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: SMS on 18 Jan 2010 19:42 Paul Ciszek wrote: > 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? No, it isn't really documented. You have to search for it. But it's been common practice to use tele-converters and wide-angle converters that are different brands than the one the camera manufacturer offers for its own cameras. The reasons are many. There's optical quality, there's threading or lack there-of, and there's the trade-offs in the adapter since some adapters block sensors or flashes in the camera body and some don't. When I bought a wide-angle converter for my old Canon G2 I ended up with an adapter from Lensmate and the converter from Olympus because there were so many reports of the limitations of the Canon solution. It worked as well as such a kludge could be expected to work, but it took what was an excellent point and shoot camera and turned into rather a mediocre one. > 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? It may be, but remember what you're really getting with the 18x zoom, you're essentially doing a digital zoom because of the tiny sensor in the P&S. On a D-SLR you can always crop since the original image is so much higher quality to begin with. Believe me, you're not the first person that's tried to do what you're doing with these converter lenses. You do get the extra zoom, but at a huge penalty in quality. There's just no way around it.
From: SMS on 18 Jan 2010 20:54 Paul Ciszek wrote: > 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". He is the unintended consequence of our 1st amendment.
From: Paul Ciszek on 18 Jan 2010 23:19 In article <4pe9l5hou6dj3edollmuivhshaql6f2kct(a)4ax.com>, me <me(a)mine.net> wrote: >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. It looks like they all say "For use with filters only! Do not use with accessory lenses." Thanks, though. -- 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 23:37 In article <4b54ffcd$0$1647$742ec2ed(a)news.sonic.net>, SMS <scharf.steven(a)geemail.com> wrote: > >Believe me, you're not the first person that's tried to do what you're >doing with these converter lenses. You do get the extra zoom, but at a >huge penalty in quality. There's just no way around it. When I really know what I am doing, I may graduate to an SLR. I never did very well with a borrowed film SLR; I was able to take better pictures with my pathetic little Olympus digital camera (I don't know the model offhand). The Lumix is much, much better than that Olympus and in a price range such that I was able to get one for Christmas. The telephoto capability cost only a couple hundred more. I tested the Lumix at maximum zoom with the teleconverter, and the pictures seemed crisp enough when viewed 1:1 on a computer monitor. It should take me a little while to become disappointed with the what Lumix can do. I hope. -- Please reply to: | "Any sufficiently advanced incompetence is pciszek at panix dot com | indistinguishable from malice." Autoreply is disabled |
From: SMS on 18 Jan 2010 23:53
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. Sorry. What you need is the Panasonic DMW-LA3 (which gives you 55mm threading) and the 55-50mm step-down ring from Pemaraal.com. The Nikon TC-E15ED is 50mm on the back side, and threaded for 58mm filters. Note that the TC-E15ED is no longer being manufactured so it's hard to find and expensive. Back when D-SLRs were too expensive for the non-professional to afford there were loads of these types and converters, along with lens tubes and adapters being manufactured for point and shoot cameras. 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 or wider wide-angle. Ironically, now you have to pay a lot more money to buy these kludges because they're out of production. With Canon and Nikon you had after-market tubes because their point and shoot cameras were sold in such high volumes, and you could find tubes that didn't require an additional step-up or step-down ring, but with less popular cameras, like Panasonics, no one would do after-market tubes (at least not that I'm aware of). I'm not saying that you should get the TC-E15ED, just that it's a solution that allows you to use filters and polarizers, and is likely no worse than the all-Panasonic solution. Personally I'd stop spending money on this, and start building your D-SLR ecosystem. |