 is a plus, but it wasn't a deciding factor. I chose Nikon over Canon only because I could use older Nikon lenses passed down to me regardless of the AF and metering features. If I were to start all over today, I might not even go with a Canon or Nikon.
The manufacture does not hurt consumers, consumers are the one's who hurt themselves. If the issue was as big as you make it out to be, consumers would stop buying entry-level Nikons and the company would be forced to change. Consumers have options in the entry-level DSLR market.
I think it would be more interesting to debate the whole in lens v. in body stabilization issue.
The manufacture does not hurt consumers, consumers are the one's who hurt themselves. If the issue was as big as you make it out to be, consumers would stop buying entry-level Nikons and the company would be forced to change. Consumers have options in the entry-level DSLR market.
I think it would be more interesting to debate the whole in lens v. in body stabilization issue.