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 18 Jan 2010 11:33 I have that trollouter guy killfiled, but he is right about one thing: See how this has devolved into a pissing match? Meanwhile, my question about which adapter would properly join the Nikon teleconverter to the Lumix FZ35 goes unanswered, so I guess I'll just have to stick with the Panasonic teleconverter. BTW, as for the polarizer question, there is a sub-optimal solution: Since the lens of the camera is zooming back and forth within the connecting barrel and is not attached to anything, I can still put a rotatable polarizer on it. (Yes, there is enough clearance; I checked.) It means figuring out the right orientation of the polarizer (which, for sky dimming, is not always going to be the same) before putting the teleconverter on, but oh well. -- Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice." Autoreply is disabled |
From: Paul Ciszek on 18 Jan 2010 11:37 In article <voe5l558lui08ke822843d9q1jigfevgpo(a)4ax.com>, Outing Trolls is FUN! <otif(a)trollouters.org> wrote: > >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. And yet you do not seem to have any usefull suggestions in reply to my original questions, any more than they did. So much for "real-life photography experience" vs. "role-playing schtick". -- Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice." Autoreply is disabled |
From: Paul Ciszek on 18 Jan 2010 11:41 In article <hj22os$goq$2(a)reader1.panix.com>, Paul Ciszek <nospam(a)nospam.com> wrote: > >In article <voe5l558lui08ke822843d9q1jigfevgpo(a)4ax.com>, >Outing Trolls is FUN! <otif(a)trollouters.org> wrote: >> >>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. > >And yet you do not seem to have any usefull suggestions in reply to my >original questions, any more than they did. So much for "real-life >photography experience" vs. "role-playing schtick". Oops, I appologize to those who did suggest ways of attaching a polarizer. The only person I intended to insult was trollouter. -- Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice." Autoreply is disabled |
From: me on 18 Jan 2010 14:50 On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:33:38 +0000 (UTC), nospam(a)nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote: >I have that trollouter guy killfiled, but he is right about one >thing: See how this has devolved into a pissing match? Meanwhile, >my question about which adapter would properly join the Nikon >teleconverter to the Lumix FZ35 goes unanswered, so I guess I'll >just have to stick with the Panasonic teleconverter. You might see if some of the Nextphoto.net adapters might be useful. I used one on their filter adapters for my old Nikon CP-5700.
From: Outing Trolls is FUN! on 18 Jan 2010 18:55
On Mon, 18 Jan 2010 16:37:48 +0000 (UTC), nospam(a)nospam.com (Paul Ciszek) wrote: > >In article <voe5l558lui08ke822843d9q1jigfevgpo(a)4ax.com>, >Outing Trolls is FUN! <otif(a)trollouters.org> wrote: >> >>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. > >And yet you do not seem to have any usefull suggestions in reply to my >original questions, any more than they did. So much for "real-life >photography experience" vs. "role-playing schtick". You're not too bright, are you. But then that's pretty obvious when you can't even figure out such a simple solution on your own even before you posted here. > >Get a good quality 55mm polarizer with a strong filter-ring mount. You >mount the polarizer between teleconverter and camera. Be sure to get a >polarizer that can hold up to the weight of the lens hanging off of it and >that it won't pull the polarizer apart from the stress. A rotating-ring >filter mount is not as sturdy as a solid one-piece construction >filter-ring. Or just be very astute to always support the lens properly >when you are using a polarizer in this manner. > >There's a reason that teleconverters for P&S cameras are made so large in >aperture. At the widest aperture setting of the camera it will not diminish >the camera's own f/ratio one bit no matter what zoom setting you use. The >same cannot be said of teleconverters which go between lens and dSLR >cameras, which halve the effective aperture. Making them all but useless >except on a sturdy tripod. > > |