Is D70 enuf camera for Nikkor 60mm Micro?

[lrutherford1]

A photo experienced friend told me that my D70 was not enough camera for the

sharpness of the Nikkor 60 mm f2.8 micro lens.

 

Comments appreciated.

 

Larry

[armando_roldan]

as compared to what?

[lrutherford1]

Sorry, I was making reference to the 6 mp limitation.

 

Larry

[bwcombs]

What does the term "not enough camera for the sharpness of the Nikkor 60mm" mean?

 

If anything, the 60mm f/2.8 lens will make your D70 look sharper than your friend!

[lrutherford1]

Could an 8 mp sensor render a better picture of the same size?

 

Larry

[ramon_v__california_]

even at 8 X 10, 8mp or 6mp won't matter.

best answer so far is BW Combs' ;-)

[photo5]

Even the difference between 6mp and 10mp is pretty small. I've tested the D200 pretty

extensively and it doesn't deliver better quality than the D70s, just a bigger image. Sure,

the pixel peepers will say it has more resolution, but who cares? Are we all suddenly

printing wall sized prints?

 

The D70 has terrific resolution for a 60mm micro lens. 6mp is excellent. Shoot RAW and

get Adobe Photoshop CS2 or Nikon Capture NX.

 

You'll love it.

 

Dave

[david_h._hartman]

Larry,<br>

<br>

The potential problem is the focus screen and viewfinder in the D70.

Critical focus is not the D70s forte. If you already own

the D70 then dont worry and buy the 60/2.8D AF Micro. If

you own the 60/2.8 and dont own a DSLR then I recommend the

D200 or better.<br>

<br>

Best,<br>

<br>

Dave Hartman.

[arnabdas]

<p><em>"A photo experienced friend told me that my D70 was

not enough camera for the sharpness of the Nikkor 60 mm f2.8

micro lens. "</em></p>

 

<p>It's true that the 60/2.8 AF Micro *can* resolve beyond what

the D70 can capture, but saiying it isn't "enough"

camera for 60/2.8 is probably too unkind. The D70 was enough

camera for two of my sharpest lenses. Problem of D70 isn't the

image quality or resolution -- it's the viewfinder that kills me.

</p>

 

<p align="center"><img

src="http://www.photo.net/bboard-uploads/00F3xE-27854584.jpg"

width="339" height="507"></p>

 

<p align="center"><em>D70 + 60/2.8 AF Micro</em></p>

 

<p>And 200/4 AF Micro shines too ...</p>

 

<p> </p>

 

<p align="center"><img

src="http://www.photo.net/bboard-uploads/009yqc-20287384.jpg"

width="450" height="300"></p>

 

<p align="center"><em>D70 + 200/4 AF Micro</em></p>

 

<p align="center"><img

src="http://www.photo.net/bboard-uploads/009yq8-20287284.JPG"

width="349" height="175"></p>

 

<p align="center"><em>100% crop of highlighted section above</em></p>

 

<p align="center"> </p>

[arnabdas]

And of all the macro lenses I have, 60/2.8 AF Micro handles the best on the D70. But things get better (and you get more than "enough") with a D200. I completely agree with what Dave Hartman says above.

[lrutherford1]

Thanks to all for the responses above. I do own the D70 and the 60mm f2.8. Buying a D200 is a budget buster for me. It sounds as though the D70 will do just fine for my amateur use. I never thought I would find myself asking this question in the first place and will be content with the answer from B.W.Combs.

 

Thanks,

 

Larry

[benoit_deshaies]

In the same line, the 60mm micro has more resolution than a D2X can capture. So the D2X is not "enuf" camera for that lens.

[john schroeder]

It's fine. I use this combo all the time. Just shoot and enjoy!

[wogears]

I use the 60mm on my D70 all the time. Results are fabulous. 13x19 prints are beautiful and sell nicely.

[studor13]

I would like to ask a couple of questions which I hope are not going too far off the original post.

 

First, Les, nice flower shots. Did you use anything to help with focusing? For example MK-21 (or something like it, I forget the name)

 

I am having some fun as well as great frustrations with the D70 for MF close up work. I use either a Series E 75-150mm or a 200mm f4 AI with a 3T close-up attachment. I*ve tried everything from f32 to f4 and am starting to wonder whether it*s me, or the lens combination that is producing out of focus regions that I find not good enough.

 

So, what I am really asking here is, is there a difference in the final image quality between a real macro lens such as the 200 f4 macro, and my 200mm/3T (or 75-150/3T) combination.

 

Sorry Larry for this intrusion. FWIW if I had the money I*d get a D200 and be done with for the next couple of years. Just have a look at Arnab*s damsel shots.

[arnabdas]

<I>"So, what I am really asking here is, is there a difference in the final image quality between a real macro lens such as the 200 f4 macro, and my 200mm/3T (or 75-150/3T) combination." </I>

<P>

From your post it appears you're not fully satisfied with rendition of OoF areas. The 200/4 AF Micro really shines in that "B-word" department.

<P>

As for sharpness -- the 200 Micro will be at least a hair sharper than a zoom+diopter combination, but zooms with diopters still hold their own for versatility plus pretty good sharpness. I think the 70-150 series E zoom is a real good one. Use a lens hood all the time when using a diopter and stop down to f8-f11, you'll be fine. Of course use a stable support. Technique matters a lot more than optics.

[ronn_benharav]

Andy

When you zoom in 200mm your camera shake is multiplied 10x minimum - add macro and multiply that by 2 - you may want to work at a higher ISO and reduce your F-stop to as close to 8 as you can to reduce diffraction - also, bugs are faster than humans, 1/30 will not stop action, try 1/50, 1/60 and 1/80 if you have them. You may want to consider using flash as well. The D200 has a wireless sync flash with the SB-800, it can help if you put the flash below your subject. Finally, delete a lot and shoot more. Delete anything blurry - you have plenty of memory to spare.

 

Larry,

I upgraded to a D-200 and it's a lot of fun. The big screen and higher resolution is nice but can be misleading...there are some terrific features, the matrix metering is excellent, the dynamic range is a little higher with the resolution, and the auto-iso function is great. There are multi-color histograms and a bunch of new features...but if you're looking to get sharper images, shoot film. Digital won't look as good as film unless you get a Hassleblad back which costs $18,000 and won't run the 120 mB files on your computer anyhow - even then, I'm not sure it will be as good as film.