I am asking for a friend of mine in the medical/dental profession. They are considering a D7200, or perhaps D7100 - for macro work only, with a ring flash. Manual focus only.
Given that - is there any advantage that the D7200 would have over the D7100?
Seems the Nikon 105mm f/2.8 is what seems to be commonly used and recommended.
They already own the D version of that lens - I guess a 2nd question would be, I don't see any reason to upgrade that either, right? New one actually weighs a little more and they'd rather have less weight than more.
AF-D will be slower to AF as it is a screw drive lens
Nikon's R1D1 flash setup can be very useful, esp. compared to most ring lights.
Specular reflections are the biggie here due to the wet nature of the tissues involved. Using a polarized light source with a cross-polarizer on the lens is the best way to deal with that.
BTW, I am betting these will mostly be extreme close-ups and not near 1:1 given the medical/dental spec.
The d7200 will give less fine grain at low iso and the higher you are iso wise the better it compares to the d7100.
The earlier af-d version of the nikon 105mm will have a shorter working distance for macro work as the front element extends forwards when you focus closely.
The vr version does not extend.
Both are very sharp lenses with the af-d possibly having the edge but for purposes other than dental work the vr version with have a smoother bokeh.
rw11 wrote:
AF-D will be slower to AF as it is a screw drive lens
Nikon's R1D1 flash setup can be very useful, esp. compared to most ring lights.
Specular reflections are the biggie here due to the wet nature of the tissues involved. Using a polarized light source with a cross-polarizer on the lens is the best way to deal with that.
BTW, I am betting these will mostly be extreme close-ups and not near 1:1 given the medical/dental spec.
Thank you.
They do not autofocus, they prefer to move physically in and out. AF and macro aren't usually great friends anyway. So the AF speed will not matter.
R1C1? That is very nice - I think it costs a fair bit though. One of the things I've seen recommended for this type application is a Metz ring flash.
My bad, I should have mentioned before - they're looking for idiot-proof operation also, so staff can do it. Set up U1 and U2 (one inside the mouth and one outside) and have them just push the button. So any flash that needs fooling with would be out.
I wonder about filters on the lens etc - they have an old rig they're using now - D100 I think, with some sort of old ring flash - I'll have to check more carefully about the specular reflections issue, thanks for mentioning that.
TAM63 wrote:
Seems the Nikon 105mm f/2.8 is what seems to be commonly used and recommended.
They already own the D version of that lens - I guess a 2nd question would be, I don't see any reason to upgrade that either, right? New one actually weighs a little more and they'd rather have less weight than more.
The 105mm F2.8 AFD is a very sharp contrasty lens and easy to focus manually. About the only weakness is the fact that it increases in volume when you focus close hence it sucks dust and humidity into itself. The AFS lens is presumably sealed against the elements.
My dentist has been using a 105 D and a D200 and an R1C1 for years with excellent results. Most of the photos are for insurance purposes to prove the work was completed. IQ does not have to be exceptional.
DGC1 wrote:
My dentist has been using a 105 D and a D200 and an R1D1 for years with excellent results. Most of the photos are for insurance purposes to prove the work was completed. IQ does not have to be exceptional.
Similar setup I think - yes, don't need exceptional quality. The quality is fine, but they'd like something easier and lighter weight if possible.
I'm trying to search for R1D1, and keep getting R1C1 - is this a much older version or something?
They're trying to get lighter weight and idiot proof, hence why were were wondering about the ringflash.
