Panasonic FZ35 with and without Teleconverter

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Paul Ciszek, Jan 25, 2010.

  1. Paul Ciszek

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    Someone here suggested that a teleconverter lens for a point-and-shoot
    would distort as much as it magnified, and one might as well just take
    the photo without the teleconverter and expand it digitally. I decided
    to test this.

    The following image shows the same subject--the moon--photographed with
    and without the Panasonic DWM-LT55 teleconverter; in the latter case,
    the raw image was stretched by a factor of 1.7 with Irfanview. No other
    alterations were performed:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/4303433104/sizes/l/in/photostream/

    Unfortunately, flickr appears to have shrunk the images somewhat.

    There is some chromatic aberration with the teleconverter, true. But the
    image without the teleconverter does not seem to be entirely without it,
    either. There can be no question, though, that more detail is visible
    with the teleconverter.

    As for the justification of using a teleconverter with a P&S instead of
    buying a DSLR: Could this degree of magnification be obtained with a
    DSLR without paying at least a thousand dollars?

    In a month I am going to attempt the same shot again, this time with
    tripod sitting on pavement instead of a wooden deck, and perhaps some
    additional weight hanging from the tripod to stablilize it further.
     
    Paul Ciszek, Jan 25, 2010
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Paul Ciszek

    SMS Guest

    Yes, well under $1000.
     
    SMS, Jan 25, 2010
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Paul Ciszek

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Trivially. Attach a SLR to a telescope at prime focus and you can get
    the equivalent of 5,000mm easily.
     
    Ray Fischer, Jan 25, 2010
    #3
  4. Now unless you are willing to hand-hold steady that telescope and deal with
    apertures of f/16 or smaller, then you're going to have to get a
    catadioptric telescope that weighs well over 250 lbs. to mount on your
    tripod or carry in your pocket. I also defy you to find *any* apochromatic
    telescope that would provide LESS CA than what his lenses display for under
    $1000.

    Are all of you dSLR Trolls this amazingly desperate and stupid to try to
    justify why you waste so much time and money?
     
    Outing Trolls is FUN!, Jan 25, 2010
    #4
  5. Outing Trolls is FUN!, Jan 25, 2010
    #5
  6. But you already did post something. It was a good laugh. THANKS!
     
    Outing Trolls is FUN!, Jan 25, 2010
    #6
  7. Paul Ciszek

    SMS Guest

    Actually there are at least three ways I thought of to get better
    results with D-SLR gear for under $1000. This sort of thing requires an
    understanding of the big difference in sensors between P&S cameras and
    D-SLRs, as well as the equipment available for D-SLRs.

    Also note that while it's very easy to get better results for sub-$1000
    than a tele-converter equipped P&S that's not because the sub-$1000
    set-up using a D-SLR is so good, it's because the bar has been set so
    low to begin with.

    Back when D-SLRs were too expensive for the non-professional to afford
    there were lots of people using tele-converters on P&S cameras (though I
    hesitate to even call them tele-converters, they were really something
    else). They were always kludgey, with sub-par optical quality and had
    other limitations as well, but it's what you did if you wanted longer
    telephoto range without spending a lot of money.

    The problem here is that our favorite troll has never had the
    opportunity to use both a D-SLR and a P&S for extreme telephoto range
    and compare the differences, nor is he aware of the equipment available
    for D-SLRs to achieve extreme telephoto range at low cost.
     
    SMS, Jan 25, 2010
    #7
  8. Paul Ciszek

    Ray Fischer Guest

    You sure are stupid.

    That's why there are tripods, asshole troll.
     
    Ray Fischer, Jan 26, 2010
    #8
  9. Paul Ciszek

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    Those are nice. But what this guy was able to do with a P&S plus
    teleconverter lens makes me weep with envy:

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/tedsla/4289424632/sizes/o/

    By comparison, my current best is this one:

    http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2694/4305983982_50e5897df0_o.jpg
     
    Paul Ciszek, Jan 26, 2010
    #9
  10. Paul Ciszek

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Ray Fischer, Jan 26, 2010
    #10
  11. Paul Ciszek

    Bhogi Guest

    Yes it can be done:
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/4306458924/sizes/o/

    100% detail
    http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/4305716287/sizes/o/

    I used a Rubinar 1000 lens which cost me less than $400 new, I don't
    know how much it costs now.
     
    Bhogi, Jan 26, 2010
    #11
  12. Paul Ciszek

    Bhogi Guest

    I checked the price where I bought mine 5 year ago for $375 I think:
    http://www.rugift.com/photocameras/rubinar_1000_lens.htm

    $906 is a ridiculous price, it's worth half that.
    Optically it's good, but mechanically it's a lemon.
     
    Bhogi, Jan 26, 2010
    #12
  13. Paul Ciszek

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    Paul Ciszek, Jan 26, 2010
    #13
  14. Paul Ciszek

    LOL! Guest

    BTW: Did you think nobody would easily discover that you removed all color
    information from your DSLR's less-resolution-than-a-P&S-camera image so
    that none of your "superior" lens' chromatic aberrations would show up?

    LOL!!!!!

    More than a laugh per post on this DSLR-Trolls offerings.

    LOL!
     
    LOL!, Jan 26, 2010
    #14
  15. What's really hilarious is the self-inflated fool thinking you have to
    go monochrome to conceal the chromatic aberration from a catadioptric
    reflex lens!
     
    Chris Malcolm, Jan 27, 2010
    #15
  16. [twice the usually inane stuff & lies]
    It is slime. Calling it a troll is denigrating to all trolls,
    as they can read (even if they choose not to) and do exhibit
    fascinating, at times very clever behaviour. The slime cannot
    learn to read, it's a brainless attack terrier with pre-made
    text blocks.
    It doesn't matter what you say. It triggers on specific words
    and phrases. It thrives on getting answers.
    It has been run circles around for years, now we just ignore
    the slime. Just killfile the fake names (it's intelligence only
    manages a dozen or two fakes) and you'll be fine.

    Just remember, it's too brainless to be baited.

    -Wolfgang
     
    Wolfgang Weisselberg, Jan 28, 2010
    #16
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.