... from a current Nikon-sponsored competition
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/pictureg...-of-nature.html

very cool. i like the first two the best.

Peter,
Nippon Kogaku has always specialized in what they like to call "micro" photography. Indeed, before they produced the Nikon camera they manufactured microscopes and military/industrial optics.

Their involvement in high resolution macro phototography was a result of microfilming documents in the years after the Pacific War. Japanese characters require higher resolving power due to their complexity.

here is an interesting article about the origins of their micro lenses. I own the legendary 55mm/f3.5 Micro Nikkor in F mount. It might be the sharpest lens that Nikon ever made for small format photography. The optical formula was compromised in later designs to include better resolving power at infinity focus.

I've had a lot of fun shooting macro over the years. Macro shots have plenty of "wow", because we're not used to seeing things up close. Plus, I can have a photo safari in a very limited area-I've spent hours in the back yard, goofing off with camera and tripod.

Dan

Dan - how did the east fare against the west? I know that Minox cameras were regarded so good that the British used them as well as the Germans. I used to have one of their 35mm cameras and it could produce absolutely fantastic images, so I can believe that their spy cameras were also very good. Wonderful lenses. I'd still have it if I hadn't been relieved of it by a mugger in Johannesburg!

Peter

Dan - just read the article. Fascinating. For some reason it brings a question to my mind - clearly Nikon were photography pioneers, but does Canon have a similar history? I know (believe) they're a much bigger company than Nikon, quite an industrial conglomerate though (again, I believe) mainly in the imaging business, but do they have their routes in pioneering development work or in commercial exploitation (what I call "me too")?

It happens that when I bought into a digital SLR last year I went for a Canon because at the time they had the best camera for low available light work. If I were starting now I'd be likely to go for a Nikon D700. These two companies leap-frog each other, though they do seem to me to have a different development ethos. I'd say the current Nikon range is of better rounded cameras than the Canon range - Canon have lots of cameras with very high mp ratings, whereas Nikon seem for the time being to have stopped at quite a modest level. I wonder what the truth behind this is.

I've recently been experimenting with my 5D, and took a very acceptable portrait at ISO 12800. Not bad for a camera first released 3 1/2 years ago, in a market where a few months is a long time. Makes me glad I bought it - I had been concerned at the very high ISO levels the best Nikon cameras are said (by Nikon) to be able to operate at, compared with the greatly lower levels declared by Canon. But I suspect in reality there isn't a lot to choose between them, and it's the marketing people who muddy the waters.