Where to get parts for a Nikon D5000 SLR, with DX VR: AF-S Nikkor

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Arklin K., Jul 6, 2012.

  1. This guy does a comparative test of Canon & Nikon DSLR
    durability. Addresses some of the kinds of rough use issues you raise.

     
    Chris Malcolm, Jul 11, 2012
    1. Advertisements

  2. Arklin K.

    Guest Guest

    i completely forgot about him! his tests are very relevant, so be sure
    to check out all of his videos!

    and then there's this, a nikon d3 meets mud:
    <http://www.flickr.com/photos/jpcarino/5316254924/>
     
    Guest, Jul 11, 2012
    1. Advertisements

  3. THROWING CAMERAS INTO WATER AND EXPOSING THEM TO AGRESSIVE
    FUMES DOES TEND TO DESTROY THEM.

    How about a *tiny* piece of common sense? Do you have that?

    s/daily use .*/smashing, throwing in acid, dropping from high
    flying planes and other extremely stupid and destructive mayhem/

    *TRY* to be honest, at least to yourself.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jul 11, 2012
  4. Arklin K.

    tony cooper Guest

    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.
     
    tony cooper, Jul 11, 2012
  5. Are you claiming there is *no* common knowledge, not even "sky =
    blue" and "grass = green" --- because newborns don't know that?

    Maybe your definition is a bit off ...

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jul 11, 2012
  6. And look what became of you. Not even president of the Untied
    States. You even turned out to be *honest* and a *good citicen*.
    Wasted all that knowledge how to inflict pain on others with guns,
    tools, motorcycles, trucks, cars and missed the opportunity to
    make pretty snapshots of this your work for the family album ...

    Shame on you, Ducky, shame on you.

    -Wolf':)'gang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jul 11, 2012
  7. Arklin K.

    tony cooper Guest

    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.
     
    tony cooper, Jul 11, 2012
  8. Way less, actually.
    I know *no* SLR, metal or plastic, will survive direct immersion
    in water, except by accident. If you want to immerse in water,
    you need waterproof diving cases to put the camera inside.
    These cases are made from plastic. You cannot see through
    metal ...

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jul 11, 2012
  9. Arklin K.

    Guest Guest

    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.
     
    Guest, Jul 11, 2012
  10. Arklin K.

    tony cooper Guest

    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.
     
    tony cooper, Jul 11, 2012
  11. Arklin K.

    tony cooper Guest

    Ouch. That should be "compatibility" there.
     
    tony cooper, Jul 11, 2012
  12. Arklin K.

    Guest Guest

    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.
     
    Guest, Jul 11, 2012
  13. Arklin K.

    Arklin K. Guest

    Ah, I see.
    a) My Nikon D5000 & D60 do not have the mechanical coupling pin
    b) But, I can clearly see the coupling hole for my D50

    Here is a shot, taken by the D5000, of the D50 and D60 side by side:
    http://www3.picturepush.com/photo/a/8705051/640/8705051.jpg

    Thanks for that. I will continue reading on!
     
    Arklin K., Jul 12, 2012
  14. Arklin K.

    Arklin K. Guest

    True.

    All my Nikon (Nikkor?) lenses are from Nikon camera kits at Costco.

    So I wouldn't have any older lenses or cameras that don't 'know' about AF-
    S.

    It seems I received two lenses with each of the three Nikon SLRs so I
    have six lenses, two of which are non AF-S, the rest are AF-S.
     
    Arklin K., Jul 12, 2012
  15. Arklin K.

    Arklin K. Guest

    I concur. I had no idea where the motor was in any of my Nikon SLRs from
    Costco.

    I now realize why my Nikon D50 is so much heavier than my Nikon D60 and
    D5000! And, why the lenses didn't work when I tried using them initially.

    It wasn't common knowledge to me but I never did any research. Just like
    when I bought my BMW, I just 'assumed' it was designed well. (The BMW is
    a whole 'nother story because it breaks so much that I was forced to
    learn how to fix it.)

    The Nikons broke but I didn't know how to fix them.

    Now, with the new bayonet mounts on their way, I can at least fix the
    most common breakage of the lenses!
     
    Arklin K., Jul 12, 2012
  16. Arklin K.

    Arklin K. Guest

    Got it.
    Makes total sense.
    That's good to know that other companies make AF-S lenses that will fit
    the Nikon D5000 SLR that I currently use. Thanks.
    You know, I had three assumptions about 'quality' products, all of which
    were shown to be wrong. It's my fault for believing in them in the way
    that I did.

    1) Nikon cameras were sturdy (obviously not the ones I use with the way I
    use them - this is clear to all)
    2) BMW had quality engineering (they do the handling & performance well,
    but, they engineer lousy peripheral components like DISA, VANOS, CCV,
    etc. which break all the time for everyone)
    3) Rolex watches could climb Mount Everest (my oyster perpetual didn't
    last three years; the glass kept scratching and the insides didn't keep
    good time and the fumarole finally got it with the sulfuric acid in
    Greece).

    Now I know that there are no sturdy cameras that both take good pictures
    and which can handle the types of bumps and dings that taking them
    everywhere in all weather conditions implies. It's not the camera's
    fault; it's mine.

    Now I know that BMW cars (at least the E39 that I have) are designed well
    only in the performance and handling arena; the rest of the components
    are junk like the plastic radiators and expansion tanks, the poorly
    designed trunk loom, the atrocious window regulators, the fragile
    headlight adjusters, etc. In this case, it 'is' BMWs fault for designing
    crap into their cars - but it's really the consumer's fault for buying
    such crap unless the consumer doesn't care and only cares about the
    stellar handling and performance or they sell the car in 3 years before
    this stuff begins to break.

    Now I know that the Rolex oyster perpetual glass does scratch and that
    the internal pendulum doesn't keep anywhere near as good a time as does a
    simple 10-dollar Casio.

    All lessons learned.
     
    Arklin K., Jul 12, 2012
  17. Arklin K.

    Arklin K. Guest

    I got the point.

    There are lenses that are not made by Nikon with 'will work' with the
    Nikon camera bodies that I have.

    For my Nikon D60 and D5000, those non-Nikon lenses will need to have an
    internal motor in order to autofocus.

    For my Nikon D50, any non-Nikon lenses don't need a motor to work with
    the autofocus.

    Thanks!
     
    Arklin K., Jul 12, 2012
  18. Arklin K.

    Arklin K. Guest

    FWIW ...

    I owned the Coolpix CP5000, bought from Costco, which was a fine camera
    except it was verrrrrry slow and the charger was badly designed such that
    it cooked batteries (if you left them in the charger, which was my
    habit). Plus it didn't have external lenses. So it went into the camera
    box after a few expensive batteries. It was my fault for buying it.

    In my point-and-shoot period, I owned a couple of Nikon Coolpix 3100
    cameras. All broke in the latch which was part of the camera body,
    exactly as shown in these two DIYs:
    http://my.opera.com/mcduret/blog/2006/12/07/fixing-nikon-coolpix-3100-
    battery-door

    http://my.opera.com/coolpixfixer/blog/2007/10/15/this-is-how-i-fixed-my-
    nikon-coolpix-3100-battery-latch-door-i-post-it-here-so

    Again, it was my fault for buying the Coolpix 3100 (again, from Costco)
    without knowing about the failures, which are obvious in hindsight.

    While this is my fault for buying these cameras, I 'do' fault the review
    web sites like DPReview which don't review reliability very well.

    I think places like DPReview are really working for the camera companies,
    because they must use the camera for a few days and that's it 'cuz they
    should have noted BOTH these obvious problems in a long-term test.
     
    Arklin K., Jul 12, 2012
  19. Arklin K.

    tony cooper Guest

    Searching for the phrase "the world is flat" results in 43,400,000
    hits. Is Google right or wrong? Is the world flat?
     
    tony cooper, Jul 12, 2012
  20. Arklin K.

    Arklin K. Guest

    This is great to see, especially because camera review sites such as
    DPReview skip the important durability stuff almost altogether.

    Here's the premise of the video:
    "People always question how tough the more basic level DSLRs are and
    treat them like delicate objects. But are they really tough enough to
    take the abuse that one might give it during daily life? Does a magnesium
    alloy body mean everything when it comes to "tough bodies"? We take these
    two DSLRs and put them through some extreme tests that you might possibly
    be able to relate to during your daily lives. Watch the video to see if
    they survive these rigorous tests."

    Here's my observation:
    The British guy in that video DOES hit things EXACTLY like I do with my
    cameras! The butterknife test though, was new to me! :)

    The salad test was realistic for the liquids that get spilled on the
    camera during daily use (mostly water though and oil while working under
    the BMW).

    The camera-bag test on the escalator was highly realistic! Especially
    since I shove my cameras into the bag but it's a pain to pull them out so
    I generally omit the bag altogether like he did but when I use it, the
    components jostle about.

    Certainly the coffee test was realistic! The shoe test was a bit more
    brutal than anything I've ever done to my cameras though. The lens hammer
    on the nail did seem realistic too! Probably the soccer-ball test was the
    most realistic. The flame test was a bit brutal though.

    Like he did, mostly I lose Nikon cameras and lenses due to water and
    bumps. The water kills the electronics; and the bumps kill the lens
    mounts.

    If they only fixed those two weak points - we'd have a winner!
     
    Arklin K., Jul 12, 2012
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.