leif_goodwin8

<p>The 105mm lens would be best for use with a macro flash which is needed if the insects are active. It is a pretty good lens, and well built. I have owned two. The 200mm F4 AIS micro lens is decent, but nothing special, although it is fairly light and compact. It has a built in hood which is convenient. Optically the Sigma 180mm F3.5 macro lens is probably better, though I have not compared the two. A key advantage of a long focal length is the ability to isolate a subject, which makes it easy to get pleasing images, IMO anyway.</p>

<p>Video on the D300 is rather limited.</p>

<p>Oskar: I suspect you can't go wrong by choosing the Zeiss. Assuming you can afford it. I am sure Peter will be pleased.</p>

<p>Oskar: You said that in your opinion being able to go to 1:1 was pure marketing. I can tell you that when you are in the field, perhaps with a handheld camera and macro flash, chasing insects, or maybe with a tripod mounted camera, it is not pure marketing. The chances are that if you do not fit the tube, then the ideal shot is inside 1:2, and vica versa. Sometimes the trick is to creep up on an insect. Having to swap a tube makes that trickier. Obviously there are many situations where the inconvenience is minimal, the photographer must decide whether or not it is an issue. Your suggestion to use the PK-13 tube is a sensible one, and can make life a bit easier.</p>

<p>"As far as I'm concerned, the discussion of the importance of 1:1 over 1:2 is pure marketing. If the lens already goes to 1:2, then it's easy to add a ring to switch the focusing range down a notch."</p>

<p>That may well be true for static subjects. It is not marketing, but convenience and speed of operation, and can be important for active subjects such as insects.</p>

 

<p>If your interest is insects, or other small subjects, then yes 1:2 to 1:1 is needed. My Nikon 60mm (AFD), 85mm, 105mm (AFD) and 200mm (AFD) micro lenses perform well on tubes. In fact the 85mm is exceptional. I would be surprised if the Zeiss was any different, but with luck someone with experience will chip in.</p>

<p>You might consider PS CS2 which can be had on FleaBay for a modest price (at least that's where I got mine). Oddly enough there are still shrink wrapped packages out there. It gives you all the key benefits of PS (such as 16 bit editing and masks) but without some of the newer bells and whistles. It will not support importing D300 NEF files directly, but in my experience the Adobe NEF converter is carp (sic) anyway.</p>

<p>I'm afraid that my experience is the opposite of what some have said. I've had a lot of problems with dual internal drives. Because they are in the same case, on the same motherboard, any internal issues such as overheating and power spikes may damage both drives. Hard drives generate a lot of heat and my experience is that many PCs are inadequately cooled. Even if they are well designed, internal fans may clog, or break, frying the PC. Unfortunately many PCs are built to a price and spec. and not to a quality, and since adding extra cooling increases the cost, many have trouble with dual drives.My Fujitsu Siemens was a POS. It fried 3 hard disks, and damaged various subsystems on the motherboard before I realised the cause was inadequate cooling.<br>

One solution is to use one fast internal SATA HD, and dual backup to external USB connected drives. The fact that they are external means that they are protected from issues with the PC (apart from malicious viruses, lightning strikes etc.). I suggest dual backup as when the internal drive crashes - I have hard 4+ drives crash - you don't want to rely on only one backup. I keep two external backup drives turned off, and only power them up when saving copies of critical data. I suppose I should keep them unplugged, but I have a surge protector.<br>

Even if you do use main and backup drives mounted internally, I recommend a second backup on an external drive, even if you only update it weekly, to reduce potential losses.<br>

As others have said, you really want to have files that you edit with Photoshop on the main internal SATA disk.<br>

Les's eSATA suggestion sounds good assuming it gives the full SATA speed (I'm wasn't aware of that technology).</p>

<p>"This approach also lets them re-cycle older manual focus designs like the 50 Planar with only a few 21st century tweaks."</p>

<p>Exactly. The kind of people who will buy a Zeiss 100mm macro lens are the kind who don't care about AF. So Zeiss can sell to a niche market with minimal development investment.In the case of Sony, it is a new system (ignoring legacy Minolta lenses) and Sony probably welcome a partner who is willing to help them create a large system more quickly than otherwise would be the case.</p>

<p>"Why would Nikon give permission to Tokina, Sigma and Tamron but not Zeiss?"</p>

<p>They don't. Which is why for example Sigma lenses do not always AF correctly with Nikon bodies.</p>

<p><a href="../photodb/user?user_id=353359">Arthur Yeo</a> "There's nothing which Zeiss can do that Nikon cannot do."</p>

<p>You might want to look at the history of Zeiss, and the inventions made by their employees. Then you might revise your thinking.</p>

<p>The reason for Zeiss not having AF Nikon lenses might simply be that reverse engineering the comms protocol is pretty much impossible to do as they cannot ensure forward compatibility. After all, they have no idea what signalling Nikon might introduce at a future date. And Nikon would not want to licence the mount.</p>

<p>According to some sources such as this one you should use lithium grease:</p>

<p>http://www.naturescapes.net/docs/index.php/category-equipment-reviews/300-gitzo-tripod-maintenance-guide</p>

<p>If that uses the older Spyder 2 hardware, then it is not suitable for wide gamut screens. It works fine on CRT monitors (or at least the my old Iiyama) but does not work with my Samsung XL20. I don't know how well it works with 'ordinary' TFT monitors. I think you really need a Spyder 3, or an i1 Display 2.</p>

<p>I use a Uniloc bag. It works fine.</p>

<p>"If I don't have a spyder or other calibration tool what's the next best thing I can do?"</p>

<p>Live on bread and water until you have enough money to buy one. The difference between calibrated and uncalibrated monitors can be huge, and is not just brightness, but gamma, shadow and highlight detal and colour casts.</p>

<p>I use a Samsung XL20 and in most respects it is superior to the Iiyama Vision Master Pro CRT that it replaced. The only weakness is the blurring when objects move fast. I presume that will be present with the new LED TV.</p>

<p>Walter: FWIW I check resolution using a flat test subject and tripod etc. Some micro lenses really can perform well at F16. But you are right, the skill of the user is the most important element.</p>

<p>"Another point: If one wants to compare macro lenses one needs to consider the attempted f-stop used for imaging. Many shoot at small apertures set at 11 to 22 (efficient values are then even higher). At these apertures that can provide large DOF almost all macro lenses are the same^^ since diffraction limited."</p>

<p>That is widely believed, but in my experience there can be quite a bit of variation. My 105mm F2.8 AFD micro is the worst of the lenses I own as it loses significant resolution and contrast on going from F11 to F16, and I prefer to avoid F16. My 60mm F2.8 AFD, 85mm F2.8 PCD and 200mm F4 AFD micro lenses are much better in that respect, and results at F16 are rather good. The 85mm F2.8 PC micro lens is the best of the lot. Even at F22 it performs well. (These are real apertures, set on the aperture ring.) Quite why such variation exists, I have no idea. Perhaps the shape of the aperture blades pays an important role. I don't think the traditional belief that IQ at F16 and beyond is purely diffraction limited is valid.</p>

<p>Incidentally I use the lenses on a 10 MP APS-C sensor, and a 12 MP one would push the lenses further.</p>

<p>"You don't lose 3 or more stop unless you go way beyond 1:1."</p>

<p>The 200mm F4 AIS micro lens loses 3 stops at 1:1 according to the Nikon user manual. It is an internal focusing lens, and at closest focus unaided (1:2) it loses almost 2 stops. The more recent 200mm F4 AFD micro lens loses about 1 stop at 1:1. Internal focusing alone does not tell you much about the light loss.</p>

<p>More recent micro lenses have some advantages:</p>

<p>1) AFS: Faster AF. Not that that matters for most macro shots.<br>

2) 1:1 unaided: Some of the earlier lenses went to 1:2 unaided and needed an extension tube to go to 1:1.<br>

3) Internal focusing: focus is achieved by moving elements, hence the length does not change. This has the benefit that dust is not sucked into the lens.<br>

4) Less light loss at 1:1. Some of the more recent IF designs lose ~1 stop at 1:1, compared to older designs which lost 3 or more stops. So you can use shorter shutter speeds at a given aperture.<br>

5) The most recent designs have better bokeh. Some of the older lenses had rather angular and harsh out of focus highlights.</p>

<p>But there are advantages to older lenses:</p>

<p>1) The focal length might not change with focus, making it easier to achieve a given reproduction ratio, and apparently easier to do stacking.<br>

2) The aperture ring allows control of the real aperture (rather than the effective aperture via the camera command dial).<br>

3) Can be used on all bodies.</p>

<p>But you need to check reviews on a lens by lens basis.</p>

<p>I've never used an AS head, but I can tell you the difference between a Markins M10, and cheaper heads. Firstly the build is better, suggesting that it can last longer. Secondly the controls are smoother, and the lock mechanism is very gradual, so that you can set the exact tension you need. Thirdly the lock is very effective, so it can hold larger loads. Fourthly there is little or no creep as you lock the head. And lastly, the engineering is done well, which helps it last. There is an online review of a Chinese head, which shows appalling engineering once you get inside, and look at how it is made.</p>

<p>Regarding tripods, my view is that a good head costs good money, whereas you can get a decent set of legs without paying through the nose. What you pay for in a tripod tends to be exotic materials such as carbon fibre, and light weight. So if you don't mind aluminium, and 2.5Kg+, you can get something good without selling an arm and a leg.</p>

<p>This is not a direct answer to your question, but I've used a TC14-A on a 200mm F4 AFD micro lens and the combination stinks. Contrast and sharpness take a hit. The TC14-A works fairly well on shorter micro lenses especially the 85mm.</p>

<p>In response to questions on my post, I am running on Vista and I upgraded from the version of NX2 that I got on the Nikon disk. I don't recall any issues with the original installation apart from it being outpaced by a moribund slug.</p>

<p>I upgraded to the new NX2 version and I wish I hadn't bothered. I can no longer maximize a pane. Nor can I move the application frame and the pane together. The menus hover over the task bar. When I start NX2, it tells me there is a new version, and asks me if I want to update. The programme is full of bugs. My advice to other people is don't 'upgrade'.</p>

<p>Few monitors give good colours out of the box. Most need to be calibrated using a third party tool such as a Spyder3Pro or an Eye One Display 2. Even then the colours are limited by the monitor's gamut. In some cases the panel will perform better than expected due to an LED back light and/or a 10 bit LUT. I find the terms such as IPS, MVA etc totally confusing and I suspect that only way to know how a monitor performs is to read some reliable reviews.<br>

Here's a few which seem okay:<br>

<a href="http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews.htm">http://www.tftcentral.co.uk/reviews.htm</a><br>

<a href="http://www.trustedreviews.com">www.trustedreviews.com</a></p>

<p>The D200 has a menu option which allows you to select the aperture by means of the camera, or the aperture ring. I'm not sure if the D80 has that, but the manual will tell you, if not someone here.</p>