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: Paul Ciszek on 17 Jan 2010 13:14 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. >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). I have searced around. What is the appropraite adapter for putting a Nikon TC-E15ED onto a Lumix FZ35? Nikon sells adapters for putting the Nikon TC-E15ED on their cameras--and there are a different adapters for different models. Panasonic sells adapters for putting their teleconverter on their cameras--again, different adapters for different models. So far, no site I have seen mentions which adapter(s) are needed to consumate the star-crossed union of a Lumix FZ35 and Nikon TC-E15ED. Note that these adapters are not just sizing rings, they have length as well. -- Please reply to: | "If more of us valued food and cheer and song pciszek at panix dot com | above hoarded gold, it would be a merrier world." Autoreply is disabled | --Thorin Oakenshield
From: Bruce on 17 Jan 2010 14:11 On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 13:00:09 -0500, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: > >Some may say a pinhole image is junk. Many others agree it can very well be >art. Thank you for establishing just how low your standards are. ;-)
From: Peter on 17 Jan 2010 17:20 "Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:o6o6l55qhgavrjprtfaovsv762635v45e1(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 13:00:09 -0500, "Peter" > <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >> >>Some may say a pinhole image is junk. Many others agree it can very well >>be >>art. > > > Thank you for establishing just how low your standards are. ;-) > Are you claiming that one cannot produce art with a pinhole? -- Peter
From: Bruce on 17 Jan 2010 17:41 On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 17:20:07 -0500, "Peter" <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >"Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >news:o6o6l55qhgavrjprtfaovsv762635v45e1(a)4ax.com... >> On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 13:00:09 -0500, "Peter" >> <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >>> >>>Some may say a pinhole image is junk. Many others agree it can very well >>>be >>>art. >> >> >> Thank you for establishing just how low your standards are. ;-) >> > > >Are you claiming that one cannot produce art with a pinhole? I would never claim that I could produce art with any kind of camera. You can claim whatever you want to.
From: Peter on 17 Jan 2010 17:54
"Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message news:ke47l5dl60cqkj60tk9i4onb435e8ujh4f(a)4ax.com... > On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 17:20:07 -0500, "Peter" > <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: > >>"Bruce" <docnews2011(a)gmail.com> wrote in message >>news:o6o6l55qhgavrjprtfaovsv762635v45e1(a)4ax.com... >>> On Sun, 17 Jan 2010 13:00:09 -0500, "Peter" >>> <peternew(a)nospamoptonline.net> wrote: >>>> >>>>Some may say a pinhole image is junk. Many others agree it can very well >>>>be >>>>art. >>> >>> >>> Thank you for establishing just how low your standards are. ;-) >>> >> >> >>Are you claiming that one cannot produce art with a pinhole? > > > I would never claim that I could produce art with any kind of camera. > You can claim whatever you want to. > Please answer the question. -- Peter |