Rebel XT vs. Nikon D70 for macro

I am looking into moving from my CoolPix 5700 to a DSLR, most likely

either the Canon Digital Rebel XT (EOS 350) or the Nikon D70. I am

most interested in macro photography. The Rebel has certain features

that I think would be very useful at the above-1:1 scale I'm hoping to

shoot at, notably mirror lock-up and the ability to use a remote

trigger cord (I sure wish I could get a remote trigger for my Coolpix

for less than $100--using the shutter delay is getting real old). I

also believe the extra 2 megapixels on the Rebel can help produce just

a little extra depth of field, always important in macro work: DOF is

closely tied to magnification (reducing magnification 2x increases DOF

4x, as I understand it), so in theory, with the Rebel I can zoom out

and crop a bit and still have an image as large as the D70's in

absolute pixels, but with a little greater DOF. How much greater, I

don't know, but it seems to me that it could be significant.

 

BUT, unless I am mistaken, Nikon has a reputation for having the best

macro lenses; see for example this long-running thread:

 

http://www.photo.net/equipment/35mm/canon-v-nikon

 

I suspect that for the work I do, I can get lenses for the Rebel that

will be more than good enough. Before I take the plunge, though, I'm

curious about what other PN people think. What am I missing in my

comparison of these two bodies specifically for macro work?

Canons macro lenses are at least as good as Nikons, no worry there.

For macro if you have a remote release, mirror lockup, the rest is up to you with proper technique and good tripod and head.

Essentially all macro lenses are optically excellent: Nikon, Canon, 3rd party, whoever.

That's not

something to base a decision on. The DOF difference between the two sensor sizes will be

miniscule.

 

IMO, there's very little in the way of important differences between these two cameras.

Either will provide excellent results if you use them well. So unless you think you're going

to need some piece of optical exotica that one brand has and the other doesn't (for

example, if you need a 200 f2 stabilized lens, go with Nikon; if you need a 500 or 600 mm

stabilized lens or a 1X-5X superwhizzo macro lens, go with Canon), either the D70 or the

DRXT will work fine.

I would think that the best camera for macro would be Minolta 7D. I know it's a dark horse but it has many features going for it:

 

- The AS is a great thing to have for macro shots - allowing a greater DOF. I'm suprised that none of the big manufacturers hasn't introduced an IS/VR macro lens.

- The wireless flash system is good (as good as Nikons)

"I'm suprised that none of the big manufacturers hasn't introduced an IS/VR macro lens."

 

Good point! Though I am a nikon user, I will also strongly recommend the Minolta 7D for its better viewfinder and its anti shake sensor. Image quality from 6 mpix digicams are more are less the very same. I think there is a big discount on the 7D at the moment. Forget the canikon plastics and go for a technologically advanced camera.

If I didn't own Nikon lenses, I'd get the 7D. But while I am stuck I'm waiting for Nikon to give me an affordable body that will meter with my manual lenses and atleast a halfway decent VF.

 

-a

"..I am stuck I'm waiting for Nikon to give me an affordable body that will meter with my manual lenses and atleast a halfway decent VF."

 

I suppose that you are quite young! It could be a very very long wait, Anupam :-)

>I suppose that you are quite young! It could be a very very long wait, Anupam :-)

 

I tend to agree. But you could always take Ilkka Nissila's advice and get a D2x ;-) Don't have the money? -- too bad, all amateur entusiasts in Nikon's book are stinking rich.

True macro photographs are almost always taken on tripod, so little benefit from image stabilisation there. But close ups, at less than 1:1 image magnification, can be taken handheld and then some sort of image stabilisation would be useful. So another vote for the 7D. Another benefit of the 7D is its excellent viewfinder. Both D70 and 350D have small viewfinders that make it harder to judge sharpness. Macro photography is usually done on manual focus because of the very small depth of field and thus difficulty to get AF lock in correctly. Finally, the large screen in 7D makes it that much easier to examine the picture afterwards. So certainly D2X or 1Ds would be perfect, but among the lesser alternatives the 7D does look very good.

What Canon are short compared to Nikon on macro

 

a. 5.8mm K1 and 8mm (PK11A) extension ring for close focus corrected wide angle lens

 

b. a true macro zoom 70-180/4.5-5.6

 

c. An Army of old MF 3rd Party Macro lens

 

d. A ballow with swing & shift function

 

e. A 1/2 life size 85mm tilt & shift macro lens

 

I supose a Nikkor to EOS adapter can be used in place of the 5 grand D2X.

Canon has great macro lenses. The Canon 50/2.5 EF macro and 100/2.8 EF macro are very good lenses. You also have the unique <a href="http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/lenses/mp-e-65.shtml">MP-E 65mm</a> 1x-5x macro, which will get you to 5x lifesize, without any cumbersome and decript bellows set-up. There's also the new 60/2.8 EF-S macro, which is the perfect replacement for a 100mm macro focal length, but for digital (on the Rebel XT, the 60/2.8 macro becomes the 'equivalent' of a 100/2.8 on a film body). Canon also has better macro lights, which are all E-TTL2 compatible, namely the MT-24EX Macro Twin Lite and MR-14EX Macro Ring Lite. Nikon offers the SB-29 Macro Ringflash, but apparently it's not digital compatible with the D70 and other Nikon DSLR cameras (ie, capable of D-TTL or i-TTL digital-compatible flash metering). It's just a TTL flash. With the Canon macro lights, you just stick them on your digital body and they are ready to go and fully compatible. And of course, Canon offers an electronic cable release and mirror lock up for the Rebel XT, so it gives you a lot of macro-ready capability. So compared to Nikon's macro offerings, Canon's are much more up-to-date and advanced, while offering excellent optical performance.

<i>What Canon are short compared to Nikon on macro

<p>

a. 5.8mm K1 and 8mm (PK11A) extension ring for close focus corrected wide angle lens

<p>

b. a true macro zoom 70-180/4.5-5.6

<p>

c. An Army of old MF 3rd Party Macro lens

<p>

d. A ballow with swing & shift function

<p>

e. A 1/2 life size 85mm tilt & shift macro lens

<p>

</i>

Canon EOS bodies will accept all these things, too. Just get a Nikon F-to-Canon EOS adapter. So if you want the best of both worlds (ie, the use of Canon macro lenses and Nikon macro lenses), then you should definitely get a Canon EOS body. On top of that, Canon EOS bodies will also accept Leica R, Leica Visoflex, Contax/Yashica (RTS), Pentax 42mm Screw Mount, and Olympus OM, too. Just get the right adapter. So the sky's the limit with the Canon EOS mount, thanks to the EOS/EF mount's generous size and short film-to-flange distance, making it the most universal lens mount on the market.

Arnab, Interesting musings involving the suggestions of someone who has no money or plans to buy a DX2 either :-) It was always interesting to find 100s of threads bashing the D70 viewfinder and the AF, few hundreds more on how great the camera is and several others regretting the purchase of one altogether. Informative, not. Amusing, Yes.

I would go with the Canon. You can get a Nikon to EOS adapter and use an old MICRO Nikkor 55mm with the M2 ext. tube (I just sold mine in excellent condition) which you can find on Ebay very often. However, the advantages of using a Canon EF lens are worth mentioning:

 

1) Canon MACRO lenses are excellent. Forget old tales of Nikon making the best. Just look at the Canon EF 100mm f/2.8 MACRO USM, for example.

 

2) with an EF lens you can use the camera with an EX flash without limitations. When using a manual lens with an adaptor you will be limited to Av or M mode. E-TTL and TTL metering will NOT work properly in M mode so, you will have to use the flash in manual mode as well.

 

3) You will have to focus first then, stop down for metering. AFter a while it is time consuming and it is one of the main reasons I sold ALL my old Nikon lenses.

 

4) With a Canon EF lens you will be able to use AF (as well as making manual adjustments if and when required) and not have to worry about using flashes or any other shooting mode as you see fit. It saves time and makes for more relaxed shooting experience.

 

Personally, I have learned on all manual cameras so...been there, done that. But, now It's 2005 and I like to take advantage of the newest technology when it makes my life easier.

Thank you all very much for your thoughtful responses. You definitely have given me a lot more to think about. The Minolta D7 suggestion is particularly interesting--if the AS function really is all it's cracked up to be, it could not only spare me from paying extra for IS lenses, but also bring a wider range of tiny mobile subjects into the "photographable-in-natural-light" realm for me.

 

I'm a little surprised that no one besides Mark Chappell addressed the issue of using 8 megapixels vs. 6 megapixels for extra DOF. I have to admit that for my purposes, I don't usually even need all 5 megapixels from my CP5700. So why should I be lusting after 8MP? I want the extra cropability. If I'm shooting a tiny subject full frame and not getting the DOF I need, I will often zoom out or pull away and shoot the subject at lower magnification, then crop afterwards. It seems to me that an 8MP camera with 3456 x 2304 pixels gives me the ability to zoom out and crop 15% and still have a 6MP (3008 x 2000) image. Does that give me 30% more DOF? Is there someone out there with a DRXT willing to test this?

If I was going to do a lot of macro work, I would have a bright LARGE viewfinder near the top of the list. Little squinty crappy viewfinders will make it very difficult when shooting closeups.

 

Make that part of your criteria (thought not the sole factor) when looking at cameras. This might be a situation where a visit to a real camera store, if possible, would be a great help. Compare cameras side by side. Touch and feel will go a long way in selecting your camera -- not just technical specs.