What gear, and why?

[xpatUSA]

I haven't decided which way to jump yet, stay with MFT, or go for an APS-C or FF but it will be a CSC rather than a conventional DSLR.

I sympathize with your dilemma. After a spate of impulse buying and selling, I ended up with two Sigma SD9 housebricks, a Sigma 17-70mm APS-C zoom, two true macro Sigma lenses, both the 50mm and the 70mm f/2.8 EX DG ('full frame').

The rub was in buying a G1, selling it, missing it, and then buying a GH1 followed by the 14-45mm, the 45-200mm and finally the Leica 45mm macro-Elmarit (not cheap!).

I love the micro four thirds thing and Panasonic does it best, IMHO. But, the Foveon-based SD9 - which fights you every inch of the way towards a good image, fascinates me. And, it's perfectly adequate for my web-only work.

So, I'm selling up the MFT stuff even as we speak:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3554938

Pardon the advert

[RustBeltRaw]

So, I'm selling up the MFT stuff even as we speak:

Bucking the trend. Interesting.

CSCs are interesting, but I need to shoot less action if I'm going to use one. And I cannot shoot with an EVF. Drives me insane. All that said, high-speed sync, real flash controls, manual control, and a compact package with great glass? Ye, please.

[GrahamS]

Hi Lex,


FSU cameras and bodies have had a bad press; the old mantras of falling apart, badly made etc, whereas, in fact the vast majority were built very well. There are very few cameras that ye could walk intae a junk shop now , pay $5, put in a film - and it just works.


Everyone used to say -"poor copies of Leica" (re. the early rangefinders), in fact, these cameras were built under licence tae Leica, so had tae meet quality standards imposed. FSU manufacturers took these cameras apart and actually improved on them.


Not too shabby for 50 yo cameras...
Everyone should have at least one FSU lens in their collection...

I'm sorry to have to disagree with Robert regarding some of his statements and I apologise to Lex for going OT here. Having done a fair amount of research into the history of the photo - optical industry of the FSU and after having collected FSU manufactured cameras for some time, I have found that there is more urban legend and folklore accepted as fact when it comes to the manufacture of cameras in the FSU than the real facts. The Soviets never built anything "under licence". The fact is that the Soviet camera manufacturing industry was limited to a small selection of fairly unsophisticated cameras before the 2nd world war. At the end of the 2nd world war the Soviets had a great windfall - they discovered that the Zeiss manufacturing plant at Dresden was in their zone of control and promptly claimed it as reparations, packed up all of the manufacturing plant and equipment, as well as all of the design drawings and parts stock and shipped it off to a railroad yard in the Ukraine, where it languished for some time before being unpacked and installed in the Kiyev Zavod Arsenal in Kiev. This can in no way be described as "manufacturing under licence" as that implies the goodwill and co-operation of the original manufacturer.


The Zeiss Contax II had been in production at Dresden before and during WW2 and in 1947 a quantity of Contax II cameras were assembled at the Kiev plant using parts appropriated in Dresden. These cameras had no name branding on the faceplate above the lens, but if the plate is removed the "ghost" of the word "Contax" can be seen from the rear. These cameras are now highly collectable. The original design of the Contax II was modified by the Soviets to make it less costly and easier to assemble. Materials were substituted, for example some of the stainless steel parts became brass and some of the machined parts were stamp formed. The original Zeiss camera was fitted with Zeiss lenses from the Jena factory, where a production facility had also been created from virtually nothing for the manufacture of the Contax camera. Eventually this facility was also shipped to the Ukraine and installed in the Kiev factory. The Zeiss lenses were copied and manufactures in the Ukraine. These optics we made to a high standard as the Soviets had some experience with optical manufacture.


The factory had to strictly adhere to a quota system, regardless of quality. Cameras were tested after final assembly, and those that didn't obviously work were simply scrapped, but they were never deducted from the production quota total but if the quota had not been reached these rejected cameras were included in the factory production.


Depending on the luck of the draw, a camera could be of sufficiently close tolerances to be of good quality and would be very reliable. The opposite was also true. Production quality slowly deteriorated until, in 1981, a delegation from the Soviet industrial authority arrived at the factory and condemned the entire production of the last two months, which was scrapped.


Peter Henning, the Zeiss historian, reports: " In the Soviet Union a network of specialised workshops was developed in order to handle problems of this kind. First you bought your camera at a low socialistic price. Then you realised that the camera did not function fully - you had to visit the specialised workshop. After paying this part of the affair as well, the total cost was about the same as a similar type of camera in the west."


Production of the Kiev / Contax derivatives was finally halted in 1986.


Fed cameras were a reverse engineered copy of the original Leica camera. Named after the founder of the Soviet Secret Police, Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky, the Fed I appeared in 1934 and was a copy of the Leica II 35mm rangefinder film camera, fitted with a FED f/3.5, 50mm uncoated lens. The factory used indigent children or orphaned children for the assembly labour force and fell under the direct control of the "Cheka" or secret police. Vast numbers of FED cameras were produced between 1937 and 1997. They are of "agricultural" quality, very robust and a good one will last a lifetime. Again, no formal agreement was ever entered into with Ernst Leitz A.G. and the FED was simply a reverse engeneered copy of the Leica, simplified to allow economic production quotas to be met. Apart from the similar shape of the body and layout of the controls, a FED does not feel like, or perform like a real Leica camera.


Other cameras were also produced in the FSU, such as the Kiev copy of the Hasselblad and the Zenit made copy of the Pentacon 35mm SLR but generally the story is the same - poor quality designed for simple assembly to meet the production quota. Of them all, the Zenit probably has the best quality control due to the requirements of it's West German distributors. The Zenit is a very reliable camera and while it does not have the fine finish and quality feel of a Pentacon or Praktica, many were sold into the UK market when importation of more expensive cameras was restricted in the 1950's and 1960's.

[RustBeltRaw]

I'm sorry to have to disagree with Robert regarding some of his statements and I apologise to Lex for going OT here.

Fascinating anecdotes require no apologies. Considering that owning a Contax II/IIIa is on my bucket list, it's rather interesting to hear more of the history behind it and its copies. Is there a good source for similar info online? Keen to read more about the history of all the cameras my family uses. Honeywell/Asahi Pentax Spotmatic II, Canon AE-1, Mamiya C330, Zenza Bronica ETR-Si...

[GrahamS]

Fascinating anecdotes require no apologies. Considering that owning a Contax II/IIIa is on my bucket list, it's rather interesting to hear more of the history behind it and its copies. Is there a good source for similar info online? Keen to read more about the history of all the cameras my family uses. Honeywell/Asahi Pentax Spotmatic II, Canon AE-1, Mamiya C330, Zenza Bronica ETR-Si...

Camerapedia has some interesting info: http://camerapedia.wikia.com/wiki/Camerapedia and this is one of my favorites:
http://www.mir.com.my/rb/photography/ and here is Peter Hennig's site: http://www3.telus.net/public/rpnchbck/zconrfKiev.htm

[tao2]

Hi Graham,

I'm sorry to have to disagree with Robert regarding some of his statements and I apologise to Lex for going OT here. Having done a fair amount of research into the history of the photo - optical industry of the FSU and after having collected FSU manufactured cameras for some time, I have found that there is more urban legend and folklore accepted as fact when it comes to the manufacture of cameras in the FSU than the real facts. The Soviets never built anything "under licence". The fact is that the Soviet camera manufacturing industry was limited to a small selection of fairly unsophisticated cameras before the 2nd world war.

That's incorrect. The Soviets "bought" the licence for initially, importing, then producing Leica copies in the FSU since any proper trade agreement with German companies was banned under the sanctions imposed by the Allies after WWI. Some collectors will tell you that the Leica l+ll were the results of industrial espionage on the Germans part as they were given access tae the secret VOOMP factory in Leningrad, where prototypes of the FED/Zorki were under construction. This, of course, produces apoplexy in Leica fanboys... Barnack and Leitz had famously reached a stand-off, with Barnack almost leaving Leitz. They had what was, actually, a tinkered with, nearly 20 yo camera design (once described as an exposure meter with a lens).Then the Leica 1 appeared... The Pioneer 1 was about tae be introduced by the Soviets,when Leica 1 appeared on the scene.This led tae the abrupt break in co-operation around 1934/5 and the banning of foreign imports, which in turn led tae the Soviets gearing up FED/Zorki.

The Soviets had been co-operating with German optical companies since the mid 1920s as they had been producing better, more sophisticated cameras than the Germans (the Pioneer and FAG) but needed greater expertise in optical technology as the infamous Soviet "Plans" of that era meant slow technological evolution and not, ironically, revolution . As an aside - MiT, in the early Seventies, did an in-depth study of Soviet,German and Japanese glass. This study went as far as investigating the type of sand used!. They concluded that the Soviet glass was superior in both the constituents and the finished product but that it was let down by the inconsistencies of production and available capital for tooling, development. research etc.This report was largely ignored by the photographic press, probably due tae the Cold War and the fact that anything superior tae Western standards would be anathema tae the USA..

For a country which only produced "fairly unsophisticated cameras", the introduction of the FED1 and then FED2, with a removable back, slow shutter speeds, improved shutter, and ditching the 1000th second speed which was causing untold problems with Leicas was a fairly significant achievement. These cameras were produced in parallel with, not following Leica. The FED1/2 was the best rangefinder built up until (probably) the M series Leica, 20+ years later. 7 iterations of the FED and nearly 7 million cameras produced from a standing start is not bad going. Meanwhile, as Leica were struggling tae adapt their camera body - the Soviets were introducing their prototype Zenit C (S) AND B (V) SLRs in 1938/39.

At the end of the 2nd world war the Soviets had a great windfall - they discovered that the Zeiss manufacturing plant at Dresden was in their zone of control and promptly claimed it as reparations, packed up all of the manufacturing plant and equipment, as well as all of the design drawings and parts stock and shipped it off to a railroad yard in the Ukraine, where it languished for some time before being unpacked and installed in the Kiyev Zavod Arsenal in Kiev. This can in no way be described as "manufacturing under licence" as that implies the goodwill and co-operation of the original manufacturer.

As you can see,in my first post and this one, ah made no reference tae Kiev/Contax and licences, ah was referring tae pre-war agreements for FED/Zorki. Postwar, the Allies gave away all German patents (even tae the Japanese) which was how they had such a surge in their photographic industry

The Zeiss Contax II had been in production at Dresden before and during WW2 and in 1947 a quantity of Contax II cameras were assembled at the Kiev plant using parts appropriated in Dresden. These cameras had no name branding on the faceplate above the lens, but if the plate is removed the "ghost" of the word "Contax" can be seen from the rear. These cameras are now highly collectable. The original design of the Contax II was modified by the Soviets to make it less costly and easier to assemble. Materials were substituted, for example some of the stainless steel parts became brass and some of the machined parts were stamp formed. The original Zeiss camera was fitted with Zeiss lenses from the Jena factory, where a production facility had also been created from virtually nothing for the manufacture of the Contax camera. Eventually this facility was also shipped to the Ukraine and installed in the Kiev factory. The Zeiss lenses were copied and manufactures in the Ukraine. These optics we made to a high standard as the Soviets had some experience with optical manufacture.

The original design of the Contax II was modified by the Soviets to make it less costly and easier to assemble.

Incorrect, the Kiev is an exact replica of the Contax.

the Soviets had some experience with optical manufacture.

Damning with faint praise...

The factory had to strictly adhere to a quota system, regardless of quality. Cameras were tested after final assembly, and those that didn't obviously work were simply scrapped, but they were never deducted from the production quota total but if the quota had not been reached these rejected cameras were included in the factory production.


Depending on the luck of the draw, a camera could be of sufficiently close tolerances to be of good quality and would be very reliable. The opposite was also true. Production quality slowly deteriorated until, in 1981, a delegation from the Soviet industrial authority arrived at the factory and condemned the entire production of the last two months, which was scrapped.


Peter Henning, the Zeiss historian, reports: " In the Soviet Union a network of specialised workshops was developed in order to handle problems of this kind. First you bought your camera at a low socialistic price. Then you realised that the camera did not function fully - you had to visit the specialised workshop. After paying this part of the affair as well, the total cost was about the same as a similar type of camera in the west."


Production of the Kiev / Contax derivatives was finally halted in 1986.

It's well documented the huge problems that later Kiev production experienced but up until the mid-seveties they were producing many more good than bad copies of an extremely complex camera (even by today's standards). As ye rightly say, the drive for quantity over quality had severe effects on the Kievs. Contax made around 5000 cameras a year,(at a price between 7-10 times the Kiev), so could afford stainless steel. Not that brass was a poor substitute - most quality cameras/lenses had many brass parts. Kiev tried tae make around 25,000. With an (almost) totally inexperienced workforce it's an achievement they made/sold any. Ah have a '73 Kiev/J8m,cost me £10, been CLA'd by an expert. It's now, as a Kiev should be, whisper quiet and purrs through its adjustments. This was probably amongst the last of the well-made Kievs.The point being, that if it was badly built, initially - no CLA or expert could have made it what it is now - ergo it was well-built initially. From '74 the real problems began - and only in the FSU could that factory have survived another 12 years.

Fed cameras were a reverse engineered copy of the original Leica camera. Named after the founder of the Soviet Secret Police, Felix Edmundovich Dzerzhinsky, the Fed I appeared in 1934 and was a copy of the Leica II 35mm rangefinder film camera, fitted with a FED f/3.5, 50mm uncoated lens. The factory used indigent children or orphaned children for the assembly labour force and fell under the direct control of the "Cheka" or secret police. Vast numbers of FED cameras were produced between 1937 and 1997. They are of "agricultural" quality, very robust and a good one will last a lifetime. Again, no formal agreement was ever entered into with Ernst Leitz A.G. and the FED was simply a reverse engeneered copy of the Leica, simplified to allow economic production quotas to be met. Apart from the similar shape of the body and layout of the controls,

the FED was simply a reverse engeneered copy of the Leica, simplified to allow economic production quotas to be met.

again, that's mostly incorrect. Apart fae 2/3 minor cosmetic differences (shape of windows etc.) The only difference between the FED and Leica is the rangefinder cam. The Leica's a better design than the FED. Otherwise, exactly the same.

Fed cameras were a reverse engineered copy of the original Leica camera

or vice versa?


a FED does not feel like, or perform like a real Leica camera.

That is, of course, an opinion. Ah believe that the FED2 is superior tae its equivalent Leica of that period and for several years afterwards.(That is, of course, an opinion, as well...) and certainly not agricultural.

Other cameras were also produced in the FSU, such as the Kiev copy of the Hasselblad and the Zenit made copy of the Pentacon 35mm SLR but generally the story is the same - poor quality designed for simple assembly to meet the production quota. Of them all, the Zenit probably has the best quality control due to the requirements of it's West German distributors. The Zenit is a very reliable camera and while it does not have the fine finish and quality feel of a Pentacon or Praktica, many were sold into the UK market when importation of more expensive cameras was restricted in the 1950's and 1960's.

That's incorrect, again. The Zenit is not a copy of a Pentacon SLR. It can be traced in a direct line, back tae the Zorki. The Zorki body was extended tae accept the longer register of SLRs and it became the Zenit, Zenit C, 3, 3M, E, B. The only thing in common was the switch tae Praktica (M42) thread. As mentioned above, Zenit produced prototype SLRs, pre-war. TOE were the UK importers for Zenit and Lubitel, amongst others. Ah'd venture that they, rather than the Germans, were instrumental in improving QC. The UK is still the place tae get a good, cheap Zenit... £5-10. So many were sold here.

Zenit...


Zenit3 + 3M...

[RustBeltRaw]

Reading a lengthy diatribe on vintage Soviet cameras copied (or not) from German designs, written on a British forum by a gent with a Scottish brogue in response to a rust belt Yank's questions is a uniquely 21st-century experience.

[Manfred M]

Of course, then there is the US built Leica IIIa clone, the Kardon.

http://www.shutterbug.com/content/ka...-american-tale

[GrahamS]

Reading a lengthy diatribe on vintage Soviet cameras copied (or not) from German designs, written on a British forum by a gent with a Scottish brogue in response to a rust belt Yank's questions is a uniquely 21st-century experience.

Hear-hear!

[Brev00]

A few years ago, I bought a Tamron 28-300 xr di if for my Nikon N80 knowing that it would work on a digital body when I made the transition one day. This decision did rest on the assumption that I would buy a Nikon dslr. Which I did when I got the Nikon D90. At the time, it was the latest and the greatest Nikon dx body available. The D80 was discontinued as I was making my decision so I went with the upgrade. My primary motivation for moving to digital was to get clear and crisp images of my daughters ice skating in poorly lit arenas.

The move to digital did improve my skating images many times over. But, of course, I eventually wanted more and better. So, I decided to get a 70-300 lens. I wanted stabilization and an af-s motor so I walked into an actual store ready to buy one. Shooting third party without vr and af-s for so long, I knew my new lens should be a genuine Nikon. But, somehow, I walked out with the new Tamron 70-300 vc following the sales clerk's suggestion. I had five days to try it out. I decided it was fine after just a few shots. I was so impressed by the performance of the lens that, as I started to use it, I got more interested in the technical and artistic aspects of photography and joined DPReview and Flickr, bought a few books, purchased Elements 9, and started shooting raw. Getting that lens I consider to be a turning point in my pursuit of this hobby. Got even better skating pictures, too, but really widened out my interests in terms of genres.

I had to have a midrange to complete my move from the superzoom. I wound up getting the Sigma 17-70 os. Again, I strongly considered the Nikon 16-85 but the Sigma was less money and had a reputation for nice bokeh. With the closeup focusing, I thought it would be good for one of my new interests: flower photography. I also considered the Tamron 28-75 but felt that I needed to go wider than 28mm after returning from a trip to Italy. I found myself shooting at 28 a lot often wanting wider with most of my shots falling in the 28-70 range.

With my interest in closeup work increasing with my 17-70, I decided to get an actual macro lens. I really only considered third party lenses here leaning toward the Tamron 90mm 2.8. I had this notion that I might shoot more portraits so I very spontaneously purchased the Sigma 70mm 2.8 macro used on Ebay. Great deal and I liked the slightly wider fl. It arrived in mint condition giving me a momentarily very positive feeling about this inconsistent website. After all the time spent on websites and in the field researching this decision, I made this move almost blindly. Very nice lens, though.

With a trip to Hawaii looming in the near future, I knew I wanted an ultrawide to fill out my kit. The process with this purchase was amazingly complicated. Let me just say, I rented the Nikon 12-24 and bought a Sigma 10-20. Neither was satisfactory. I then bought a Tokina 12-24 dx II on Ebay yet the seller sent me the original version. Just as I was deciding to buy new and local, Tokina dropped the price $100 and made my decision easier. Although I have more criticisms of this lens than any of my others (very high ca's, for instance), I get a lot of use from it and brought back many nice shots from Hawaii. It is a great lens to take with my old 28-300 on day trips when I don't want the size of the 70-300 or can't make that lens change. 12-24 is also a nice range I can keep on my D90 for long periods.

A long story but short on cost. I also have a Manfrotto 055xProb and a BeFree travel tripod.

[Clactonian]

Interesting story Larry. I too have the Nikon mount Tokina 12-24 (original copy) and have to agree about the CAs, but with current software that's not a problem. I find that on some days it rarely if ever leaves the camera being so versatile and sharp.

[tao2]

Part 2

Lenses

Prime - SLR All preset, unless stated.

Fujinon

Fujinon f1.8/55 (2 versions) non EBC and EBC. Different coatings but virtually no difference in result. Never been much of a believer in multi-coating, more marketing than substance.
Fujinon f3.5/28mm
Fujinon f2.8/100mm

Fuji lenses are all beautifully sharp and render colours superbly. Ah love Fuji film and bought a Fujica several years ago just tae use the lenses with film - plus didn't want tae butcher the lenses tae fit my DSLR.

Helios
Helios 44 - f2/58mm (2 versions) 13 aperture blades and 8 blades respectively.
Helios 44M - F2/58mm. A/M switch. Kit lens on my Zenit EM.
Helios 44-2...f2/58mm. 3 versions - KMZ, MMZ, Valdai (different factories)
Helios 44M-4...F2/58mm.

44 in Helios 44 stands for the lens series. M in Helios lenses stands for M42 (lens mount). The number, eg 2,4 5 is the optical resolution index. ie the higher the number, the higher the optical resolution.
Collecting (and using) Helios lenses becomes obsessive/compulsive. Ye buy one, use it for a while, sell it, buy another - compare - and begin again...

Industar 61 L/Z - f2.8/50mm, one of my favourite lenses and almost a fixture on my Minolta 8000i. It's not a macro but focuses as close (in my version) as 10-12"/30cm. Also has different shaped iris as the aperture opens and closes. Great lens.

Olympus Auto-S f1.8/50mm
Sicor f2.8/28mm (Oly fit)

Fujita f3.5/135mm (12 aperture blades)

Pentacon f2.8/135mm -15 aperture blades - known as the bokeh monster.
Pentacon Auto f2.8/135mm - (A/M switch) 6 aperture blades.

Rangefinder

Jupiter 8M f2/50mm
Jupiter 12 f2.8/35mm
FED И61 (Industar) f2.8/52

Zooms

Minolta AF f3.5/4.5 -35-105mm. Another favourite lens. Minolta, like Fujinon produced really sharp lenses with terrific colours and were regularly ignored by the photographic press.

Minolta AF f3.5/5.6 - 28-80mm - Cost me £10. A much maligned lens, probably snobbery due tae its polycarbonate mount and construction. No-one threw their hands up in horror when Canon introduced a plastic front element. Ah find it very, very sharp but care needs tae be taken as it can produce pale, almost pastel colours. It's a lens that takes a lot of learning - but can be rewarding.

Sicor f4.5 - 80-200mm (Olympus mount)
Sigma APO AF f4.5/5.6 75-300

[jcuknz]

Of course, then there is the US built Leica IIIa clone, the Kardon.

http://www.shutterbug.com/content/ka...-american-tale

And wasn't the Canon originally a Leica clone and Nikon a Contax clone .... or is that just folklore

I remember in the mid 1950's being given a "Leica I" [ 1C?] which was a new camera as opposed to the pre-war, or wartime, IIIB and IIIC I normally used and owned one for a time.
The Leica i did not have a rangefinder which is about as much as I remember ... though I rarely used the rangefinder as I estimated distances for focus purposes. It was only when I dumped the Leica with its 1/30 sync speed [ orgabnised with a contact brazed onto the speed dial with a pick-up mounted in the accessory shoe ] for a Topcon 35S with its compur shutter enabling me to get into syncro-sunlight. It also had a wonderful 1:1 viewfinder with parrellax correction and for one afternoon I deliberately put the camera out of focus for each shot and quickly found focus with the rangefinder as people walked towards me. It also made working with both eyes open much easier for child photography ... born immitators

But to the topic ... after having used or owned most types of cameras with digital I fell in love with the bridge camera .... Nikon5700 and frankly view with disgust the DSLR .. a neccessary evil for the profesiional I believe. Since the camera I want is not made yet I settled for a second best MFT with a medium length zoom ... I would like a version of the FZ200's constant f/2.8 for MFT but again it is not made yet so I simply have a 14-140 as the only lens ... though that shortly will be untrue because my 'courier' is bringing me a 7.5mm ultra Wide angle to play with. Of course I have several legacy lenses with adaptors for MFT but rarely get used as this is the digital age I want to work auto as much as possible
I see MFT with the 14-140 as a larger sensored bridge camera without the weight that comparable APS-C or FF cameras would be. and with the ILC advantage if I want it .... there we are ... an unrepentant maverick's choice until further notice

[jcuknz]

PS ... my principle tripod is a Slik Master which cost me NZP10 back in 1964 .... that was most of a weeks wage for me then.
No.2 is a Slik 8555 mini ..... there are others which I will not mention.

[Stagecoach]

What gear and Why !

Firstly a brief history of cameras owned and used. Zorki 5K, Zinit E, Canon AE-1, Canon A-1, Nikon D80 to the present D300. During this time a few P&Ss of which their primary purpose was for use on board ships for technical records and are safer to put in engine crankcases.

Camera

Nikon D300. This replaced the D80 purely because it had live view and I was led to believe that it would be a big bonus to my macro passion. I very soon found that with the camera on a good tripod and using live view the slightest touch on the lens to adjust focus and the image jumped around, no better off so I never use that function now.

Lenses

As listed below, and collected over the years to give me versatility but it's the 18-200mm that lives on the camera unless I'm having a macro session. The 28-105mm was a lens that I purchased due to it's 1:2 macro capability that started me in that area.

Flash

Nikon flashes with specialist macro kit as I like to do a lot of my macro work indoors.

Accessories

Numerous bits and pieces such as tripods and remotes collected specifically to assist with enhancing my hope of producing high technical quality images.


All my latest equipment was collected over a few years knowing that I was going to retire here where there are no camera shops or even photo magazines to tempt me. I have survived with this kit now for 4 years and the only additions have been an ND filter and I now have a diopter correction lens and sensor swabs on their way. It really makes you appreciate what you have and making the most of it.

So what would I add based upon what I have learnt from what I have?

a) A 60mm macro so that I can achieve 2:1 magnification using my Kenko tubes.
b) Perhaps a newer camera purely for the higher pixel count to help when cropping.

Grahame

[Ian H]

What gear and why?

The gear I use most often as I mainly take macro shots of insects is.

Nikon D700, choose this for mainly its low light capabilities but also because it retains a far amount of detail in an image when shooting at f22 and f32 which are quite common apertures for me. Did have a D800 on loan for a couple of weeks but found that shooting over f11 diffraction became a really problem and at f22 which gives me about 5mm depth of field the diffraction is so great the image is useless.

Nikkor 200mm micro f4, one of Nikons sharpest lenses and a joy to use for insects, only ever use it in manual focus.

All macro shots are taken with these on a Gitzo tripod and ball head for stability and always use a remote release of some sort.

Ian

[RustBeltRaw]

There are some pretty diverse gear setups here, and no real trend or common thread. Interesting. Further proof that gear < photographer?

[HenkB]

The stable is currently headed by the full-frame Nikon D600. There are some thoroughbred DX (crop sensor) backups, all former champs: D70, D300 and D90. Each has its use. The D70 is now serving as a 6Mp slide copier (mounted on a leftover OM-system bellows/slide copier). The D300 is my go-to studio and macro camera (mounted on a Leitz Tiltall tripod - a veritable tank). The D90 still excels as the smallest, lightest DSLR, perfect for travel. The D600 does IQ superbly and high-iso well enough to quench my thirst for a follow-on body.

Lenses for this crew, in general order of acquisition, all Nikkor unless noted.

Auto Focus
18-70 DX, kit lens with the D70. It's a workhorse, capable of fine DX captures.
70-200 f/2.8 VR1. It's been back for service twice, same issue both times - a lateral difference in focus. Optically superior but heavy, it goes to the hard jobs. When it decides to work (which is most of the time) it's superb.
105mm f/2.8D Micro. Great lens. Almost perennially mounted on the D300, quite possibly the lens I like best.
50mm f/1.4D. A bit tender with flare but very useful, nonetheless. Like a vampire, it has a marked tendency to come out in the dark.
18-200 VR1 DX, bundled with D300. Much maligned, very useful. Serviced once for the manual focus ring seizing in the cold and becoming ratchety otherwise. This, the D90 and the 50mm (just previous) photographed a European trip in 2010 (regional airlines = 15Kg luggage limits).
70-300 VR, bundled with D90. Punches way above its weight in IQ. This is one half of my two-lens everyday kit. Near focus at 300mm is ~1.5m, 4.5 ft. This serves for a lot of close-up work. Color me delighted.
24-85mm f/2.8-4D. The other lens in the everyday kit. Bought used. The bokeh needs careful handling and it tends to CA at the corners but paying attention can yield fine results. Its "macro" abilities come in very handy when the 70-300 can't be used. 24mm makes way more sense on full-frame than 1.5x crop. But, unsuspecting, I showed up at a concert in a dark church with this lens on the D90 and the organizer took one look at it and asked me to photograph. I decided right there and then that f/4 and ISO 3200 was right at the edge of my comfort zone, so, enter the
Tamron 17-50 f/2.8 (DX), non-stabilized. Very, very useful lens, with IQ to match. Not a particularly small lens nor is it as quiet as the Nikon AF-S lenses.
85mm f/1.8D. I never warmed to this lens with the crop bodies. It really belongs on full frame where it shines.
35mm f/2D. This is the little black dress of Nikon lenses. Works in most situations on most (screw-drive capable) bodies. Cameras become almost inconspicuous with this mounted.
20mm f/2.8D. For when I need to go very wide on the D600.

Manual Focus

28mm f/3.5 PC. Specialty lens. Bought used
Zuiko 50mm f/1.8. Out of my old lens bag, converted from OM to F-mount. This is the 50 I most often choose to mount when I don't need AF. Sharp, very pleasant bokeh and focuses to ~0.45m, about 18 inches.

Then there are the legacy lenses from family, both AI'd, chiefly:
45mm f/2.8 GN. MF Atypical amongst Nikkors in its reversed direction of focus (but matches the Zuiko, above). Not much larger than a lens cap. The camera looks so unthreatening, incompetent, even. Not so!
50mm f/1.4 S-Auto. From my wife's father's Nikon F. A battleship of a lens.

Anyway, that's my Nikon sandbox and, unless I find a tilt/shift lens under a mushroom somewhere, that is likely to be it for quite a while.

Among the many film bodies in storage around the house is the pack of OM-2s I assembled in the past milennium along with a bunch of lenses. Also my father-in-law's bag of OM-2 and lenses. This plethora, plus an adapter allows me to explore the newest arrival at the zoo, a m4/3 OM-D E-M5.

The E-M5 is a great little camera, accent on the little. Smaller than the original OMs, disconcertingly smaller than the DSLRs, verging on the uncomfortable (at first). Since I bought it used, I shot with it only, daily throughout the merchant's return period and got to be quite fluent with it, both with its modern autofocus lenses (20mm f1.7 Panny & 12-50 Oly) as well as legacy OM lenses. The In-body image stabilization is tunable to different focal lengths and works a treat. Menu diving is not my cup of tea but… funny how shooting for a month constantly changing lenses can teach one the shortest path through each change. This practice stuff works! If I didn't insist on using the legacy lenses, it would be a lot easier but a lot less interesting.

One lens in particular that popped out of my father-in-law's bag about which I had real doubts any use could be found (65-200 f/3.5) turns out to recommend itself not only for its constant speed and extreme reach (only my Nikkor 70-300 reaches further on a DX body) but its ability to close focus to ~1.2m, ~a scant 4 ft. (Even though I can mount the 70-300 on the E-M5, that lens' manual focus action is neither smooth nor long and slow enough to please.) The secret to this is the ability to focus through the EVF at from 5x to 14x magnification with the image stabilization engaged. This is killer stuff and allows me to be confident about such things as getting the structure of dragonfly wings in absolute focus. Being able to monitor the histogram in the EVF is also great stuff.

Otherwise I run hot and cold about the EVF and the camera's relative dearth of buttons as well as the teeny-tinyness of those that are there. My shooting is better adapted to the OVF and a reasonable complement of larger, more conveniently spaced buttons. Even so, I have declared the OM-D experiment a success and look forward to using the little fellow in regular rotation quite a bit as well as in situations that suit its strengths. Battery life aside (dismal compared to the >600 shots you can be certain of getting from the D90), it might be only a lens or two (and a couple more batteries) away from supplanting the D90 as the travel king.

Or so it seems to me.