conrad_hoffman

Maybe not even a Nikon rep, just somebody filling in. FWIW, when I was in a real actual brick and mortar shop buying a new lens for my Z6, I was listening to the guy behind the counter trying to make a sale to a gent that had walked in. He was definitely steering him towards full frame, but he talked up every brand in the case except Nikon. He didn't really say anything bad, he just ignored them completely. Made me wonder what the profit margins are between brands. I guess not everybody's a fan.

All the "buzz" was that the new 105 mm was probably the sharpest micro/macro lens Nikon had ever made. True? Not a clue, but I wanted to try it for slide/neg copy work. I may have said this before but it bears repeating. The new Z lenses are designed to work at a specific distance from the sensor. Bellows and extension tubes would destroy their excellent optical properties and are probably a thing of the past. My guess is you'd be far better off to use a screw-in close-up lens, if such existed, to get beyond 1:1. As for the FTZ, PB series bellows, plus whatever, yes, that combination works just fine and I use it frequently. I've yet to find anything I was doing with previous dSLRs that the Z6 can't do just fine, usually far better.

I like Affinity Photo for most things, including color to black and white. Going from negative to positive is another story. I've yet to do as well with that as with other programs. One can go to curves and slide the black to white and the white to black, then alter the curve as needed, but for some reason I seem to get flat or blown out results from Affinity. It would be interesting to try a step tablet shot on film to better understand what was happening, but I don't have one and haven't processed film for quite a while. Another retirement project if that day ever comes.

Did some comparisons between the 105 Z macro and the 55 AiS Nikkor. Learned that it was harder than I thought. I had trouble getting the alignment to the target good enough and my copy stand isn't really rigid enough. Target flatness is a huge issue. Thus, I won't post any of the imperfect stuff. What I can say is both lenses out-resolve the Z6. If they differ in the corners, my alignment isn't good enough to prove one is better than the other. I like the working distance of the 105 mm and that you can just set it to 1:1, whereas the 55 requires messing about with extension tubes or bellows, but that aside, I can't convince myself there's any huge difference in image quality with a Z6. Maybe a Z7 would tell a different story. Or a Z9.

FWIW, I've done a few 55 mm Micros. It's not terribly difficult but I don't recommend it for one's first rebuild. Servicing the 55 mm f/2.8 Micro Nikkor Lens

So what do you people do with these hi-res images? 60" monitors? Printers that can handle posters? Bringing back the Kodak Colorama? I'm all in favor of resolution, but there's a limit to how I can display it. It honestly didn't occur to me to stitch the 4x5, but now I'm convinced the camera is the way to go, and I don't even have a high MP camera.

Different, but not enough to shake a stick at. I don't see why a scanner should be superior anyway. I see a handful are still made but most are 35mm only, save for flatbeds that IMHO aren't optimal for 35mm. And they're darn expensive just for my 2 1/4 and 4 x 5 negs. The great scanners of the past aren't in production anymore. The hardware is old and probably degrading. The software is old and unsupported. They're seriously slow. Heck, my dad has a film scanner, plus an entire old computer running an obsolete operating system because that's all the software can run on. A modern camera will have the best image sensors ever made. It's near instant. You can't fault the image quality if the setup is good.

I can't beat that but have certainly had the same PB & PS combo for several decades. I recently sold almost all my Nikkor primes but kept the Micro Nikkor. IMO, there is no cost effective and properly supported scanner that can compete, if one exists at all.

Yes, have that and it works fine but I'm curious if the new 105 will be any different. I'll probably set it up on a copy stand and do a comparison when I get some time.

I refuse to obey the laws of physics and you can't make me. o_O

It could be worse. I sometimes Google things that are a complete mystery to me and discover I figured it out and posted about it years ago.

I've used an adapter on my bellows and PS but I suspect the 105 Z macro is even better than the manual focus Micro Nikkors. I've always wondered if the Micro Nikkors maintain their performance down to below their native minimum focusing distance, down to 1:1.

I got this once with my Z6 on a photo of a barn that had a screen in a window. It took me a bit to notice it as it wasn't as pronounced as yours. I think I used a fringe filter in Affinity Photo that took care of most of it.

Since we're pitching software, I'll add that Affinity Photo is way less expensive than the alternatives and has pretty good black and white conversion options. It also supports HDR, focus stacking and many other things. Been on sale recently, not sure if there are still holiday offers.

IMO, almost anything will work, so long as it has curves to play with.

Just because something get the job done in a decent manner doesn't mean there's no room for improvement. I didn't want to spend the rest of my life at ISO 100. Much of what I do is macro and though I can do perfectly good focus stacking manually, having the camera quickly step through the focus points is WAY better! Full frame is better than DX, IMO. I could go on but I think you get the drift.

Yes, a simple version wouldn't be too tough to make. One note about the bellows and Z lenses. The modern lenses are designed to be a fixed distance from the sensor, so using a bellows or extension tube is probably a thing of the past, unless you also use lenses from the past. The 105 Z macro goes 1:1 so it's just a matter of putting the neg or slide at the right distance and a couple of nesting tubes would take care of that. The PS-4 did have some nice features, like the X-Y slide for cropping, though would be expensive today.

I've always liked the PS-4 slide and neg copy attachment for the PB series of bellows. Now that we have the 105 mm Z macro, it would be really great to have a screw-on version of the PS-4. It would just need the right length tube so the ratio could be set 1:1. Too lazy to work this up myself right now, so just tossing the idea out there. IMO, it would be about the best slide and neg digitizer out there, especially if you had a Z7.

There's no substitute for looking at a large number of images, online, books, magazines and anywhere you can find them. Cover a wide timeframe. Study the old film work by people like Karsh and George Hurrell. Google "famous portrait photographers" and see what appeals. It's easier to answer the question when somebody says, "Oh, how do I do it like that?"

Yes, lovely colors and that little star really does a lot for it. One can't stand there all day taking variations but I wonder what a wider aperture to blur the dash a bit more might look like. OTOH, then the wheel might have gone OOF at the extremes. Heck, it's nice just as is.

My D200 had serious noise issues if not kept near the lower end and it was only 10.2MP, but it got the job done just fine for many years. The reality is that most images get displayed on a monitor. Even the advertising stuff I did was on a monitor or printed quite small, with multiple images on a page. Unless you like to crop a lot or do large prints, you can certainly get by with 12MP.

I haven't tried mine as a portrait lens yet. I think Nikon uses that as a selling point but the thing is so sharp I might want to put a diffuser on it! I'm sort of old school when it comes to portraits, fuzzy lenses and printed on paper with a surface resembling leather!

I do engineering type work on very small devices, usually the size of a pocket watch or smaller. There would certainly be some decent shots of people doing assembly and test, save for one thing. Every bench is enclosed on the sides and against a wall. About all you can see are people's backs! I've done my fair share of that sort of thing and should probably do more. I enjoy macro work and do quite a bit of that at work. I regret not having taken many shots at previous jobs, at companies now long gone, especially of buildings that no longer look anything like they did.

I happily used my D200 for 13 years and the D300 should be better. I really liked the control layout, in some ways better than later cameras. That said, the one thing I never got comfortable with was the DX format. I just couldn't afford full frame at the time. I never had a lens that could cover the angles I wanted and was used to with my 20 mm and film bodies. Figuring I'd go full frame eventually I never wanted to buy an equivalent for the DX. The optical finders on DX cameras can never be the equals of optical full frame finders, though that's no longer an issue with mirrorless. I'd say if you want to try it, the price and condition are right- go for it. I just sold almost all my classic AiS Nikkor primes (and the D200) and I bet great lenses will be easy to find, both manual and AF.

Good points. I'm a long time black and white photog, though not for a while, and I appreciate a good monochrome print. Not sure how many around me do anymore. You've given me an idea. Maybe set the digital to monochrome and wander about a bit. Should be even easier because the EVF will display monochrome. Thanks! (Have to be careful today as we're expecting 50 mph winds.)