a bit of a rant

[Mitch1640]

i see alot of people complaining that nikon has taken the focus motors out of some of their cameras. however dont most lenses now come with motors in the lenses? i know not all but it seems that almost half of the lenses iv looked it have motors in them, im aware most primes dont but still. the lack of the motor in the camera body is almost a moot point.

 

[table1349]

i see alot of people complaining that nikon has taken the focus motors out of some of their cameras. however dont most lenses now come with motors in the lenses? i know not all but it seems that almost half of the lenses iv looked it have motors in them, im aware most primes dont but still. the lack of the motor in the camera body is almost a moot point.

It might be moot point until you come across one of those really great older lenses at a price you can finally afford and it doesn't have a focus motor.

 

[chrisburke]

yea, but you shouldnt be using auto focus... you should be training yourself to use manual focus..sometimes auto focus isnt quick enough, and it can mean the difference between a shot of dallas green coming off the airplane or a blur... yes, this happened to me..

 

[Village Idiot]

yea, but you shouldnt be using auto focus... you should be training yourself to use manual focus..bsometimes auto focus isnt quick enough, and it can mean the difference between a shot of dallas green coming off the airplane or a blur... yes, this happened to me..

I understand. You're using a D50.

 

[Chewbecca]

yea, but you shouldnt be using auto focus... you should be training yourself to use manual focus..sometimes auto focus isnt quick enough, and it can mean the difference between a shot of dallas green coming off the airplane or a blur... yes, this happened to me..

As someone who had to manually focus the 50mm f1.8 lens on a D60, and became QUITE good at it, I REFUSE to believe this statement!!!

Being able to AF this lens now has been a blessing. To me, it has meant the difference between 10 bad shots out of 300 vs. over 100 bad shots out of 300 (or even more).

 

[dEARlEADER]

i see alot of people complaining that nikon has taken the focus motors out of some of their cameras. however dont most lenses now come with motors in the lenses? i know not all but it seems that almost half of the lenses iv looked it have motors in them, im aware most primes dont but still. the lack of the motor in the camera body is almost a moot point.

The entry level Nikons d40/60 were not designed for serious hobbyists. They were designed for family people that most likely would never take off the kit lens and/or maybe use the 55-200 for some length.

People that lust to use vintage lenses aren't usually the ilk that use D40's as their main body.

There are some people (like me) who bought the D40/60 thinking family use, and later become more serious. These people are casualties of Nikons lack of a/f format and I guess they have some legitimacy to the gripe. I would reckon this to be a very small market though. It just looks more emphasized here because forumers are generally looking to become more advanced.

 

[Photog]

yea, but you shouldnt be using auto focus... you should be training yourself to use manual focus..sometimes auto focus isnt quick enough, and it can mean the difference between a shot of dallas green coming off the airplane or a blur... yes, this happened to me..

I'd disagree with this. Using manual focus doesn't make you a better photographer. Agreed, it is the one to choose for certain types of photography like macro, and so it's good to be proficient with manual focusing, but often other genres such as certain kinds of sports photography definitely work much better using autofocus.

 

[Parkerman]

yea, but you shouldnt be using auto focus... you should be training yourself to use manual focus..sometimes auto focus isnt quick enough, and it can mean the difference between a shot of dallas green coming off the airplane or a blur... yes, this happened to me..

I totally disagree. Its nice to know how to manually focus.. But, to only manually focus is a handicap... Maybe its just your camera or choice of lenses that are slow at AF... But with something with fast movements... you don't need to bother with Manually focusing.

 

[dhilberg]

I totally disagree. Its nice to know how to manually focus.. But, to only manually focus is a handicap... Maybe its just your camera or choice of lenses that are slow at AF... But with something with fast movements... you don't need to bother with Manually focusing.

I agree. I can't image sports photographers--or any photographer that shoots things that move--relying on manual focus nowadays. AF systems are so fast and accurate I seriously doubt a human could keep up, even with practice. You'd probably miss most of your shots in the process!

The only thing I would manually focus is macro stuff, or landscapes, simply because they don't move and the camera is usually on a tripod.

On a similar note, Nikon introduced a 50mm f/1.4 AF-S this week. The good news is that it will auto focus on the D40/D60. The bad: it costs about as much as a D40 with a kit lens!

 

[manaheim]

yea, but you shouldnt be using auto focus... you should be training yourself to use manual focus..sometimes auto focus isnt quick enough, and it can mean the difference between a shot of dallas green coming off the airplane or a blur... yes, this happened to me..

Use the tools you have when they work well for you.

You don't have this capability on all lenses, so obviously you would need/want to be better with MF. Certainly I recommend being practiced with MF just because AF doesn't ALWAYS work, however... use it when its appropriate (which is more often than not, assuming your camera has the capability)

BTW, your AF is going to be noticably slower than a lot of the "more serious" Nikon cameras. That also has an impact.

 

[manaheim]

It always concerns me when I'm the last post on a thread like this.

 

[LokiZ]

I agree that there is a benefit to manual focusing but I do not agree that speed is that benefit.

The benefit I see from manual focusing is the fact that it makes your camera more analog in it's focusing methods. What do I mean by that? Unlike auto focus where you may have focus points of 7 or 9 or hmmm how high do they go now? with manual focus you are truly only limited by... well nothing... wherever you eye chooses to focus therein lies a focus point. Sure there would be debate as to how well a human can do this and how fast as well. But cameras auto focus still as of yet can be limited compared to eye and hand focus. (your eye or you always knows what your subject is your camera does not always. don't get me wrong it still does one heck of a job.)

With that said still auto focus is a benefit for many situations as stated in above posts.

Hmmm waiting for the day when "Auto-Manual" focus comes around at a price we all can afford!

That would be setting the camera up for how many points you wish to use and then having the camera read in those points via where your eye looks. take that data and average it. hmm that would be nice to play with. Maybe have the camera read in how many focus points via the number of eye blinks or something for relatively hands free set up.

Hmm a little off track there. I guess I would say I think having both options is a benefit, meaning keep a motor on the camera as well. But then I am an options freak. LOL. Decreasing the amount of lens' you can use is kinda like taking away options is it not?