There is no "war camera". That's your own invention. If you would ask a credentialed combat photo-journalist why he chose the cameras he carries, he'd talk about the features non-related to durability. His "war" preparation is more likely to be his camera bag because he's concerned about how the camera is protected when *not* being used.
Sgt Jeremy Lock was Military Photographer of the Year in 2007. He carries a Nikon D2X. You could break a D2X just as easily as a D40.
Yeah, right. And if the kid falls down face first? Better to teach the kid not to run with the camera.
the d50 has a focus motor. the others do not.
you can tell by a mechanical coupling pin around the 7 o'clock position when looking into the mirror box, or by just trying a non-afs lens.
as for a mythical war camera, it's likely to have a motor because only midrange and high end cameras are weather sealed and ruggedized, and those are the cameras that users with a lot of lenses tend to buy, so there's a motor included for the older lenses they might already have.
low end bodies are rarely used with more than 1 or 2 lenses, normally the kit lenses which have their own focus motors, so there's no point in having an additional and redundant motor in the body that won't ever get used. as a result, the camera can be lighter and less expensive. low end bodies are not going to be ruggedized or sealed, so you really don't need to worry about a focus motor.
correct.
yes if the camera is an autofocus body *and* knows about af-s lenses, which goes back 10-15 years (i don't remember exactly when they first came out). obviously, older manual focus bodies will not autofocus.
older nikon autofocus bodies do not know about af-s lenses because af-s had not yet been released, so they will only focus with lenses that have a mechanical coupling. the logic for af-s is not in the camera and it actually has fewer pins on the mount.
correct, almost (ignoring the d50 which has a motor).
the issue is with very old non-ai lenses from the 1960s and early
1970s. those will not fit on most recent nikon cameras and are almost guaranteed to cause damage if you try.however, they *will* fit on the nikon bodies that don't have focus motors, e.g., d40, d60, etc. without damaging them.
this is not a guarantee and whether this remains true in the future is unknown. it's more of a fluke that they work, as opposed to being a deliberate design decision by nikon to maintain compatibility with 50 year old lenses.
if you have a non-ai lens, you *must* check to see if it will cause damage and be absolutely positive it will not. if you aren't sure, do not even try.
it's unlikely you have any of those lenses or ever will because they're so old, so i wouldn't worry too much about it. however, just in case you do or find a lens at a garage sale for a buck or two that happens to be non-ai, you need to check before you damage something, which you seem to do so easily.
that's why he asked how others knew it.
and almost all of them don't give a crap where the motor is. as long as it focuses and takes pictures, they're happy.
nope. only nikon makes af-s lenses.
other brands of lenses may have internal motors, but they call it something else. tamron calls it bim (built-in motor) or pzd (piezo drive). sigma calls it hsm (high speed motor). it doesn't look like tokina has a designation so you just have to check.
just about all lenses these days have internal motors because there are so many nikon cameras without motors, so it's very likely it will have one. canon eos never had a motor, so all the lensmakers really need to do is change the mount and the lens firmware to work with nikon.
older lenses may or may not have motors, depending on how old the lens is, so for someone buying used lenses, it's very important to check for compatibility.
how would a neck strap have helped in this contrived situation? it wouldn't.
in any event, it's much better to teach the kid how to fall and not get injured, because they're going to fall at one time or another. cameras can be replaced. kids can't.
You are correct. I should have written "AF-S comparable". The "AF-S" is Nikon's designation, and only Nikon's designation. However, other companies make lenses that work with the D40/D60/D6000 bodies in the same way that the AF-S lenses work.
Actually, it's just the "S" that other brands omit. B&H's specs for Tamron's AF-S-style lenses describe them as "Piezo drive AF motor".
What about "Better to teach the kid not to run with the camera" is difficult for you to understand?
Oh, yeah. Give the kid a $1,000 camera and teach him how to fall with it. You are just full of good suggestions. Full of something, anyway.
the word you want is 'compatible'.
that's correct, other than the non-existent d6000.
tamron has two types of internal motors. the piezo version is new and is what they call their ultrasonic motor and the other motor is a less expensive and noisier micro-motor.
nikon's acronyms are here:
there's nothing wrong with running with a camera. i've done it and have not fallen down, not that it has anything to do with choosing a harness over a neck strap, although running with a harness would be easier and safer.
maybe you should learn to not be a klutz.
No, "compatible" means they work together. "Comparable" means they work alike. We don't say lenses work together with other lenses. They work alike in that they work with the same bodies.
exactly! tamron's internal focus motor lenses are compatible with nikon cameras that require af-s lenses. they work together.
Make sure that it is adjusted for them and does not flop about.
Yes, they are compatible with certain Nikon bodies. But, I didn't use it that way. I said they are comparable to certain Nikon lenses. They are not compatible with other lenses.
I know this is deep thinking for you, but try think of the "comparable to" and "compatible with" in order to choose the right word. It is a more complex thought process than the usage of capitalization.
I think "nospam" missed the point of your correct use of "comparable" when he was expecting to see "compatible". Context is everything! It can certainly be true that there are lenses from Nikon and third party manufacturers which are "compatible" with contemporary Nikon DSLR bodies. It can also be argued that some of these lenses, when compared, deliver "comparable" performance and/or construction. Then there are some lenses, which while being "compatible" for use on Nikon bodies, including some from the Nikkor stable, which cannot be described as in anyway "comparable" in performance or construction.
Try this:
Compatible: (of two things) able to exist or occur together without conflict. (of device) able to be used with a specific piece of equipment without special adaptation or modification.
Comparable: (of a person or thing) able to be likened to another; similar of equivalent quality; worthy of comparison
Yes, he missed "comparable to" another lens as opposed to "compatible with" a camera body. A lens can be both comparable to another lens and compatible with a particular type of body, but that wasn't the context.
yes they are and that's what is important.
they're comparable to nikon afs lenses but that's not what matters. a lens can be comparable but not compatible. canon lenses are comparable to nikon lenses and will obviously not work. lenses without motors (e.g., 1st version of tokina 12-24 for nikon) are comparable to lenses with motors (e.g., 2nd version of tokina 12-24 for nikon), but only the latter one will work.
what matters is that the lenses are *compatible* with the camera bodies he owns or will own because they include a focus motor.
the proper word is compatible. in fact, if you google "nikon comparable lenses", google will show results for "nikon compatible lenses". maybe you should go tell google they're wrong.
The comment I made was "Other brands of lenses have the AF-S feature", and you corrected me - properly - that "AF-S" is Nikon's proprietary term. I replied that I should have said other lenses were AF-S comparable.
This compares lenses. It does not address comparability with bodies, although the other lenses are also compatible with certain bodies.
The "proper" word depends on context. Nikon's usage refers to compatibility to bodies. My usage refers to comparability of the motorized focus feature in each. Nikon would not use "comparable" because Nikon does not feel that any other maker's lens is comparable to theirs. They, as you would expect a manufacturer to do, ignore the fact the comparability is based on the availability of the function.
In fact, Tamron makes lenses that are comparable in function to the AF-S lenses, but are not compatible to Nikon bodies. They are compatible only to Canon bodies. That's why you don't use the wrong word as you suggest.
Don't try to struggle further understanding this distinction. You aren't mentally equipped for it.
Google, by the way, is neither right nor wrong in any search. Google merely turns up instances of term you are searching for. Google does not initiate an instance. This seems to be another area of ignorance on your part.
Ouch. That should be "compatibility" there.
actually it does not 'merely turn up instances of the term you are searching for.' this is yet another instance of you talking out your ass.
google interprets what you mean when searching for something. it looks at the context of your search phrase and also your search history to decide what links are likely to be the ones you are most interested in. two people searching for the same thing may (and probably will) get different results.
google will also correct spelling errors and usage errors and may use location data. it's actually *very* sophisticated and they have an entire team dedicated to tweaking results.
HomeOwnersHub website is not affiliated with any of the manufacturers or service providers discussed here. All logos and trade names are the property of their respective owners.