[...] What you do with your pictures makes a lot of difference (or it should) on what camera you choose to shoot with. If all you do with your pictures is post them on the internet, a D800 vs a D700 or D300 is a waste of money, in my opinion.
[...] which would give you better final image sharpness? Shooting a subject at 1:1 with a 105mm Micro-nikkor combined with Nikon's 2x tele-converter, which effectively gives you 2x life-size. Or shooting the same subject at 1:1 with the Micro-nikkor alone and blowing it up to the same 200% or 2x life-size with Photoshop [...] ?
[...] I am particularly doubtful about wet diopters which have a layer of water between them and the housing with the prime lens. I don't feel that the optical alignment between these flip up and flip down diopters is very good and think that they would be a great first test subject for shooting with and without pictures and then using Photoshop to blow up the lens only shot to the same magnification as the lens plus wet diopter. And then comparing both images side-by-side. Because I am leery of them, I don't own a wet diopter to do the test on. [...]
IMHO too, it values for everything in the informatics world: there's no sense to get (and pay!) for something that you don't really need or will definnetelly not use in the next, say, 18 upcoming months.
Your purposed test TC use vs pos on PS: I got curious about it because I own the 20-TCIII, besides the 14-TCII, so please keep me posted if you ever get to any conclusion.
dry/wet diopters tests: I'm researching about it as well and I have never used none of them, so it would be cool if you let me know too whenever you have some information about the comparison you're trying to establish.
That is strange, because it is a fast to very fast and accurate focus lens. It is a 2.8 HSM lens. Maybe what you read was about sigma´s 105mm which a slow focuser...
I read it from more than one person here: http://wetpixel.com/...showtopic=50681