More Panasonic P&S perfection

On Nov 15, 12:52 am, SMS $B;[h\J8(B* $B2F(B <scharf.ste....RemoveThis@geemail.com> wrote:
> >http://www.douglasjames.com.au/more-panasonic.htm
>
> No such site.

Same here now - worked yesterday - maybe the op hasn't paid his
bills....
 >> Stay informed about: More Panasonic P&S perfection 

On Nov 15, 8:35 am, -hh <recscuba_goo... DeleteThis @huntzinger.com> wrote:
> Your 'nausea' has nothing to do with dSLRs or P&S: its your pathetic
> self-worth that's causing you to "act up" because its the only way
> that anyone will talk to you. The way to punish you is to ignore
> you.

Ever notice that the number of Rita's posts decrease as the number of
posts from the P&S troll increases?

I guess there is just so much free time in Rita's day.
 >> Stay informed about: More Panasonic P&S perfection 

Bob Williams wrote:
> agro D-Mac wrote:
>> The Panasonic FZ50 alone is an excellent camera. Couple it to a Metz
>> flashgun and you really have just about as good a combination as most
>> people will ever need. Total cost? Under $700 Images like this can be
>> taken by nearly anyone with a little patience and experimentation with
>> such an outfit.
>> http://www.douglasjames.com.au/more-panasonic.htm
>>
>> Douglas
>>
> Nice shot of a classically beautiful subject.
> Macro photography is where P/S cameras excel.
> Almost any P/S can get 1:1 Macro shots straight away.
You do know what "1:1 Macro" is don't you? 1:1 macro doesn't
mean "the lens is really close to the subject", and Doug's
photo isn't remotely close to 1:1.

Classically, 1:1 macro means that the image cast on the
recording medium is the same size as the subject. For true
1:1 on a P&S then, that would mean a subject only a few mm
in size would fill the frame. Nothing comes remotely close
to this type of magnification, but digital usually gets
compared to 35mm film. So for the purposes of macro, lets
assume that 1:1 macro means "the equivalent of 1:1 on 35mm
film", or a subject size of 36x24mm fills the frame completely.

Not many P&S come anything close to 35mm equiv 1:1, and if
they do it is severely limited. If you want to see how close
a given camera is to 1:1 take the closest shot you can of a
ruler - if the width is 36mm and the height is 24mm (or
similar, depending on aspect ratio), then you have the
equivalent of 1:1 macro on 35mm film.

For example, the Canon S2IS->S5IS series have a super-macro
mode, which makes them one of the few cameras which will
actually deliver better than 35mm 1:1 macro. To get it
though, the subject has to be touching the lens, in which
case you have a frame width of just under 30mm. Obviously
the subject touching the lens is hopeless unless it is a
semi-transparent object that is backlit. Move the subject
back a mere 2cm so that you can at least get some light on
the subject, and the frame width falls to around 50mm.
Bear in mind also that the super-macro mode works only at
maximum wide angle, therefore you get distortions, and no
ability to control selective DOF blur.

This series also has a standard macro option - In standard
macro, at wideangle the lens is 8cm from the subject with a
frame width of 110mm or 1:3 macro. With the maximum amount
of zoom allowable in macro mode (about 3x) the working
distance is increased to 14cm from the front lens, and the
frame size is 90mm or 1:2.5 macro. This standard macro mode
is more usable than super-macro, because the greater working
distances mean less lighting issues (camera doesn't shade
the subject, enough room to get even artificial lighting if
necessary), but we are a long way off 1:1 macro.
> Most DSLRs cannot get a 1:1 macro without a separate macro lens or some
> other auxiliary equipment.
The ability of an SLR is totally dependent on the lens that
is fitted to it - that is one of the key strengths of SLR.
If you want a general purpose, 10X zoom, all-in-one lens
just like you'd get on a P&S, you can buy it. You can also
buy a flat-field, fast aperture, telephoto prime macro lens
if you wish. If photographing ant's eyes is your thing, you
can even buy micro lenses that deliver 5x magnification. The
lens you use on a DSLR is a compromise between versatility,
size, weight, performance, price, and most systems have
enough lens choice that it is up to the buyer to decide
which compromises he will make. With a P&S, the compromise
choices have been made in the factory.

Just for the record though, the 18-55 kit lens that came
with my K10D (which is NOT a macro lens) has a minimum focus
distance of 250mm (measured from the image plane, not the
front of the lens). At this distance the front element is
about 10cm from the subject, and frame width is 60mm - which
is equivalent to a 1:1.6 macro on 35mm. It does this at 55mm
focal length so I get minimal distortion, and with a decent
gap between the camera and the subject I can use additional
lighting if necessary, or if relying on natural lighting I
don't have to worry so much about the camera shading the
subject. To get the equivalent magnification from the S2IS,
I would need to be about 25mm from the subject, and would be
getting wide-angle distortions, plus having all sorts of
problems getting even lighting on the subject.
> Admittedly, with the Macro lens, a DSLR will probably outperform "most"
> P/S cameras but it is a hassle, an added expense and does expose the
> DSLR sensor to potentially troublesome dust particles.
> Let the flames begin...
> Bob Williams
 >> Stay informed about: More Panasonic P&S perfection 

On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 23:32:10 -0000, "Deep Reset" <DeepReset RemoveThis @hotmail.com> wrote:

>
>I don't want to fan any flames here, but I'm genuinely interested in the
>sort of working distances that P&S cameras are capable of when shooting,
>say, 1:1 macro.
>And I mean 1:1, so a subject exactly as wide/tall as the sensor on the
>camera fills the frame.
>My experience of P&S macro is that true macro is virtually impossible to
>light because the subject is too close to the front element, but trying to
>remain open-minded, I'm happy to be re-educated.
>
>Deep.
>

I've never bothered to check because it's never been a problem. Since all my
macro-photography is done hand-held using available light I've never needed to
do studio setup tests for artificial subjects. But since you asked ... here's
some quick results using a machinist's rule to focus on (to define FOV) and to
get a rough approximation for the distance.

Rough measures from the front-most element:

On a 2/3" P&S sensor (8.8mm width) I get about 60mm working distance for 1:1
macro ratio. An 8.8mm wide subject filling the 8.8mm wide sensor. Using just one
of many lens configurations.

On a 1/2.5" P&S sensor (5.76mm width) I get about 50mm working distance. Again,
with just one of many possible lens configurations.

If I want more working distance then I step it up into tele-macro modes using
other lens configurations. The above tests done with the most simple 1:1 setup.

Since you are adding lenses to the front you are automatically moving yourself
and camera further from the subject, allowing even more available light to reach
the subject. Using any available light at those distances with these lens
configurations is easy. While also affording f/stops, DOFs, and shutter-speeds
fast enough for even the most erratically moving insects on a dimly lit forest
floor. It's why I've never been concerned. People who have never used any
high-quality P&S cameras for their macro-photography and only have a DSLR with
their limited, outrageously-overpriced, specialty lenses as their point of
reference don't even have a clue. If they even have that much for a reference,
that is. Most of them that post here only have web-pages from others as their
only photography experience. It shows all too clear in their misinformed
trolling advice.
 >> Stay informed about: More Panasonic P&S perfection 

"Deep Reset" <DeepReset.TakeThisOut@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:PZCdnbmFMvZUGKbanZ2dnUVZ8radnZ2d@bt.com...
>
> I don't want to fan any flames here, but I'm genuinely interested in the
> sort of working distances that P&S cameras are capable of when shooting,
> say, 1:1 macro.
> And I mean 1:1, so a subject exactly as wide/tall as the sensor on the
> camera fills the frame.
> My experience of P&S macro is that true macro is virtually impossible to
> light because the subject is too close to the front element, but trying to
> remain open-minded, I'm happy to be re-educated.
>
> Deep.
>
>

I have a 70 - 200 F/2.8 lens I use on my DSLR (oh yes, I use them a lot!)
and using a ring between the lens and the body allows me to use the 200mm
end and come close to getting 1.1. I've never measured it but I may be
exceeding that magnification. It allows for a more comfortable distance but
also has the downside of the slightest movement is exaggerated too.

I have little or no use for 1:1 macro with the FZ50s but I did buy a #2
close up Hoya "filter" element for it some time back and it's results were
acceptable but nothing I'd use for big prints. The issue with the FZ and
macro is that the "macro" switch only works at relatively wide angle. The
thought of using the 340mm end of the lens in macro mode, just doesn't
happen. I'm afraid where very sharp, clear 1:1 macro is concerend, there
isn't much else but a DSLR that is affordable.

Canon make a nice add on lens that gives macro capabilities to some of the
lenses. It works on any camera with the right filter thread. Not cheap but
does a good job.

Douglas
 >> Stay informed about: More Panasonic P&S perfection 

"-hh" <recscuba_google.TakeThisOut@huntzinger.com> wrote in message
news:1195083433.208931.15130@v2g2000hsf.googlegroups.com...
> Recurring sockpuppet randy hayworth <nos....TakeThisOut@noaddress.org> wrote:
SNIP
> > You can keep your DSLR.
SNIP
> > I have found zero benefits in owning one and hundreds
> > of reasons to never want one ever again.
>
> Yes, we know already.
>
> We also have found zero benefits to listening to your repetitions of
> your 'hundreds of reasons' for why you have the preferences that you
> do.
>

Maybe the real reason is that he does not know how to use any manual
controls on a camera!

Gerrit
 >> Stay informed about: More Panasonic P&S perfection 

"gerrit" <gthart RemoveThis @sad.au> wrote in message
news:473bab56$0$10711$5a62ac22@per-qv1-newsreader-01.iinet.net.au...

snip

>
> Maybe the real reason is that he does not know how to use any manual
> controls on a camera!
>
> Gerrit
>
>

That's always been my suspicion.
 >> Stay informed about: More Panasonic P&S perfection 

In rec.photo.digital PixelPix <mail.DeleteThis@pixelpix.com.au> wrote:

> The ability to create shallow DOF is for many, one of the most
> attractive features of the DSLR. For me, the steroidal DOF of P&S is
> OK for happy snapping, but a real PITA when trying to create an more
> artistic image.

Why are you satisfied with the restricted shallowness of small format
cameras when you can get even more with medium and large format?

--
Chris Malcolm cam.DeleteThis@infirmatics.ed.ac.uk DoD #205
IPAB, Informatics, JCMB, King's Buildings, Edinburgh, EH9 3JZ, UK
[http://www.dai.ed.ac.uk/homes/cam/]
 >> Stay informed about: More Panasonic P&S perfection 

Trent T. wrote:
> On Wed, 14 Nov 2007 23:32:10 -0000, "Deep Reset" <DeepReset DeleteThis @hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>> I don't want to fan any flames here, but I'm genuinely interested in the
>> sort of working distances that P&S cameras are capable of when shooting,
>> say, 1:1 macro.
>> And I mean 1:1, so a subject exactly as wide/tall as the sensor on the
>> camera fills the frame.
>> My experience of P&S macro is that true macro is virtually impossible to
>> light because the subject is too close to the front element, but trying to
>> remain open-minded, I'm happy to be re-educated.
>>
>> Deep.
>>
>
> I've never bothered to check because it's never been a problem. Since all my
> macro-photography is done hand-held using available light I've never needed to
> do studio setup tests for artificial subjects. But since you asked ... here's
> some quick results using a machinist's rule to focus on (to define FOV) and to
> get a rough approximation for the distance.
>
> Rough measures from the front-most element:
>
> On a 2/3" P&S sensor (8.8mm width) I get about 60mm working distance for 1:1
> macro ratio. An 8.8mm wide subject filling the 8.8mm wide sensor. Using just one
> of many lens configurations.
>
> On a 1/2.5" P&S sensor (5.76mm width) I get about 50mm working distance. Again,
> with just one of many possible lens configurations.
>
> If I want more working distance then I step it up into tele-macro modes using
> other lens configurations. The above tests done with the most simple 1:1 setup.
>
> Since you are adding lenses to the front you are automatically moving yourself
> and camera further from the subject, allowing even more available light to reach
> the subject. Using any available light at those distances with these lens
> configurations is easy. While also affording f/stops, DOFs, and shutter-speeds
> fast enough for even the most erratically moving insects on a dimly lit forest
> floor. It's why I've never been concerned. People who have never used any
> high-quality P&S cameras for their macro-photography and only have a DSLR with
> their limited, outrageously-overpriced, specialty lenses as their point of
> reference don't even have a clue. If they even have that much for a reference,
> that is. Most of them that post here only have web-pages from others as their
> only photography experience. It shows all too clear in their misinformed
> trolling advice.

#2
 >> Stay informed about: More Panasonic P&S perfection 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: More Panasonic P&S perfection 

This message is not archived
 >> Stay informed about: More Panasonic P&S perfection 

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 13:43:01 +1100, The Vintage Monk wrote:


>>
>> Kill file broke again is it?
>
> Are you talking to yourself? Why don't you just check to see if the
> killfile is broken.


Well Monk(ey) that was until I started collecting evidence about you.
Had you resiprocated as your post prior to that suggested, I'd have just
ignored you. Not now. Now I'm recording you. What a nice job of self
incrimination you are doing too!

--
If you don't defend your rights... You end up without any!
 >> Stay informed about: More Panasonic P&S perfection 

On Thu, 15 Nov 2007 21:36:13 +1000, Doug Jewell wrote:

> agro D-Mac wrote:
>> "Deep Reset" <DeepReset.RemoveThis@hotmail.com> wrote in message
>> news:PZCdnbmFMvZUGKbanZ2dnUVZ8radnZ2d@bt.com...
>>> I don't want to fan any flames here, but I'm genuinely interested in
>>> the sort of working distances that P&S cameras are capable of when
>>> shooting, say, 1:1 macro.
>>> And I mean 1:1, so a subject exactly as wide/tall as the sensor on the
>>> camera fills the frame.
>>> My experience of P&S macro is that true macro is virtually impossible
>>> to light because the subject is too close to the front element, but
>>> trying to remain open-minded, I'm happy to be re-educated.
>>>
>>> Deep.
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I have a 70 - 200 F/2.8 lens I use on my DSLR (oh yes, I use them a
>> lot!) and using a ring between the lens and the body allows me to use
>> the 200mm end and come close to getting 1.1. I've never measured it but
>> I may be exceeding that magnification. It allows for a more comfortable
>> distance but also has the downside of the slightest movement is
>> exaggerated too.
>>
>> I have little or no use for 1:1 macro with the FZ50s but I did buy a #2
>> close up Hoya "filter" element for it some time back and it's results
>> were acceptable but nothing I'd use for big prints. The issue with the
>> FZ and macro is that the "macro" switch only works at relatively wide
>> angle. The thought of using the 340mm end of the lens in macro mode,
>> just doesn't happen. I'm afraid where very sharp, clear 1:1 macro is
>> concerend, there isn't much else but a DSLR that is affordable.
>>
>> Canon make a nice add on lens that gives macro capabilities to some of
>> the lenses. It works on any camera with the right filter thread. Not
>> cheap but does a good job
> Whoaa.... hold the phone.... D-Mac said something that I actually agree
> with!!
> In all seriousness Doug, did you try the FZ50 with the #2 at telephoto?
> In theory at least, with a #2 infinity should be at about 500mm, which
> at 300'ish should be pretty close to 1:1 (35mm equiv).
> The trouble with closeups of course is that you are adding an additional
> optical element, which has it's own characteristics and may have odd
> interactions with the existing glass, so you are perfectly correct to
> say that the results won't be as good as a dedicated macro lens. I am
> surprised a little though that you say it was acceptible but not good
> enough for big prints.
> I've never really been happy with closeups myself, but then I've never
> bothered using them on good glass. Although your little panasonic gets
> bagged out, I know they do have good lenses, and I would have thought
> that with it's good optics, it would have done ok with a closeup filter.
>>
>> Douglas
>>
>>

The resolving power of the Leica lens is adaquate for the job but
compared to larger diameter, wider aperture glass, it simply doesn't
resolve enough detail for really fine macro work. Macro shots would look
fine at 640x480 pixels. Maybe OK at 8" x 12" but enlarged to 24" x 36"
they look pretty rough compared to something taken with good glass. I use
a 5D for such work but as I've pre-ordered Nikons, pretty soon I'll be
using exceptional glass instead of just good glass.

In the mean time my P&S cameras will continue to provide photographs that
equal and often exceed that which I could take with a DSLR under the same
conditions. Nothing will change when the Nikons arrive. They still have
flapping mirrors. It all gets down to "horses for courses".

Doug



--
If you don't defend your rights... You end up without any!
 >> Stay informed about: More Panasonic P&S perfection