Anyone here use a Panasonic DMW-LT55 Teleconverter?
in [Digital Cameras]
|
Prev: American Third Position Political Party
Next: |GG| Re: The detached observer, or semi-bad day in the mountains
From: Peter on 16 Jan 2010 21:10 "Paul Ciszek" <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote in message news:hitmm4$l3e$1(a)reader1.panix.com... > > In article <4b5259c1$0$1618$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, > SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: >>Paul Ciszek wrote: >>> I got a DMW-LT55 Teleconverter (and the LA3 adapter) for my Lumix >>> FZ35. The lens of the LT55 is freaking humongous (much, much larger >>> than 55mm) and has no threads that I can see. Yet a polarizer is >>> still going to be needed for some landscape shots. What are my >>> options? >> >>You should get the Nikon TC-E15ED and the appropriate adapter instead. > > Is this sort of stuff documented somewhere? For example, even with > the Panasonic teleconverter, the adapter needed depends on the model > of the camera, and the FZ35 isn't listed in a lot of places because > it's new. The Panasonic manual tells me which Panasonic converter > and adapter works with the FZ35; it sure ain't gonna tell me which > Nikon parts to use. Or is the Nikon converter made to match the > Panasonic camera? > >>This is what many Panasonic owners do. The Nikon adapter is threaded for >>filters. It's only 1.5x rather than the LT55 which is 1.7x. There's also >>a Nikon TC-E17ED but these are very expensive (used). >> >>You do realize of course that you're spending all this money on >>teleconverters and adapters, essentially trying to duplicate the >>functionality of a D-SLR. Been there, done that. You'll never achieve >>anywhere close to the quality of a D-SLR with these converters and >>adapters, and by the time you're done you'll be carrying around just as >>much weight. Time to cut your losses and get a D-SLR. > > I may have misunderstood this, but I thought that in order to acheive > a telephoto capability comparable to my 18x zoom plus the teleconverter > on an SLR, I would have to get a lens the size of a fireplace log, > costing thousands of dollars. Is that not the case? > Depends on the quality you need/are looking for. Nikon makes a perfectly acceptable 70-300 zoom, without bells and whistles: http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-70-300mm-4-5-6G-Nikkor-Worldwide/dp/B00008B0Z6. I know someone who has used this lens for years and she sells her photos for between $50 and $750. -- Peter
From: Outing Trolls is FUN! on 17 Jan 2010 02:48 On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 00:47:01 +0000 (UTC), nospam(a)nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote: > >In article <4b5259c1$0$1618$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, >SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: >>Paul Ciszek wrote: >>> I got a DMW-LT55 Teleconverter (and the LA3 adapter) for my Lumix >>> FZ35. The lens of the LT55 is freaking humongous (much, much larger >>> than 55mm) and has no threads that I can see. Yet a polarizer is >>> still going to be needed for some landscape shots. What are my >>> options? >> >>You should get the Nikon TC-E15ED and the appropriate adapter instead. > >Is this sort of stuff documented somewhere? For example, even with >the Panasonic teleconverter, the adapter needed depends on the model >of the camera, and the FZ35 isn't listed in a lot of places because >it's new. The Panasonic manual tells me which Panasonic converter >and adapter works with the FZ35; it sure ain't gonna tell me which >Nikon parts to use. Or is the Nikon converter made to match the >Panasonic camera? > >>This is what many Panasonic owners do. The Nikon adapter is threaded for >>filters. It's only 1.5x rather than the LT55 which is 1.7x. There's also >>a Nikon TC-E17ED but these are very expensive (used). >> >>You do realize of course that you're spending all this money on >>teleconverters and adapters, essentially trying to duplicate the >>functionality of a D-SLR. Been there, done that. You'll never achieve >>anywhere close to the quality of a D-SLR with these converters and >>adapters, and by the time you're done you'll be carrying around just as >>much weight. Time to cut your losses and get a D-SLR. > >I may have misunderstood this, but I thought that in order to acheive >a telephoto capability comparable to my 18x zoom plus the teleconverter >on an SLR, I would have to get a lens the size of a fireplace log, >costing thousands of dollars. Is that not the case? Let me be the first to apologize for all the dSLR-Trolls in these newsgroups. First of all, not one of them even owns a camera. They only know of their existence from ads, reviews, and manuals that they download off the net. Second, their experience with cameras is just as delusional. They love to live vicariously through others, trying to convince others to buy the cameras they wish they could have, never realizing that those "dream cameras" are not what everyone makes them out to be. They also always try to convince everyone to post photos so they have something to look at, they are that desperate for any glimpse of the world beyond their basement-bedroom walls. They know not of what they speak when it comes to real-world situations and real cameras. They use these newsgroups like some role-play adventure game. They think they win if they can convince someone they have ever held a real camera in their lives. Reading their posts and advice, it becomes quickly obvious that that has never been the case. And yes, you are correct about lenses and cameras. Many many superzoom and other P&S cameras today easily beat the optics and image quality from many dSLRs and any of their available lenses. The P&S lenses consistently win in CA performance, field-flatness, and especially in aperture at long focal lengths. So much so that they can't even be made at those apertures and focal lengths for dSLRs unless you consider an 18" dia. catadioptric telescope weighing in at over 250 lbs to reach the equivalent focal-lengths and apertures available to a super-zoom P&S camera. These role-playing dSLR-Trolls just don't want to admit any of this. Because then all those manuals they downloaded, all those ads and reviews that they studied for years to play their role-play pretend-photographer game was all for naught. It's all very sad. You just have to know more than they do from real-life photography experience to see through their role-playing schtick.
From: Bruce on 17 Jan 2010 05:31 On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 21:10:28 -0500, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: > >Depends on the quality you need/are looking for. Nikon makes a perfectly >acceptable 70-300 zoom, without bells and whistles: >http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-70-300mm-4-5-6G-Nikkor-Worldwide/dp/B00008B0Z6. There's obviously a very wide variation in what different people would find "acceptable". The AF Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6G is one of Nikon's worst ever telephoto zooms. with its only redeeming feature being the very low price. You get what you pay for, and this is a junk lens at a junk price. >I know someone who has used this lens for years and she sells her photos for >between $50 and $750. I bet her other camera is a Lomo. ;-)
From: Peter on 17 Jan 2010 11:50 "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:4hp5l5dh634dmkqfqf3l9fnh0a6geen619(a)4ax.com... > On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 21:10:28 -0500, "Peter" > <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >> >>Depends on the quality you need/are looking for. Nikon makes a perfectly >>acceptable 70-300 zoom, without bells and whistles: >>http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-70-300mm-4-5-6G-Nikkor-Worldwide/dp/B00008B0Z6. > > > There's obviously a very wide variation in what different people would > find "acceptable". > > The AF Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6G is one of Nikon's worst ever telephoto > zooms. with its only redeeming feature being the very low price. You > get what you pay for, and this is a junk lens at a junk price. I woder if you have ever used that lens. Optically at f8-f11 the lens is nice and crisp. It is not a professional lens tha twill stand up to abuse. > > >>I know someone who has used this lens for years and she sells her photos >>for >>between $50 and $750. > > > I bet her other camera is a Lomo. ;-) > D70 is her only camera. I repeat. Have you ever used this lens? If so for what? If not, don't believe all the nit picking reviews. -- Peter
From: Bruce on 17 Jan 2010 12:27
On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 11:50:51 -0500, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >"Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >news:4hp5l5dh634dmkqfqf3l9fnh0a6geen619(a)4ax.com... >> On Sat, 16 Jan 2010 21:10:28 -0500, "Peter" >> <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >>> >>>Depends on the quality you need/are looking for. Nikon makes a perfectly >>>acceptable 70-300 zoom, without bells and whistles: >>>http://www.amazon.com/Nikon-70-300mm-4-5-6G-Nikkor-Worldwide/dp/B00008B0Z6. >> >> >> There's obviously a very wide variation in what different people would >> find "acceptable". >> >> The AF Nikkor 70-300mm f/4-5.6G is one of Nikon's worst ever telephoto >> zooms. with its only redeeming feature being the very low price. You >> get what you pay for, and this is a junk lens at a junk price. > >I woder if you have ever used that lens. I have not only used it, but had it bench tested for a magazine review. We couldn't believe how bad it was, and obtained another sample. That was, if anything, even worse. It's a pile of junk. >Optically at f8-f11 the lens is nice and crisp. Even the worst lenses can produce reasonably sharp images at f/8 or f/11. Even some of the horrors that Cosina have produced - among the worst lenses ever made for 35mm SLRs - are almost acceptable at those apertures. The problems start when you use the lens at wider apertures. Wide open, the lens is desperately bad. At focal lengths over 200mm it is unusable. Unusable, unless of course you have extremely low standards, as so many amateur photographers do. >It is not a professional lens that will stand up to abuse. It isn't even a competent lens. It is truly dire. Without doubt, one of the worst lenses ever to wear a Nikon badge. >>>I know someone who has used this lens for years and she sells her photos >>>for >>>between $50 and $750. >> >> >> I bet her other camera is a Lomo. ;-) >> > > >D70 is her only camera. The D70's 6 MP sensor is hardly going to test a lens, is it? She really would get better results with a Lomo. >I repeat. Have you ever used this lens? If so for what? If not, don't >believe all the nit picking reviews. Why would I not believe them? I wrote one of them. Other reviewers seem to agree that this is a very poor lens, although their reviews are laced with varying degrees of politeness. I say it's junk, but it's obviously more than good enough for you - and your "professional" friend with her 6 MP DSLR. ROTFL!! One thing that never ceases to surprise me is just how low some people's standards are. |