Nikon D70 vs D2Xs

[NikonUser]

DaveW: thanks for the links
Joseph S. Wisniewski: thanks for the detailed explanation re. magnification.
For the CA questions: both shot RAW; both processed with Photoshop CS2; identical everything except for switching camera bodies; no blown channels.

Is there some basic arrangement that is preferable to others? In my case I shoot stacks of bugs that range in length between about 3mm and 20mm with the majority in the 7-12mm range.
I have a D2Xs, MF 105mm and MF 200mm Micro Nikkors and both of these in the more recent AF models; a PB6 bellows, 4T and 5T close-up lenses, and the ability to reverse the lenses; also 50mm and 28mm lenses.
I can get the same magnifications using several combinations of the above. Is there a rule that says certain combinations are better than others? For example is it best to use the full extension on the lens before any bellows extension, or keep the lens at no extension and use bellows extension? How about the use of the close-up lenses? I get the impression these should be used as a last resort. Small f-stops or ......?

I just tried the MF 105mm reversed at full extension on a short bellows extension and got this image of a 14.8mm long beetle (Cosmosalia chrysocoma; full frame:

D2Xs + 21mm extension tube (always needed to get the camera to attach to the PB6 bellows) + 105mm bellows extension + reversed MF 105mm Micro Nikkor @ full extension. f8 on lens. single diffused SB800 flash, 37 images @0.2mm stacked with Helicon Focus 4.1

[P_T]

A question if I may.

How do you get your specimen all nice and posed against a white background like that with no apparent shadow or indication of a pin or anything to hold it in place?

[Charles Krebs]

I have a D2Xs, MF 105mm and MF 200mm Micro Nikkors and both of these in the more recent AF models

Before I would jump in with a recommendation can you clarify something? I'm a little confused as to which 105 you have. When you say "MF" I'm thinking "manual focus", but then you say "more recent AF model". Nikon made a lot of 105 micro Nikkors, and there are some significant differences between them.

[NikonUser]

I have a D2Xs, MF 105mm and MF 200mm Micro Nikkors and both of these in the more recent AF models

Before I would jump in with a recommendation can you clarify something? I'm a little confused as to which 105 you have. When you say "MF" I'm thinking "manual focus", but then you say "more recent AF model". Nikon made a lot of 105 micro Nikkors, and there are some significant differences between them.

Please jump in:
On the lenses:
Nikon Micro Nikkor 105mm 1:2.8 209351
Nikon AF Micro Nikkor 105mm 1:2.8 D (no obvious serial #)



P_T Good timing, just before I was about to remove the beetle. This is the beetle from a different angle. I use a headless insect pin and pin the bug about 1/2 way through the body.

[DaveW]

What the professional product photographers know as a "stick shot" I believe in order to suspend things in mid air, but in your case on a macro scale.

It is often used in advertising photography to make coins or articles look as if they have been photographed in mid fall, say into a glass etc by a stick or stiff wire poked through the background paper directly behind the object out of camera view and then the desired object either impaled or stuck on the end with a hot glue gun, superglue, or blue tack depending on its size and weight.

DaveW

[Charles Krebs]

stacks of bugs that range in length between about 3mm and 20mm with the majority in the 7-12mm range

So (with your D2X) you will be mostly between 2X and 3.4X, with that range occasionally extended as high as 8X, and as low as 1X. You can cover some of this range with the 105 and bellows, but for the higher end you would be better served with a shorter focal length. (Probably something in the 28mm to 55mm range... and if you really want to get to 7X and more probably even a shorter focal length).

I never owned the MF 105/2.8.( I have the older 105/4 and the AF 105/2.8 ) but I believe this one has "CRC"...(close range compensation). So if this lens is used in it's normal orientation (front forward) on the bellows you are probably best setting the lens focus mount itself to the closest focus distance.

If the lens is used "reverse mounted" it would likely give best results if the lens focus setting were changed based on the magnification obtained via extension. I'm not sure that this is a symmetrical lens, but let's say you are getting a magnification of 2:1 at the camera sensor. It would likely perform best with the lens focus mount set to the reciprocal... 1:2. If you added lot's of extension and managed to get 3:1 on the sensor, then set the lens focus at 1:3. The problem with "longer" lenses like the 105 is that the extension really adds up if you try to get higher mags in this manner. (Incidentally... there are many Chinese photo gear sellers on eBay that sell cheap extension tubes. They simply screw together and have a male/female camera mount added at the ends. Since you don't need any internal couplings at all once you go to a bellows these can be a good way to get additional extension for a reasonable price.)

I would recommend trying to track down a good 50/2.8 enlarging lens (Something like an El-Nikkor, Apo-Componon or Componon-S, or an Apo-Rodagon). With a small amount of patience these can be gotten at very reasonable prices. A little more money would be a an older MF 55/2.8 like Joseph mentioned earlier. Mount these in reverse on your bellows and (with some modest additional extension) you should be able to get magnifications around 4X to 5X with great results.

[NikonUser]

Charles: Thanks for the very useful information. It seems that the MF 105 will cover much of my needs but will keep a look out for an El-Nikkor. I did make a bid on one (El-Nikkor) on E-Bay a while back but was unsuccessful.

[rjlittlefield]

will keep a look out for an El-Nikkor.

Just to emphasize... Be sure to get an f/2.8. The f/4 not only has worse diffraction because of the smaller aperture, but it's a different design that is not nearly as well corrected for aberrations.

--Rik