Not sure Canon has a better macro flash system since Nikon's needs no wires, so the heads can be separated, neither does Nikon's CLS lighting system need wires:-
http://www.dpreview.com/news/0511/05110 ... motefl.asp
http://www.ephotozine.com/article/Nikon ... ystem-4437
Canon's macroflash still needs wires, which is sometimes a disadvantage, but not always, and Nikon's can always be wired if required. The above link says for the Canon system:-
"Using the MT-24ex Twin Lite unit as a master, the system is very similar to Nikon’s CLS except that the twin-lites are tethered to the controller, eliminating the possibility of using them remotely. With that exception, the two systems are comparable in their capabilities when used with master units. The Nikon system does out-score the Canon with the use of some Pop-up flashes as controllers though, managing to keep the cost down considerably."
http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Revi ... eview.aspx
I do use the pop up flash on my D200 with a flash shield which only lets infrared light through to control my two SB6oo Nikon flashes on a bracket.
All in all both systems are broadly similar. For ultra macro photographers Canon's MP-E 65 is a bonus, and Nikon no longer makes the 70-180 Micro Nikkor, no doubt due to cost and lack of demand. It is surprising in these days of accountants running companies that Canon still makes the MP-E 65 as I am sure it is not their top selling lens, plus the days of prestige but loss making lenses are now over. Most of the more extreme and horribly expensive lenses having been discontinued in the 1990's, like the Nikon 1200-1700mm zoom:-
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/co ... 1700mm.htm
I think in these recessionary times we will see more photo equipment which does make significant profits dropped from manufacturers inventories in future.
You can enlarge parts of the image on my D200 monitor screen to check them and that does not have live View.
DaveW
MP-E 65 /2.8 Macro +
Moderators: rjlittlefield, ChrisR, Chris S., Pau
Agreed, there is little to choose between either system and probably some of the other camera makes too. The only difference is the major makes are usually able through higher sales to cater for the more minority interests, like macro photography above 1:1, through producing equipment which probably does not have a great profit margin due to very limited sales.
The same situation applies to lenses, all camera manufacturers produce the lenses any average amateur or most Pro's would need or could afford, but it is mainly the camera majors that provide the extremes which few other than some well heeled professionals or government surveillance agencies can.
But as I said previously, since the accountants have taken over the running of the industry in the 1980's-90's from the optical engineers, many of the prestige "look what we can do" unprofitable products have been dropped from their inventories.
Industry is now moving to the situation where if it does not pay it will no longer make it or cross subsidise from its more profitable products as well as deciding if the factory space could be better used to produce more profitable items.
I foresee a lot of non mainstream products disappearing in this recession and we will need to buy them secondhand in future if we want them. An example was the Micro Nikkor 70-180mm you mentioned. Since it was withdrawn it often now sells secondhand for more than it did new towards the end of its production run. Rarity value I guess since I believe being a specialist lens and so fairly expensive sales were low and not many were manufactured compared to general lenses. The same situation could apply to the MP-E 65 in future, so get yours now!
I would never rely on a camera monitor screen to focus with since it's resolution is not that high. Either the conventional viewfinder or even autofocus is likely to be more accurate?
DaveW
The same situation applies to lenses, all camera manufacturers produce the lenses any average amateur or most Pro's would need or could afford, but it is mainly the camera majors that provide the extremes which few other than some well heeled professionals or government surveillance agencies can.
But as I said previously, since the accountants have taken over the running of the industry in the 1980's-90's from the optical engineers, many of the prestige "look what we can do" unprofitable products have been dropped from their inventories.
Industry is now moving to the situation where if it does not pay it will no longer make it or cross subsidise from its more profitable products as well as deciding if the factory space could be better used to produce more profitable items.
I foresee a lot of non mainstream products disappearing in this recession and we will need to buy them secondhand in future if we want them. An example was the Micro Nikkor 70-180mm you mentioned. Since it was withdrawn it often now sells secondhand for more than it did new towards the end of its production run. Rarity value I guess since I believe being a specialist lens and so fairly expensive sales were low and not many were manufactured compared to general lenses. The same situation could apply to the MP-E 65 in future, so get yours now!
I would never rely on a camera monitor screen to focus with since it's resolution is not that high. Either the conventional viewfinder or even autofocus is likely to be more accurate?
DaveW
Try one Dave. You can eg just about see the pixels on a chosen 3" section of picture which is effectively from a view 81 inches wide.I would never rely on a camera monitor screen to focus with since it's resolution is not that high. Either the conventional viewfinder ....
Errm, 4200/81 = about 50 pixels per inch. On a bench you can of course put a loupe on it. I'm sure you can look up how many dots there are on the screen itself - but it's enough.
You can also check for vibration at that mag - knock the camera and it wobbles. You can't do that other than "live".
And as I said it's brighter than the viewfinder.
I've been using it recently to find that a scope lens wasn't quite lined up properly on a bellows, giving slight colour (CA) fringes. Push the lens about and it moves...
Of course a lot of camera stuff is obsolete, but that doesn't mean it's not available. Since discovering this site a couple of months ago, I've collected a pile of macro "stuff", none of it new apart from adaptors. If you tell a s/h photo gear dealer what you're after and agree what you're prepared to pay, it doesn't take long.
It seems that old groats like me collect stuff, fondle it, use it carefully, then we pop our clogs and our poor mates get shot of it to another old groat, so round and round it goes.
It'll have to wait until I change cameras then Chris, and by then no doubt all will have Live View as standard, providing the still camera is still around.
Eventually video and still cameras will combine when the sensor on a video camera is good enough for the stills the average photographer needs (the camera manufacturers have even hinted at this). The stills camera is now aping the video camera with faster and faster motordrives and movie functions. Is there really any economic logic in manufacturing two separate systems now gradually moving together in their functions? Eventually all stills may be just isolated frames from a video sequence since really that simply parallels selecting shots from a fast motodrive sequence now.
The real question for manufacturers is how big a market are those who wish to go beyond 1:1, and is financially worth their while to cater for us in future? I think in future we may increasingly need to buy "obsolete" technology secondhand to cater for our hobby.
DaveW
Eventually video and still cameras will combine when the sensor on a video camera is good enough for the stills the average photographer needs (the camera manufacturers have even hinted at this). The stills camera is now aping the video camera with faster and faster motordrives and movie functions. Is there really any economic logic in manufacturing two separate systems now gradually moving together in their functions? Eventually all stills may be just isolated frames from a video sequence since really that simply parallels selecting shots from a fast motodrive sequence now.
The real question for manufacturers is how big a market are those who wish to go beyond 1:1, and is financially worth their while to cater for us in future? I think in future we may increasingly need to buy "obsolete" technology secondhand to cater for our hobby.
DaveW