Yes and no -- EF-S lenses are designed SPECIFICALLY for crops and will not work on FF. All EF full frame lenses (that's any lens for the past 15-20 years) will work on a crop camera,
The reason you have to caveat WHEN the lens was made is because Canon abandoned its user's investment in glass at one point and changed its lens mount and flange to film distance. I add this for completeness- it was a good move strategically for Canon, but it totally sucked if you had $30,000 in glass at the time. So, tell me how wonderful it was to be a Canon user with a full line of FD lenses when the switch happened and what sort of use they'd get today on a Canon DSLR?
Nikon's F-mount has remained physically unchanged since ~1962- lenses that don't fit don't fit because they intrude too far back into the mirror's path for the most part. Nikon documents which lenses work on which camera bodies, and which functions work on which lenses on which camera bodies, so there should be no real surprises for users- its in the manual, it's not a secret and frankly unless you hit one of a very few stores with huge used stock, you're not likely to find many of those lenses in a situation where you can't read the manual before you buy it.
Yes you are nitpicking. I could easily say to folks "I am shooting RAW" or "I am shooting in burst mode" and most would understand what I am saying. Language is dynamic and made alive in use, not in rules. But given that you either work in a school or are still a student, I understand the grammar police approach.
You're discussing a technical subject, most of us tend to find being clear and delineating terms to be an advantage when that happens.
Talk to folks who have had the XT (w/out cleaner) and the XTi with cleaner. I never had the XT, but many of them told me that with the XTi, there sensor cleaning rituals diminished greatly.
Honestly? Because the independent testing results on the Internet show that the "cleaning" system just moves the dust around. With a Rocket Blower my sensor cleaning diminished greatly too, though I don't claim it's a ritual.
Nikons system IMO has built up a lot of crud in it's naming and technical specifications over the years. Canons system becides having a far less vast library of terms is much more consistant.
Let's look at two lenses from Nikon:
AF-S VR NIKKOR 200mm f/2G IF-ED
AF-S DX NIKKOR 18-105mm f/3.5-5.6G ED VR
IMO it's harder to interpret as they just toss in sets of letters in any order, in the first example VR comes before the focal length, in the second it comes
Where the token comes in the name really doesn't make much difference to me- however if you're about to buy the first one, you've either got enough to invest in the system that you'll learn the names, or you can look in the book and see if the lens is compatible. AF-S and AF-I lenses have motors that's the only critical thing for most people. That's the only one you *have* to remember if you cheaped out on the body and got the D40/40x/60. DX or not is simply cropped or not, and VR is equivalent to IS in Canon land. So if DX is the same as -S, VR is the same as IS, then you're upset that extra information, like internal focusing or ED glass is in the name? If you take the tack that you buy into a system, the items in the name are useful if you're going to use the system for any amount of time. Otherwise you can simply ignore the tokens you don't understand if it's too difficult for you to look up the glossary or remember the tokens.
after the entire spec. AF vs AF-S, if you own a lower end camera you've got to know that half of the existing Nikon system won't autofocus, and sometimes won't meter.
Actually, let's break that down a little- "sometimes won't meter" isn't true of ANY "existing Nikon system" lens that I can think of. "Sometimes won't meter" is true of really old glass from an era where anyone else except Pentax can't get glass to fit their digital bodies. Pretty-much anything made in the last 18 years will meter- so yeah, if our imaginary low-budget Nikon user wants to use Grandpa's old glass then he won't get metering- and *shock and horror* both Nikon and Zeiss still sell some manual focus lenses in an F-mount- so unless you're in the three camera club that needs to look for AF-S, or you need to use some glass from more than about 20 years ago.
If we remove the manual focus lenses from the mix (they won't AF no matter what you put them on) the current Nikkor line has 30 AF-S lenses (and 22 AF-D lenses.) We know that the D40, D40x and D60 were sold as kits only and that the average DSLR lens sale is 1.2:1- so even if they don't read their manuals, most D40/40x/60 owners won't ever notice the difference.
Then you've got the DX debaucle since up untill last year Nikon didn't have a FF DSLR, so it didn't really matter if you tried to mount a DX lens on a pro body since they were all DX sensors, with the exeption of the legacy film bodies which were an increasingly small market. So now you've got DX glass with a smaller imaging circle with the same mount as your FX glass, and now you've (finally) come out with a FF DSLR. Some of the DX glass is actually worht using too (unlike canon), so what are you to do? Oh! When you mount a DX lens to a FX body, let's just turn that wonderful FF body into a 6mp cropper.
Yes, Nikon ensured that their pros would be able to keep their DX lens investment working at about the same level of performance as it did on DX bodies as they introduced FX bodies- I'm not sure what you shoot, but for better than 90% of my paid product shoots 6MP is more than enough should I have to use a DX lens. As far as "finally," Nikon executives were quite adamant and exact in how long they'd pursue DX-only. Maybe you'd prefer that it be like Canon where when you switch from APS-C only glass to FF you have to lose your complete line of lenses, but I don't see how it's a negative. Flexibility in tools is nice- I rarely use the high-speed crop mode in my D2x, but if I need it, then I need it and it's there. Many folks won't use DX lenses on an FX body, but if they wanted ultra-wide and bought in, then they're not stuck re-buying.
If you own a Canon crop body, you can take any current Canon lens out there, and mount it to your camera, and it will work as designed. Period. You can use a lowly EF-S 18-55 up to a EF 400mm F/2.8L IS and mount it to your Rebel XT and every function on that lens will work. The pro FF bodies will only take the EF lenses, but by the time you're buying a $3000+ camera hopefully you'll be able to know the difference between a crop lens and the stuff they want. Good news is that the crop lenses won't mount to the camera avoiding any confusion as to why your $8000 1DsIII isn't taking the full frame pictures you paid so much for.
So, is your argument that Canon pros aren't smart enough to know which lens they're putting on their cameras? Or is it that Canon pros are happy to throw away lenses as they move up the chain?
FWIW, my 400/2.8 Nikkor works just fine on my Business partner's D40, and every function works too.
So no, the D40 isn't completley crippled, but for an "Advanced Amerature" who is wanting to expand their collection of glass, there is more of a learning curve to the Nikon system because some of the lenses won't
Then your "Advanced Amerature"(sic) isn't all that "Advanced" because the D40 is an entry level body, and that's where it's design goals, manufacturing and capabilities come in at. Your "Advanced Amateur" should have gotten a D80 or D90.
function as advertised, point being the AF series of lenses. This is the reverse case with the Canon system as it is only the pro bodies who are limited as the crop lenses simply won't mount.
"More of a learning curve because some of the lenses won't function?" Give me a break. Thirty first party and a bunch of third party lenses work just fine. If "remember AF-S" is a learning curve, then really your "advanced" person should stick ot a P&S camera or purchase the correct camera body for their level.
I'm amazed that someone thinks that an $8000 camera body should mount *fewer* manufacturer's lenses than a $600 camera body. Are you really looking for the marketing slogan "Canon, it's for dumb people with money to throw away?"
