ilkka_nissila

Of course in any small-sensor camera with high pixel count, there will be noise. Software algorithms can reduce noise but at the same time they also reduce the detail and there is no genuine recording of fine tonal or colour gradations without having recorded enough photons. Mobile phones also combine multiple images to reduce noise but if the subject is living and moving about then this doesn't really work as the features in different shots are not aligned across the individually captured images. This process creates a fake appearance of the image which people may not notice so much when viewing the final result on a tiny screen which takes up only a small part of the visual field. But when viewed on a large screen it becomes obvious that there are problems.

60 vs. 45 is a fairly small difference and Nikon has got very nice 45 MP sensors nowadays also with fast read times (the Z8/Z9). I would think at least doubling to 90-100 MP would be needed to make a meaningful perceptual difference to the images where you'd really notice it when making very large prints. Though personally I think 45 MP is a very good place to be, in that it produces very sharp images but you can still use it for action and low light. Although I'm happy with the Z8 and Zf and still use DSLRs as well, I would like to see a 24 MP -ish variant of the Z8 or Z9 where the file size is more practical for events where the images don't typically need significant cropping but can be shot in very low light. The Zf works well for that (and I love that camera) but it doesn't have a stacked sensor (so there can be more rolling shutter in video and in silent photography than with a faster read time sensor) and some other things are missing (such as the interface to trigger SB-5000's wirelessly, and to use a remote release cable). Sony and Canon have recent high-end 24 MP cameras with global (Sony) and stacked (Canon) sensors. For the static subject and ultra high image quality imaging it'll be interesting to see how 35mm format can compete with the 33 mm x 44 mm medium format cameras at the 100 MP level.

The FL E is normally excellent; maybe you got a damaged copy.

There is no reason why a DSLR in live view can't act exactly like a mirrorless camera, e.g. the D780 to my understanding gives a very similar experience.

With the D850, if you're in LV with EFCS then you only hear the shutter closing and opening again once. However, the D7200 doesn't have EFCS (the D7500 does). How Nikon implemented LV shooting in many of their early DSLRs was quite ... peculiar. But I can see that if the shot is to be made with the full mechanical shutter in LV then the LV has to be stopped and mechanical shutter closed before opening again. And implementation of EFCS probably requires functionality implemented in the sensor hardware.

That 1 mm difference (which is wrong) I derived by checking working distances from two websites and subtracting them, leading to an erroneous result (because of the source data). I checked it now experimentally and at both 1:1 and 1:3, the F-mount 105 VR retains about 2 cm greater working distance over the 105 MC. Sorry for the error, sometimes it's best to just do one's own experiments rather than trust numbers people publish on various websites... 😉 You're also correct on the importance of the focus distance for the reasons you mention. There are options such as the use of a lateral arm that allows the placement of the camera closer to the subject, e.g., when the subject is in water and one doesn't wish to place a tripod foot in the water (for either because of the impact of the dirt and water on the tripod locks or simply because one doesn't want to disturb the water and spook the animals or affect the content of other images by e.g. spoiling the fresh snow). However, lateral arms tend to weigh something and they can be a hassle to bring into the woods. There are also some tripods specifically made for close-up photography. While I have a Gitzo lateral arm which fits my 3- and 4-series tripods, I rarely carry it into the field because of the extra weight. I also have a Manfrotto Super Clamp which can be attached to a tripod leg and can give some low angle positions while the tripod legs are safely on the bank side of the river. There are also visual differences between focal lengths, as the longer focal lengths lead to more magnified backgrounds relative to the main subject framed in a particular way, and so it's easier to get clean simplified backgrounds using a long macro. However, sometimes simple can be too simple, and a wider angle of view shows more of the environment.

Okay, so I performed working-distance measurements with the MC 105/2.8, AF Micro 200/4D, and Z 100-400 at 400mm setting. Each setup was positioned on a tripod in turn, and the position relative to my flat target was moved to achieve 1:3 magnification (so that they all are capable of achieving this, and also it's within the range of common magnifications that I need in practical close-up photography). Roland was quite right in that the longer lenses did have longer working distances though the 100-400 clearly is not as far ahead of the 200 micro as might have hoped from just looking at its nominal focal length. The working distances were measured from the front of the lens without hood, and I estimate my accuracy to be of the order of 1 cm (but do leave room for human error, as I did these only once). 😉 105 MC working distance at 1:3 is 31 cm. 200 (AF) Micro working distance at 1:3 is 67 cm. Z 100-400 at zoom setting of 400 mm working distance at 1:3 is 89 cm. So the zoom does give a bit more space to the subject and allow photography from a longer distance in this magnification range, and it may have some benefits (zooming, for sure, and VR in the lens). However, I think for many situations of this kind (i.e. close-up photography at sizeable working distance) the 200 Micro is superior because it's easier to handle than the 100-400 and it allows higher magnifications up to 1:1 for situations that require them. When I use it with a mirrorless camera, I typically use focus peaking although other focus aids are also available. On (mid and high end) DSLRs, it has autofocus. The 200 Micro also autofocuses better at close distances than the 100-400 which can lose the plot completely in close range (but that's probably more to do with the nature of mirrorless camera AF than the lens). Of course, the 200 Micro AF produces some sound as well, and there is no direct manual override (one needs to turn a switch). Optically the 105 MC is superior to the other two lenses in terms of bokeh but also CA (over the 200 Micro, by a mile) and sharpness (over the zoom, though all three are sharp at f/11). The 105 MC can be used safely at wider apertures whereas with the 200 I always stop down to f/8-11 to minimize CA. For frogs, f/11 seems appropriate, anyway.

I haven't yet found the time to test the working distances of the 105 MC, 200 Micro and 100-400 mm but I read the 105 MC working distance is 1 mm longer than the F-mount 105 VR's (at 1:1). However, 1:1 doesn't really interest me that much as there is such little depth of field that it can be impractical to use without focus stacking (and that's only going to work for subjects that are still). For many situations being able to shoot from around 1:1.5 to 1:3 is useful, and at f/11 there can be adequate depth of field that covers enough of the subject to be useful without stacking. I'm interested in checking how the working distances compare between these lenses at the maximum magnification of the 100-400 (1:2.63), and will be testing it soon. I did my first practical close-up shoot with the 100-400 on frogs but alas, the conditions were wet & muddy and my camera malfunctioned. I found that at the location it was difficult to get the 100-400 low enough for optimal shooting angle, and a shorter and smaller lens could have worked out better, allowing me to get closer to the water surface and also to the subjects. However, there was a lot of mud and movement of the camera had to be done using a complicated process working with my rain cover, a small pillow, and a camping mattress. 😉 Although the zoom on the 100-400 is not as stiff or slow as the 200-500's, it still requires a bit of force and so it couldn't be done rapidly under the conditions. I will revisit the location soon and look for other places where I might have easier access to the surface of the water. The image quality of the 100-400 at close range was good, I couldn't really tell any noticeable difference in sharpness to what I'm used to seeing from macro lenses in this practical application; I mean a side-by-side comparison might reveal something but it was not like the 100-400 was soft in any sense of the word. However, being a fairly big lens it is more clumsy to operate for close-ups on the ground than a 105 or 200 mm Micro. When working at long focal length close-ups, one can often miss something in the foreground that leads to a blurry distraction in the images (when the lens is stopped down). The Z cameras show the viewfinder image at f/5.6 when the shooting aperture is f/11, and so the depth of field is not shown correctly by default (not sure if there is a preview available, need to assign that to a Fn button for these situations). Focusing on the 100-400 at close range is fairly slow and can take some time to get to the right subject. Under less wet conditions I could have more easily operated the manual focus on the lens but of course since I wasn't using a tripod but a pillow, use of the rings was compromised by the fact that the lens was lying on the pillow. However, I don't have any tripod + head combination that could get me as low on the ground as this. Anyway, I'm not terribly keen how the handling of long macros is in the field, there are fewer camera angles that one can work a given subject from, and a bigger lens makes for less convenient management of the position also near the ground. However, one fits the lens to the situation and I'm sure I'll be using the 100-400 from time to time for this purpose. I suppose it might also be worth testing the 1.4 X with it for these close-ups, but I'm not a big fan of TCs and there isn't much light to work with in this location (sunlight may be available during the day but if one wants a low sun angle then it might not be).

Z8, 100-400 at f/11, 400mm, f/100s, ISO 4000.

While it's true that pre-flashes can cause eye blinks, I've found this to be mainly the case with the cheapest cameras (i.e. Nikon D3x00 series etc.) and more advanced models time the preflashes so that the eye blink is not likely to happen during the actual taking of the picture. However, there are some people who are particularly sensitive to the flash and may still blink, in which case the use of manual flash could work. Radio triggering of remotes instead of using optical triggering can also help minimize or avoid the issue. Profoto has a nice system where you can take a test shot on TTL and once the settings (flash exposure compensation and main exposure) are correct, then you can switch the flash(es) to manual and then the starting flash energy in manual mode picks up the last settings that were determined using TTL, and so further shots will have the same exposure and flash energy and no preflashes are needed. Of course, if the subject moves or the situation otherwise changes dramatically manual mode doesn't exactly help, but it's often workable. And you do get higher confidence of eyes open using it.

More deer photos from the past week. Z8, Z 100-400 S.

Right, for sure that is a big gap. Sony now has a 300/2.8 that weights 1.47kg which is about one half of the Nikon lens's weight. 😉 So yes, the optical and mechanical technologies have clearly evolved in 20 years in the sense that lower weight is possible. The mirrorless part may also play some role allowing the lens elements to be more on the rear end. On the other hand the Nikon 300/4 PF is one half of the 300/2.8 Sony's weight.

Hmm. I had assumed the 105 MC has greater focal length at close focus because it felt that way in use (i.e. narrower than I had expected for a given situation), but I wasn't working at 1:1. I'll compare it to the 200 mm side by side when I have the chance. Nikon hasn't shown much interest in updating the 200 Micro whose latest version is 30 years old. There was never an AF-S version and there hasn't been rumors about a 200mm MC let alone 300mm. I think the issue is that for many small subjects you want to be able to photograph the subject from different vantage points, and with long macros, shooting from above is typically not possible. Also the autofocus speed would likely be relatively slow compared to non-macro 300 mm lenses and even with the 105 MC there can be a lot of work to get it to find the subject in the close-up range (mirrorless doesn't do any favors here where it comes to close-up AF). With the 100-400 also I find it requires a lot of manual help to find the subject when in close range. Then there may be optical concerns, in macro lenses the best specialist lenses (macro only, not infinity to macro) usually have relatively short focal lengths.

The zooms do it by sacrificing focal length and with a slow AF rack. Most people who invest in long primes want to keep as much of the focal length as possible upon close focus and the fastest AF.

That's not very likely to happen, the range of extensions required to go from infinity to 1:1 would be enormous and it would likely not be a practical lens unless it lost most of its focal length along the way. I recall that the 200 AF Micro is about 135mm or thereabouts at 1:1, which would make it only slightly tighter than the 105 MC ... I should do a side by side to check. The 300/4 is nice at its minimum focus (m = 1:4).