In body autofocus motors

[brewers_fan]

I'm looking into upgrading from my Nikon D40 and am thinking about either a D5300 or a D7100, the 7100 has built in autofocus motor while the other does not. I'm just wondering what the benefits of having a built in motor are aside from the obvious one that it lets you use lenses without a built in motor. I mainly take photos at airshows, airports etc would having a motor in the body mean the camera would focus quicker when shooting action shots or is that not the case ?

 

[GCCR]

would having a motor in the body mean the camera would focus quicker when shooting action shots

No. The in-body motor drives lenses that need it. If you put a lens on the same camera which has the motor in the lens, the in-lens motor is used.

 

[GCCR]

Though one thing to add would be that the Nikon cameras with in-body motors tend to be higher spec which can mean they have better overall AF systems.

 

[Nawty]

Nowadays I personally don't think the lack of built in motor is of much concern as most modern lenses have built in motors.

There was a time, back in the day of the D40, that it mattered but there has been such a proliferation of good cheap lenses with motors that it isn't a problem any more.

 

[boyfalldown]

Nowadays I personally don't think the lack of built in motor is of much concern as most modern lenses have built in motors.

I agree. Every nikon lens introduced since 1998 has had an in lens motor. Pretty much everything you'll want at entry level is now made in a version that has an af motor in lens now as well. (I know you can get cheap 50s without a motor)

 

[boliston]

I think Nikon have cut a lot of corners with some newer lenses and I generally prefer the "legacy" AF-D lenses to the "modern" AF-S lenses and they can often be cheaper. I never got on with the way they tried to save money by removing the proper aperture ring, and the newer lenses have no quick way to find infinity focus as they can focus *beyond* infinity. Some newer lenses have dof markings which are a joke as most people want auto everything so have no need for dof markings.

 

[MIKEROPHONICS]

When I upgraded from my d40x to a d7000, I bought an 85 1.8 D and a 50 1.8D to compliment my 35 1.8 DX. The strategy two lenses were £250 second hand and are cracking and will see me through to a full frame one day until I can afford the G versions.
The other advantage of a d7000 is that it will do high speed sync with flash - which in my strobist journey to learn this lighting malarkey is invaluable. It's just one more feature that as well as a focus motor would help my journey to being a better tog.

 

[brewers_fan]

Thanks for the reply's I'm thinking now about getting the D5200 or D5300 rather than a D7100, just a final question if I stick a teleconverter on a Nikon body with no built in motor would everything still work as usual or would the converter cause any problems.

 

[Diving Pete]

It depends on lots of factors...
The size of the tele.
The make of the tele
The actual lens

Not all lens will accept teles & then retain AF>!

Can you be more specific with your question.?

 

[Nod]

Depends. Some teleconverters have a screw through so will drive non-AF-S lenses, others rely completely on electronics. Indeed some lenses can't even be mounted to some teleconverters since the rear lens element will make physical contact with the glass in the converter (the Nikkor 70-300 VR cannot for example be used with Nikon's own telecons, although it will work on some other makes.)

The whole in body question is far less relevant now than it was when I switched from film to digital. Since I had (and still have) a few screw driven lenses I need bodies with motors in them to be able to use these lenses in AF mode but such lenses are rare (if not extinct!) as new now. (Actually, just checked and the Sigma 8mm fisheye is apparently still screw driven!)