matthew_smith1

Hello!

<p>

This in reference to the canon news link, posted below.

<p>

There is talk of a new pro level canon digital SLR that uses a full 24x36 frame. There is also a posting about the D3, a nww digital SLR that repaces the D30. Are the two the same thing or are they two different cameras?

<p>

Sorry about the annoyance, but I was also wondering about how long after October's expected annoncement the one (or two) new digital SLRs are expected to ship.

<p>

Thanks.

<p>

Matthew Smith

There already was a post on this in the camera equipment forum, you didn't look hard enough, I guess. :)

Anyway, where's what I said then and I am sticking to it:

The following was posted on the Nikon MF onelist:

"Das Nikon-Handbuch" by Peter Braczko, 2nd edition 1999, includes a list of Micro- and Ultra-Micro-Nikkors, designed for industrial purposes, e.g. semiconductor chip production. It also includes a picture of an Ultra-Micro-Nikkor 1:2/55 mm in a wooden box. According to Braczko, this lens was introduced in 1965 and is not designed to support general photography, any adaption to 35 mm cameras is difficult.

To do macro photography with a bellows, Nikon manufactures a series of "Macro-Nikkors". Braczko lists 4 Macro Nikkors: 2.8/19 mm, 4.5/35 mm, 4.5/65 mm, 6.3/120 mm.

"Das Nikon Handbuch" is published in German language by Wittig Fachbuchverlag, Chemnitzer Stra_e 10, 41836 H|ckelhoven, Germany. As i know, an English translation of the current 2nd edition is on the way.

Best regards Uwe"

I believe, sadly, it covers only half frame if that. It is not a good choose for any sort of 35mm microphotography because of the lengthy bellows draw needed. A rare 19mm,or a luminar or photar, is a much better choice.

It has, appearently, MIRROR LOCK UP!!!!!!!!!!!!!! SHOCKING!!!!!!!!!!!

<p>

N65 has a DOF preview, and a mid level canon model has real MLU???

<p>

What will they think up next????

I would like to know if the Nikon PB-6E extension bellows can be mounted on the PB-4.

<p>

Nikon says no, but I am wondering if they just want me to be a new bellows system.

<p>

If not, does anyone know where to find a PB-4E? Or how more extension is added to the PB-4? I would like to use my luminars at greater magnifications.

<p>

Thanks.

<p>

Matt Smith

Mr. Greenspun reviewed this lens.

http://www.photo.net/photo/canon/mp-e-65/

He says:

"The only recommend approach with the average EOS body is TTL flash metering."

So metering is not recomended with the bodies you mention.

I am not sure if this lens is better than staking lenses for field work- as, when staked, you lose much less light than with this extension based optic.

It is convient to have 1x-5x in stepless form, however, dispite the light loss.

Any other opinions?

As I understand it, which may not be very well, a bellow lens (i.e. one without a focusing ring or helicoid), needs as much extension to focus at infinty as the focal lenth of the lens-

In other words- to focus at infinity with a 360mm lens you would need 360mm of extension (the PB-4 only offers 200mm, as we know).

To focus at life size (1:1), you'd need 720mm of extension (or 4 PB-4s attached together!!!), 2x the focal length of the lens.

So, I really don't think a 360mm lens is remotely practical. A 150mm maybe- 180 would be pushing it (maximum reproduction ratio: 1/9 lifesize).

This is why the Nikon bellows lens is in 105mm flavoring- it goes from infinity to near lifesize with good working distance.

Also, the longer the focal length, the more vibrations can become a problem (this is particularly ture of bellows mounted lenses), as our resident telephotographers will tell you.

I think that's the case, at least.

BTW, if you decide to move up to a longer bellows lens, I would be happy to take the 105 off your hands for you... :)

Matt Smith

The following was posted on the Nikon MF onelist:

"

<p>

"Das Nikon-Handbuch" by Peter Braczko, 2nd edition

1999, includes a list of Micro- and Ultra-Micro-Nikkors, designed for

industrial

purposes, e.g. semiconductor chip production. It

also includes a picture of an Ultra-Micro-Nikkor 1:2/55 mm in a

wooden box. According

to Braczko, this lens was introduced in 1965 and is

not designed to support general photography, any adaption to 35 mm

cameras is

difficult.

<p>

To do macro photography with a bellows, Nikon

manufactures a series of "Macro-Nikkors". Braczko lists 4 Macro

Nikkors: 2.8/19 mm,

4.5/35 mm, 4.5/65 mm, 6.3/120 mm.

<p>

"Das Nikon Handbuch" is published in German language

by Wittig Fachbuchverlag, Chemnitzer Stra_e 10, 41836 H|ckelhoven,

Germany.

As i know, an English translation of the current

2nd edition is on the way.

<p>

Best regards

Uwe

First, some definitions. Macro is roughly defined as a magnification on film of about half-life size to twice life size (1:2~ 2:1). So I don't think you actually mean "macro," unless you are talking about getting a frame-filling picture of an animal's eye, etc. In which case you�d need to start your own big-budgeted optical company

Are you trying to ask, "What lens should I use to take frame filling pictures of small things from as far away as possible?" If you are than you might as well ask, "what lens do I need to do nature photography," which is answered in the archives.

The 100-400 close focuses to 5.9 feet. At that distance, the magnification will be a little better than 1:4, which is not at all in the macro range, but better than most long lenses. Further than 5.9 feet, the magnification only decreases.

The order of your lenses in your question is the exact, decreasing order I'd recommend for best combination of working distance and magnification, the 100-400 the best and the 300 2.8 the worst, because it doesn't focus close at all.

I'd recommend you look into a 500D. Although it will decrease your working distance, according to many authors, it will let you get into the macro range with the 100-400 (1:1.25) from about five- six feet away.

As staved above, macro further away than about 5 feet is not possible currently.

There's no question that since I've become intrested in nature photography and plants I've noticed much more- and some very beautiful plants in very unusual places. For instance, I saw a somewhat rare green varient of sessile trillium just along the path on the C & O canal. I saw an orchid- a cranefly orchid- growing underneith a picknic table on UNC's campus!

However, I can't say there's any kind of rebirth. I think the plants are going faster than you can spot them- from picking and habitat erosion and threats from invading species.

Matt

From the link above:

"This film (EIR) has, in common with other IR films, a high and potentially useful sensitivity within the UV range."

Maybe EIR is a good choice, if that's what other UV photogs are using.

http://www.foto.no/nikon/uvstart.html

this answers many, if not all, of your questions.

http://www.a1.nl/phomepag/markerink/mainpage.htm

has more info. two.

Dandelions seem to exhinit good UV characteristics. However, as a botany student, it is my opinion that virtual all bee pollinated flowers without obvious nectar guides (and many with them) are good candidates for UV characteristics.

I recomend you start saving- the 105 UV lens costs $4,000! And that doesn't include the SB-140(?).

Matt

hmmmmm...

Sounds like what you want is the $30,000 (at least) Nikkor 300 f/2.

:)

I think you may be referring to the black backgrounds in some pictures...? I apologize if you are not, please tell us where you heard that they take pictures at night.

Anyway, the black background is accomplished via ordinary flash, and many of those pictures with black backgrounds may in fact have been taken during mid day.

This is because a flash can light the scene more brightly than the regular daylight can, and the exposure John Shaw or the other pros used may not let in enough natural light to light the background, thus causing a black background.

Although many don't like these backgrounds, because, as you have noticed, they can consume some into thinking that they were taken at night, they are great for lighting dark subjects and stopping winds or fast moving insects.

Matthew Smith

From the eos-magazine:

"Focusing range: 0.243 to 0.313 metres"

in American: 9.57 in to 12.32 inches

I believe these measurements are from the film, so you can take off at least four inches (aprox. the length of the lens) for the working distance. I am sorry I can't give you an exact answer, hopefully this will tide you over until someone who has the lens comments.

Matthew Smith

Hi, although it is out of your range, if you go to Bowman's hill I really think you should go to Fern Valley in the National Aboretum in Washington D.C. It is a one mile lope filled with more than a hundred east coast native plants. They are really beautiful, and they have many native orchids and trilliums as well.

Matt

If I understand your question correctly, yes, the matrix flash metering is available in the macro range with only the 105 2.8 though you have to be conscious of the range bar on the SB-28 and many may wish to dial their own compensation in according to their own desires (as much as -1.7 or more!).

However, you do lose all electrical contacts with the pn-11 and the flash is kicked into its regular TTL mode.

I believe Kenko makes a set of tubes that maintain contacts although I have never used them.

Go UNC!!

Matthew Smith

I think the greats include:

"Closeups in nature" by John Shaw (now, unf., out of stock)

"the complete guide to Close-up & macro photography"

"How to photograph flowers" in the how to photograph series.

There are a few more I can think of if she wants to focus on wildflowers.

Matthew

Hello!

I am hoping to elicit a discussion on how your photography reflects

you personally even when the subjects are limited, perhaps un-

photogenic, and taken in less than ideal circumstances.

I am currently working on (or at least hoping I am working on) (a)

photographic book(s) on weeds, how to identify trees in winter by

their twigs, and/ or grasses. (Obviously an unparalled opportunity

for a college undergraduate, which I give photo.net a large amount of

credit and my gratitude...).

However, my botanist advisor deeply desires what I have read are some

of the most uncreative things- black backgrounds via flash (adds in

subject isolation), similarly centered compositions, etc... Not to

mention that twigs and weeds, while wonderful, may be hard to capture

both descriptively and emotionally...

What are your thoughts? How does your art let your vision prevail

despite obstacles?

Matthew Smith

I would like to add a little bit of additional interpertation on this product to Mr. Albert's already excelent summary. Since you will not only have to buy the converter but also a new set of large format lenses (which can cost $2000 a piece), I think that it would be more economical to either buy a complete set of PC nikkors or TS canon lenses (depending on your system- these include wideangle lenses unavailible on the Horseman) or, as Mr. Albert suggests, a large format camera.

Neither is a perfect option but few things are.

This:

" as much for the blurred poster-like background and narow field of view as the depth of field"

should be

"as much for the... as the WORKING DISTANCE!"

sesh. I profread and everything.

Sorry.

Welcome to macro photography! You are right that 300 mm lenses are great w/ accessories for Macro, as much for the blurred poster-like background and narow field of view as the depth of field.

I would like to recomend John Shaw's section on 300 mm lenses as Macro lenses in his book "Closeups in Nature," which you probably already have.

Although the book describes the 300 f/4.5 MF lens, which alas can close focus by itself to 1/7 life size (compared to 1/10 or 1/9 with the AF version), he has some very valuable ideas for ways to combine the pn-11 with other extension tubes to increase stability and magnification, i.e through home-made braces, etc.

If you go with a PN-11, make sure you purchase or make a brace that screws into both of the tripod sockets because vibrations will be increased, esp. in the macro range.

Also, as Scott and Rolland suggested, teleconverters and close-up lenses may increase your magnifications further.

It is unfortunate that we must strain ourselves so much while those canon punks get a 300 f/4 lens that can focus to 1/4 lifesize, take 77mm filters, maintain autofocus with a 1.4x, and has IS. Go figure :)

Good luck!

Matthew Smith

Hello! I know this is a little late, having posted to the newer message, but I also would like in...

I am a freshman at UNC-Chapel hill who loves flowers and macrophotography. I am working right now with some professional organizations on campus (although I am obviously an am.). It looks like a great project!

Thanks!

Matthew Smith

Thank you two so much for you kind posts.

<p>

Jeff, I couldn't agree more that this lens may really shake things

up. Before, to get magnifications in the 1x-5x ranges, we had to do

all kinds of jerry rigging that was expensive, dangerous for our

equipment, or ineffective. I don't think a single traditional way

would give the working distance of a 65 mm prime (although if it

focuses via floating element that advantage is diminished). Maybe

lens reversing but even that can be iffy.

<p>

Although I too think the price is expensive, it is much cheaper and

more convenient than the alternatives needed to get a 1x-5x-

magnification range! (Keh.com sells it for 999, which is a little

cheaper).

<p>

Michael: your post was very helpful and very much what I needed to

hear. I too will probably buy one, although maybe not until his

summer or a little later. Let me know what you think when you get

it!!

<p>

Matthew Smith

Hello!

<p>

I am intrested in purchasing the above lens for some specific scientific applications (photographing winter bundle scars, scales, buds, and other features of winterized twigs). I am interested in user comments, of which I have seen little. For instance, as my work will frequently take me into the field, is the lens better suited to this kind of work then bellows?

<p>

Thank you!

<p>

Matthew