I've had my D80 with the Nikon 18-200VR lens for about a year. And have taken about 15,000 pictures with it. Visit KenRockwell.com and read his free D80 users guide. You will find many custom settings that will give you great results.

Jay Mitchell

Dave, D80 is a good choice and the V4+ software is really great and has excellent color noise reduction. I have found that Nikon camera electronics operate more stable in wider temperatures and weather conditions that the Canon line. The Canon line has many really nice features too, but the Nikon can handle more abuse that the Canons in general.

Serena, I got the Canon 400D, and the Contax lens adapter from Foto Huppert. The Canon is very willing to meter whatever light comes through whatever is in front of it. Can't wait to try the Contax bellows with it. But with a recent c-disk crash and my daughter's confirmation (we're protestants) there has not been the time. Maybe next week.

Surprising that the focal length (if that's the word) of the Contax lenses seems to come out slightly larger now. My 28 mm looks more like 35 and so on.
Tor

I recently bought the Nikon D40 and bought Capture NX to go along with it. Capture NX renders the RAW images beautifully and I cannot get over how easy it is to use. It's also non-destructive and the "U point" technology is amazingly easy for selective color and brightness/contrast correction (among other things).
I rarely use Photoshop 7 or Jasc PSP 9 anymore.
I also have an Epson R2400 printer and the printing results through Capture NX and the color profiles for Epson papers is absolutely awesome.
Highly recommended camera/software/printer combination!

i cant fault my 5d... coupled with the 24-105, im yet to see ANY camera with this type of colour rendition (save for a digital back which is abotu 5 times the price.. lol

We have a Nikon D70 here at work that I mostly use for closeups of graphics cards and motherboards.

I have to say that getting sharp focus in this application is hit and miss. I use manual focus and try to shoot at F11 or better to get a little depth of field but the camera's focus indicator isn't accurate for this type of work and focusing by eye doesn't always match what the camera captures.

Did anybody run across reviews of cameras for scientific applications or macrophotography. We'll probably opt for a new camera in the next year if we can find something better suited to our needs.

Rob Mack

>>>>the Contax lenses seems to come out slightly larger now<<<<

Tor, the sensor on the 400D is 22mm x 15 mm approx (much the same as a 35mm cine frame) so there is a multiplying factor for 35mm still camera lenses. Actually that was a reason I chose the 5D (36 x 24 full frame sensor) and bore the greater cost. Not exactly slip-in-the-pocket-in-case-I-want-a-photo, but very happy with it.

Yes, in answer to those criticizing the durability of Canon, the 5D isn't rain proof. The 10D is (with additional professional features and 8 fps shooting) but more expensive than I wanted to stretch.

I'm surprised that you are having focus problems. What type of lens are you using. I find the Nikons (and all digital cameras, for that matter) to have excellent auto focus. That said, there are many things to consider when shooting macro like close up. If you're using a zoom lens, and you're zoomed in all the way (or at all) then it doesn't matter what f stop you're at, your depth of field will be minimal, and if you're photgraphing something at an angle, not straight on, and using a zoom lens, fuggetaboutit, if your desired result is the whole magilla in focus. Forgive me if you know all this.

I have done a fair amount of product shot type work and one of my favorite methods is to use a tripod with a slow shutter and use the timed release method of taking the shot so the hands aren't on the camera when the shutter is open. It's amazing how little light is needed at super slow shutter speeds, which allows you to light with indirect light and eliminate any glare or reflection.

For a close up shot of a Video card, for example, I would prefer a wide lens that I could get as close as possible to the card and still be well within the len's focal range.

Another great trick is to use a diopter, you put that in front of the lens and you can move even closer to the object.

I hear what you're saying and am all over most of those ploys except for getting up close (that distorts things a bit)

We have an assortment of lenses and all are capable of getting a sharp shot of a circuit board but it's just luck of the draw whether it happens or not. The camera's focus indicator is right for half the shots and so is focusing by eye. These are very flat shots so it's either in focus or not. We have to check the shots on a computer screen as we go. It's a bit like using a polaroids.

Couple of possibilities. Either the viewfinder/focus system can't resolve something this fine, or it needs to go to a shop for calibration, or I need a special viewfinder diopter for my vision. I can sertainly see the little green dot so I don't think my eye is the whole problem.

The camera is just fine for things that are a little bigger and more 3-dimensional.

Anyone seen a digital SLR viewfinder that they'd rave about?

Rob Mack

Anyone using still cams for 35mm slide copy. I get acceptable results in front of my digi 8 which auto focus's to the front of the lens. Just shoot to a sheet of writing paper taped to a window on a bright day.
Any SLR lens focus down that far??
Brian

Both Canon and Nikon have 35mm 1:1 magnification macro lenses that can do what you want, but frankly, you'll save time and get better results with a slide scanner.

Nikon D70 is not famous for great focusing. The D80 is a bit better and the D200 improves it significantly, and if you want better than that you have to go to one of the high end Nikons, or any Canon from Digital Rebel XTi on up.

>>>except for getting up close (that distorts things a bit)

I didn't mean TOO close, if your lens can focus up to 13", then 13" isn't too close, many lenses however require you to be 3 feet away from the object which is impossibly far for macro work, requiring you to use the zoom which eliminates any depth of field, regardless of the f stop.

I'm not sure how small the things you are photographing are. I just tried a quick test of a PCI x graphics card (half size) with a 50 to 150 zoom lens, hand held. To get the card by itself, full frame, I had to back up to 3 feet or so and zoom in to 120 mm or so, the picure was not too bad, but there was not sharp focus across the board. I then put a +1 Diopter in front of the lens, zoomed all the way out to 50 mm, moved in to about 12 inches so the card was filling the frame and took the shot again, much sharper all the way across, all auto focus, 80 shutter, hand held, holding the diopter in my other hand, not ideal conditions but quite sharp, at least I thought so.

One nice thing about the cheap lense I bought is that it has a 45cm focusing distance from wide to all the way in. (all the way in is a 300mm focal lenth at 35mm equiv.)

Dave

Rob,

For increased depth of field for table top macro work you can use a tilt / shift lens like this:

http://www.zoerk.com/pages/p_mfs.htm

Jim

"the Nikon can handle more abuse"

That reminds me of an article i read in PopPhotography magazine many years ago. They were interviewing the owner of a famous* camera repair shop in NYC. One of the questions was "What is the most important feature you think a pro deserves in a camera?" The owner picked up a customer's Nikon F1, pounded it on his desk several times hard enough to crack the wood, then aimed it at the reporter and let the autowinder crank off a dozen shots. Then he said, "Reliability, that's the one feature that matters. Don't try that with any other brand."

*Obviously so famous that i can remember neither the name of the shop or the owner now./

Anyone using still cams for 35mm slide copy

Doing it the traditional way (close-up lens, etc.) is a pain, and I've never gotten good results. Best results are with a Nikon slide scanner. I've done 70,000 slides and negatives with it.

However, I have a friend who needed to do 10,000 slides in a hurry. He did it in two days (hard work) by projecting the image and photographing that with his digital camera. He didn't bother to tether the camera; just let it record to the memory card which he would swap out every few hundred pics. The results were surprisingly good. Of course you don't get infrared dust removal, as you do on a negative/slide scanner, but for non-critical work, especially if you pay attention to the screen you use (he used a rear projection setup, as you might for movie film transfer) it's not bad.

Nothing can beat if for throughput, if your originals are mounted slides.

P.S. I LOVE my D70; also my 8080; and my N90S; and of course my old Nikon F/ftn.

For our needs 13" would be far too close to an expansion card, but okay for a shot of jumpers. The key phrase is "for our needs" and the problem is that when you get that close you start to see the sides of capacitors and other tall objects on the PCB. It looks a lot like wide angle aerial shots over skyscrapers and the complaint (usually from engineers) is that they can't see some feature on the other side of tall component. These aren't marketing shots and we only need about 3/4" of depth on the wide shots and 1/4" on a closeup. The problem here for the D70 (and I can't speak for the D80) is that it can't reliably grab focus within this shallow dof, and maybe this is actually a problem with this particular camera.

This is all beside the point. This is kind of a specialized task that some cameras probably do a better job of than others. For instance, Serena mentioned a Canon EOS 1DS. It's expensive, but has the same size sensor as some Hasselblad digital cameras and is 1/3 the price. It's also rentable for 200.00/day so it's possible to try it out. It also has interchangeable focus screens (not sure if that helps) and various viewfinder diopters to help with astigmatism. I think I've got a direction to look, thanks Serena.

Really, for most people's purposes a D80 would be great camera. It far exceeds what you'd need for inclusion in an HD project, would be great for hobby use and quite serviceable for some professional uses as well. It might not be the best thing for a copy stand, for rear-screen photography, lab work, etc, but these are special purposes.

Rob Mack

Very good to know. I'd used PC lenses for architectural shots, but not these, nor bellows systems. Neither would solve the particular problem of a D70 not being able to focus reliably on a flat plane. For instance, I wouldn't want to build anything like an optical printer with this camera.

Rob Mack

Neither would solve the particular problem of a D70 not being able to focus reliably on a flat plane.

I remember discussions about this just after the D70 first came out. Weren't there some workarounds posted?

I'd love to see them. BTW, I was thinking of you when I mentioned optical printers ;-)

Rob

I guess it always boils down to "for our needs". Just out of curiosuity, what type of lenses are you using?

I'd be happy to answer offline, but this has gone far too far in the direction of hijacking a thread. You can send me email through my forum profile.

Rob