Is anyone shooting a D780 or D850? I’m currently shooting a DX format camera and debating whether it’s worth stepping up to the FX sensor (and of course the inherent lens replacement that accompanies it). On paper the D850 looks better but man is that thing a beast.
My older Nikons are perfectly adequate for landscape and travel shots. I never shoot video or sports. Biggest challenge for me is shooting crisp miniatures, even with the mirror up.
Not familiar with those models, but my sense is the DX system is likely now 2 generations behind. Mirrorless seems to be the future and Nikon has introduced the Z mount system for lenses to replace the F mount. I’m trying to decide if I double down and start watching for deals as people upgrade or make the switch.
If I was starting from scratch, I’d likely go the mirrorless direction.
Hope this helps…
D850 can shoot in DX mode using DX lenses. Better to upgrade to the 60mm or 105mm macro lenses. D850 can also do internal focus shifting w/ these lenses - an option to using a focus rail.
I’ve had Nikon cameras since 1990, except in medium format which are Mamiya.
One advantage Nikon has on non-Z bodies, is the older glass (dirt cheap and ED glass is excellent), while not automatic, WILL work on DX (with cropping effect) and is FX format (24x36) just in manual mode. (Note: I shoot primarily portraiture on a stand, so make lots of manual adjustments anyway) . If you are into micro photography, Nikon has some bellows attachments that will take you over 100X.
FX has more light since it has a larger sensor, so you either get more light for the same number of pixels, or more pixels with equal light compared to the smaller DX sensor.
I have Nikon bodies with DX senors, but if I get a good buy on an FX sensor I’ll by it because if I upgrade to a FX senor body - which I intend to be on my next upgrade, I can still use all my lens with it. FX lens also give full coverage on my film camera (I like film, especially Tri-X) DX sensor does crop it, but my investment in glass is multiples the cost of a body.
I looked at some Z bodies in early November. They are nice smaller form factor in both the body and the lenses. BUT, they require all new lens since non-Z lens won;t work on it. Whatever the advantages are of the new body, the benefits don’t are very minimal FOR MY TYPE of photography. For other people that want to start over on basically body and lenses and have the scratch - go for it.
When I started out in photography, the advice I got when ordering a new system was: Spend more on lenses than the bodies, bodies will always be upgrading - lens can be used on the new bodies. Nikon has been really really good about backwards compatibility between Analog and Digital, and between types of lens in digital, e.g. whether motor is in body or in lens - they can still be used but some automatic features may be off.
My strongest advice is, if you are going to spend serious money on cameras and lens - deal with photo shop where you can get the advice first hand. In the long run as they get to know you, they’ll keep you from over buying.
I confess, I’m not familiar with the nuances of Cannon; Fuji great scientific line in both IR and UV for forensics; Sony (although when Fuji and Sony first came out they were compatible with the Nikon mount). So others can speak to those. Cannon went aggressively into massive fast lens for sports.
The biggest differences assuming two sensors with the same resolution…
The last one doesn’t matter on mirrorless cameras but if you’re using DSLR the difference is significant. There’s 2.25 times as much area to gather light (384 square mm versus 864 square mm). This is also why the pixel sites can be bigger compared to a smaller sensor with the same resolution. These apply to all cropped versus full frame sensors not just Nikon.
There’s another reason to go full frame depending on the model which is insane resolution but you give up the larger pixel sites if you do. Canon makes sensors for each role (low light or insane resolution) but I’m not as familiar with the Nikon lineup. I went the resolution route with a 50 MP full frame camera and the resolution has been fantastic. I would do it again.
It depends on what you want to do with it. I personally like DSLR for some stuff like night photography. You can see things through the viewfinder that you can’t see on a screen without first taking a long exposure. Like a moonlit landscape. I think in general the future is mirrorless cameras but I’m not ready to make the switch at this point because there are too many downsides today (that will get better with the technology in time). Battery life is another biggie when comparing the two technologies.
If your wanting better macro photography, the key is Focus Stacking. This isn’t really a thing that the body of the camera is going to be a big part of.
Here is a video showing how it is done. Warning hardcoded DELL ADs
The key to focus stacking is getting many pictures of your item at as many depths of field as possible. If you wanting to buy some tools to help, a geared follow focus or macro focus rail can be large helpers for this, especially when super zoomed or over zooming with a bellows.
This makes a lot of sense. I can imagine cases where I would want the resolution (landscape/travel photography) but it’s not going to make a difference in my miniature photography. In fact, it might be a bad thing … my miniatures aren’t perfect and blowing them up to an insane magnification with insane resolution only emphasizes that.
So the larger pixel sites would give better low-light performance, but I’m concerned about the camera weight (remember I’m a wimp). I would probably use a tripod in low light situations, but I’d still be stuck with the weight for higher ambient conditions where I wouldn’t normally use a tripod. Thoughts?
Optical viewfinder is a must-have for me.
Yeh, this seems to be the case. Oddly enough, if you’re not interested in video (and I’m not), the older D7100 I have has better specs than the latest DX replacements do.
Clearly focus stacking is something I need to further investigate. Are you shooting with a macro focus rail? Any comments there?
Macro focus rails or geared follow focus rig can help drastically with fine focusing. With macro you can really see how much even light touch can affect your positioning.
Personally I used a geared head and a rail when shooting macro professionally. These were key for me. The geared head is a must for any real tripod shooting. Macro rail is more specialized.
Here are my suggestions:
Manfrotto MHXPRO-3WG Geared 3-Way Pan/Tilt Head , Black https://www.amazon.com/dp/B00URXUC9O/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_glt_fabc_YNJJPH5W0JR9037PDDA4
Manfrotto 454 Micrometric Positioning Sliding Plate - Replaces 3419 -Black & Quick Release Plate with Special Adapter (200PL) https://www.amazon.com/dp/B08N5RXHWC/ref=cm_sw_r_cp_api_glt_fabc_1CWP13M7H9YK8WRJ8SH8?psc=1
But, I’m bought into manfrotto there are other options and with macro you can go crazy. It just like machining, you can get good enough to outrageous over kill.
In my limited experience, macro is mostly about the lens, getting enough light on the subject, and support as rock-solid as you can get for the conditions. Even my basic Pentax K50 (released in 2013) will do good macro shots with my Pentax 100 / 2.8 Macro if I take my time to lock it down on a tripod and make sure the plane of focus is where I want it. By then the bug has usually flown away, though 
Before you ditch a “perfectly adequate” body, or jump systems entirely, I’d suggest renting the nicest Macro lens you would consider buying, adding more light(s) and maybe a macro rail, and see what you can do.
I used to do a lot of macro photography on metal cut-ups with my Nikon, it was film using polarized light sources and filters but this isn’t relevant for my comments here.
One of my favorite lens is a the Nikon 60mm f2.8 Micro (Nikon’s term for macro as used other brands). This is a true micro/macro lens it’s 1:1, most lens advertised as micro/macros are 1:2. This a razor sharp lens with a decent DoF. When I used the PB-6 Bellows (up to 100X, DoF was almost non-existent maybe .010"-.015", must lock mirror-up and use remote to avoid all shake.) Have had magnification so high the DoF is less than the height of images embossed on coins.
The 60mm Micro is just slightly larger than a 50mm-55mm “Normal” lens so it’s light. weight. For best shots I mounted the camera on micro-focusing rail - get it close manually on lens or on automatic then adjust by hand to accurately fine control focus and where place the depth of field.
Nikon 60mm f2.8 Micro AF-S (FX) focusing distance down to 7.2 inches so the 1:1 really is great
When you have an object that is say 1" wide and your lens is over twice that width (60mm) you get distortion the light at the edges are bent a lot, you can use a lens reversal adapter which allow the lens to be mounted backwards on the camera. The lens that exits inside the camera usually less wide that the 36mm, closer 20mm. So the light isn’t bent as much.
Nikon lens reversal adapter 1-3 Body, adapter, lens
@jsbraby any comments on focus stacking that may be suitable for individual dollhouse miniatures? I know you have done much higher magnification macro work with high focus slice counts, but didn’t know if you might have feedback on Chris Marlow’s challenges with dollhouse item photography.
I’m not sure that macro is actually the right answer for me. Yeh, I photograph small-ish stuff, but really tiny. And sometimes it’s not even that small. It could be a few inches across. I need to experiment to figure out what I need …
Most macro lenses max out at 1:1 Need more mag? Try extension tubes. Extension tubes don’t mess w/the optics. Some will connect the electronics of the camera body to the lens.
As for which method is best - focus rail vs focus shift - there doesn’t seem to be a simple answer. As is typical it depends on what you want to do. As is typical physics demands trade offs. There are plenty of tutorials, forums, examples on the topic. Here’s a few:
There are automated focus rail setups. You enter the number of frames wanted, the distance increment for each frame and the controller takes care of everything including the camera shutter.
Here’s some info from Nikon using the 60mm/105mm macro lenses and focus shift:
https://nps.nikonimaging.com/technical_solutions/d850_tips/useful/focus_stacking/
There are plenty of reviews on the software - Helicon, Zerene, Photoshop, etc.
Weight is where the mirrorless is a clear winner at 22 oz (Z7 II) compared to 32 oz (D850). That might be a bigger factor than the optical viewfinder. Something to consider but if you decide to go DSLR again then full frame is definitely a better optical viewfinder experience.
As for low light performance I wouldn’t worry about it if it’s not already on your radar. For example if half your lenses are f/1.4 then maybe it matters to you… If not, then it’s fine and will likely outperform your current camera in low light if it’s more than 4-5 years old.
Focus stacking is amazing but expect to spend a lot of time shooting and a lot of money on tripods and heads if you haven’t already. For low light reference here’s a shot from a 5DS which will have worse low light performance than the D850 or Z7 II. It’s usable for sure just not as good as something purpose built for low light that would be 2-3 stops faster. Taken while walking at night with street lights and scaled down to about 50%.
Lol, I was scared going into the technicalities of Macro Photography would send this into the weeds quickly on different setups.
I’ll roll back to your problem,
The sensor size is not going to effect the crispness of your miniatures, unless there is a particular lense you want which is only available for a particular body and sensor setup.
As for extension tubes or baffle systems, they are neat. I’ve used them to change the focal distance of lenses to great effect. That said, if you already have a lense that can give the magnification you want at a focal distance you can handle for macro shots you are likely good and don’t need to go down that path, yet.
So how do you get crisp macro shots? The key is focus, light and focus stacking. Focus and light are key to giving your shot the contrast and detail your wanting. Focus stacking multiple shots allows you to picture larger subjects in macro detail given the limitations of depth of field. The vast majority of people that do macro photography don’t focus stack. But, the vast majority of the brain bending ulta focused macro pictures we see are focus stacked. I did this kind of photography for a few paid projects in college and really enjoyed it. Mostly technical imagery for documentation.
I’m glad I could introduce you to focus stacking, I really think it will be the technique that gets your the crisp macro shots your looking for. Good luck on your project and I hope to see some of your first tests.
