AF motor in body vs in lense?

[victoria_voodoo]

<p>Hi, i looked for this question but couldn't find it already asked; sorry if i missed it. Here goes:<br>

Stuck between d60 and d90. And now the d5000 is bothering me too; the biggest difference i can see between d5000/d60 and the d90 is the autofocus motor being in the body of the d90.<br>

Is AF motor in the body better than in the lense or vice versa? Or do they work the same? I reeeeeeaaally want the d90 but it seems to be out of my budget at the moment and i want to have my camera before a trip to europe in july.<br>

If i settle for the d60 am i going to be kicking myself when it comes time to expand my lense collection?</p>

<p>Also, if i have NO intention of shooting video(which i do not), is the d5000 still a good upgrade from the d60? Or is it just a flippy screened waste of money for non video-shooters?</p>

[joseph_leotta]

<p>not necessary better, but it gives you a lot more lens options.<br>

If you have a motor in the body you can use both type of lenes. ones with and without AF motors in them. Its very helpful if you have a number of Nikon lens without motors.<br>

AF-s or Swm Autofucos lens have a Silent wave motor built into them. As a rule they focus faster and are easier to override manually and are silent. <br>

Right now a little more that half the nikon lenes are afs. all DX lenes are AF-s as are all new lens that nikon introduces.<br>

Aftermarket len companies produce lens both ways. </p>

[lex_jenkins]

<p>The in-body AF motor gives you access to some real bargains in older Nikkors and several current and recent third party lenses. For example, the Tokina 12-24/4 uses the screwdriver AF system and needs an in-body motor to drive the autofocus. Ditto the inexpensive 50/1.8 AF Nikkors.</p>

[andrew_gale]

<p>IMHO the 50mm is the best lens to have. I use it all of the time, mostly for its speed but also for its convinient focal length and small size.<br>

The difference between the 50/1.8 and the 50 AFS is enough to pay for the difference between the D60/D90.When you start to uy other lenses, you will save even more.<br>

Besides the 50, some other great nikons are not AFS. These include but are not limited to: 85mm, 24mm and the 20mm.</p>

[tobey_bilek]

<p>Almost any Nikkor ever made will mount and take pictures on a D60. It will not autofocus or meter.</p>

<p>If those two items are important to you, go for the D90 because the money you save on not buying one fancy new AFS lens will pay the extra if you buy used Ai, AiS aor original autofocus screw drive lens. The only exception is the new 30 1.8 DX for $200.</p>

[shuo_zhao]

<p>Victoria, the D90 is a generation newer than the D60. It features more advanced sensor and processor technology. It's capable of better results and high ISO performance than the D60.</p>

<p>Also, the "motor built into the lens" design is generally more advanced than the screw-driver AF systems. The SWMs are often faster, more accurate, very quiet, and don't really vibrate' when compared to the screw-driver systems. </p>

<p>The AF-S/SWM lenses are all relatively new, and often relatively expensive. The vast majority of older lenses lack their own motor, but they are often more cost effective and the selection of them could offer you more creative possibilities.</p>

<p>So essentially, the motor in lens design is better. While the D90 is better and more versatile, because of its more advanced technology and its ability to work with more lenses. </p>

[glenn_c1]

<p>I started out with a D40 but quickly upgraded to a D90 because I realized that I would be tremendously handicapped as I attempted to put together a flexible and capable collection of lenses to go with the body. Two examples from my own small collection: My Nikon 80-200 f/2.8 zoom will not focus on the D40/60/5000, and the new Nikon equivalent, though admittedly newer and better, costs over $1,000 MORE than what I spent. Two, my Tokina 11-16mm f/2.8, has no Nikon equivalent at all.</p>

<p>If you intend to expand your interest in photography, the ability to use (and autofocus) older lenses is critical; it will both save you a bundle and give you far more choice.</p>

 

[victoria_voodoo]

<p>thanks all. so basically, d90 wins. *sigh* figured it would. now to stop eating and maybe can get it</p>

[Apurva Madia]

<p>D90 images are far better than D60. Period.</p>

[rob_malkin]

<p>Just a minor correction but not all DX are AF-S, as is the case with the 10.5mm AF.</p>

[chris_laskey]

<p>I bought a D60, quickly regretted it, and swapped it out in favor of a D80. I inhereted a 50 f/1.4 AF-D (the one without the motor in the lens), and was having on heck of a time shooting low light while manual focusing. Once I got my hands on the D80, a whole new world opened up. Many months later, I look back at that quick decision to switch as one of the best I've made.</p>

<p>Don't get me wrong, the D60 is one spectacular camera. But if you're looking to get more into photography, you'll likely find the D60 / D5000 limiting.</p>

[glenn_c1]

<p>Victoria, you don't need to buy a D90 to get an in-body focus motor. Any used D50/70/80/200 and others will suffice. Bodies depreciate fairly quickly. You can always start out with an older body, cheap, and spend your money on lenses. Then upgrade the body at the appropriate time in the future.</p>

 

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Sure there are more bargains under the lenses without built-in motor... But sounds like you're beginning with no lenses at all, and looking to learn a new camera in 3 weeks before a big holiday.... I'd say the D60 and D5000 with their more helpful interfaces geared towards learning are actually a better bet than the D90. Of those 2, the D5000 is the better camera in nearly all respects except price.</p>

<p>Maybe it's me, but I really do not understand the praise for the 50mm lenses on DX cameras. I've got one, shot some really nice pictures with it since it is a good lens, but the focal length is just awkward. So if the mega-bargain 50 f/1.8 is THE reason to get a D90, then get a D5000.<br />In the situation you're in, get a D5000 with 18-105VR or 16-85VR (budget allowing), or the 18-55VR and 55-200VR, and start shooting. As for the Tokina wide angles lenses, which are indeed very good, it's easy to manually focus these lenses since on a wide angle, a lot of the scene is actually in focus. So no issue there.<br />When the budget can have it, add the Nikon 35 f/1.8 for low light, and you're ready to enjoy Europe.</p>

<p>(P.S. Don't get me wrong, the D90 is a better camera. Yes, you're less likely to outgrow the D90 quickly, though the D5000 does not look underequipped either. But you have to start somewhere, and I'd rather would have holiday pictures taken with a DSLR as having none because I wanted to outstretch the budget - think REAL priorities here)</p>

[chris_laskey]

<blockquote>

<p>Maybe it's me, but I really do not understand the praise for the 50mm lenses on DX cameras. I've got one, shot some really nice pictures with it since it is a good lens, but the focal length is just awkward.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>To each his own. The 50mm vs. 35mm on DX debate comes down to personal taste. I tend to like closer crops, so I usually grab the 50mm f/1.4 over the 35/f2 for low light candids. But it's all about what you're trying to accomplish at a given time.</p>

[paul_garland]

<p>Nikon cameras which do not contain a built in focusing motor (like the D40) can take great pictures. But you are very limited on the lenses that you can use and still auto-focus. Unless you are shooting static scenes which do not move and where you are not time limited, autofocus is a wonderful improvement upon manual focusing.</p>

<p>If you are going to spend any money at all upgrading your camera, buy one which does have a built in lens focusing motor. It is not a matter of "to each his own." Really. Being able to use autofocus is a wonderful feature, and a camera which allows one to do this on some of the older, less expensive used but very sharp Nikon lenses is just plain better. </p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Sorry, but I feel this urge to restate my point a bit - apologies upfront for getting repetitive. It's not to bash the D90 in any way, but it's about reading the request for advice seriously. There are budget constraints and there is a holiday coming up - serious considerations, I'd say.<br>

So, if the choice is between a D90 AFTER holidays and hence no good holiday pictures, or a D5000 before holiday and good holiday pictures, it's simple. The holiday pictures are worth far far more; how often do you get a second chance to make those pictures?<br>

I think it is silly to overlook that point when making a recommendation.<br>

In addition, the AF in body point is less and less relevant for a lot of people. There are many AF-S lenses by now; Sigma calls it HSM, Tamron puts it on a lot of zooms now too. Not having an AF-motor in body does not make that much difference like it used to, unless you're into using prime lenses primarily. I think it's unfair to say that it's a "must have". Remember that a lot of people are completely fine with 1 megazoom or 2 regular zooms, especially on a trip. In which case, AF-S lenses will be no issue at all.</p>

<p>Victoria, one other thing that was left unanswered so far: once using the camera, you will hardly notice the difference between in-lens motor or in-body motor. Autofocussing works the same, although in-lens motors are often a bit more silent and possibly faster.</p>