Steve'sDigicams

KentC · Apr 28, 2006, 10:52 AM

The images are full zoom in and full zoom out with the WCON8, 55 mm thread. I use the 43-55 adapter that came with it. The WCON8 was bought primarily for my FZ30, but I found it seemed to work fine on my GS400. Will shoot some more test shots and find somewhere to post them.

genece · Apr 28, 2006, 11:02 AM

lokosofia wrote:

Quote:

Well,

I do talk about CAMCORDERS. Just want to make it clear. Are you telling that even though it's blurring with my FZ15,WCON 08Bmight produce sharp images on my GS250 at full zoom?

Thanks.

While I do not have the camcorder to try that, but yes the 08 you have may work as well as Kents did ...in fact I expect it will.

The FZ15 has Much larger lens and with much more resolution. IMHO..The FZ cameras just do not do well zooming with a WA lens .....other cameras can do that but not the FZs.

KentC · Apr 28, 2006, 2:15 PM

OK, did some more test shots. Rather than video frame captures, which have interlacing and low res, I used the still photo function of the videocam, which gives an image equivalent to that of a 2 megapixel digital camera in resolution. The images are at: http://homepage.mac.com/janthina/Cam...toAlbum11.html

genece · Apr 28, 2006, 3:35 PM

What is your take on the results?.......while they are better than I thought , it seems to me the WA does not do any good to the photos for sure.

And I am not too sure of the LT55 either.

KentC · Apr 28, 2006, 3:52 PM

Gene is right--my FZ30 with WCON8 is blurry when zoomed in. I only use it at full-wide setting. Even then, it is not as sharp as without the WCON8, so I guess there's a cost for the extra field of view. I haven't experimented with adding a filter between the camera and the WCON8, to see if the additional length affects sharpness. That said, for video use, the WCON8 is probably good enough, given the lower resolution of video, and the importance of motion over detail in video.

KentC · Apr 28, 2006, 4:23 PM

Gene said, and I quote:"What is your take on the results?.......while they are better than I thought , it seems to me the WA does not do any good to the photos for sure. And I am not too sure of the LT55 either."Well, the WCON8 on the camcorder works well at full wide. Any difference seen by pixel-peeping can be covered by the larger view/pixel count ratio. Similarly, the LT55 works well at full zoom. As magnification increases, there is an inevitable loss of contrast in any optical chain, but the LT55 doesn't add much of its own distortion. ED or fluorite lenses would do better, but at much greater cost.On the FZ30, the WCON8 does cause a small loss in detail and increased chromatic aberration at its best full-wide setting, but you do get that extra field (not hampered by bad edge blur), which can be handy in close quarters. The LT55 is quite good at full tele, especially when you consider the balance of sharpness across the field, colour, and cost.For printing stills or viewing video on a TV, both lenses give good results when used as intended (wideangle for wide shots, tele for close shots).

genece · Apr 28, 2006, 4:50 PM

Thanks .... thats about the way it looked to me but at times I seem to come to different conclusions than others.

lokosofia · Apr 28, 2006, 7:19 PM

Thanks KentC,

The results seem to be good enough for me. There is no noticeable barrel distorsion. Also, there is no visible lost of shaprness between stock lens and WCON 08E at both wide angle and full zoom.

I'm gonna try to find a local photography shop and try 08B with step up rings. If I'm not happy, I'll just go for 08E.

Thanks.

Thread Tools	Search this Thread
Show Printable Version Email this Page	Search this Thread: Advanced Search

Steve'sDigicams

Recent Camera Reviews

Most Active Forums

Most Popular Deals

Latest Feature Articles

Apr 28, 2006, 10:52 AM	#11
KentC Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 12	The images are full zoom in and full zoom out with the WCON8, 55 mm thread. I use the 43-55 adapter that came with it. The WCON8 was bought primarily for my FZ30, but I found it seemed to work fine on my GS400. Will shoot some more test shots and find somewhere to post them.

Apr 28, 2006, 2:15 PM	#13
KentC Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 12	OK, did some more test shots. Rather than video frame captures, which have interlacing and low res, I used the still photo function of the videocam, which gives an image equivalent to that of a 2 megapixel digital camera in resolution. The images are at: http://homepage.mac.com/janthina/Cam...toAlbum11.html

Apr 28, 2006, 3:35 PM	#14
genece Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 2,111	What is your take on the results?.......while they are better than I thought , it seems to me the WA does not do any good to the photos for sure. And I am not too sure of the LT55 either.

Apr 28, 2006, 3:52 PM	#15
KentC Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 12	Gene is right--my FZ30 with WCON8 is blurry when zoomed in. I only use it at full-wide setting. Even then, it is not as sharp as without the WCON8, so I guess there's a cost for the extra field of view. I haven't experimented with adding a filter between the camera and the WCON8, to see if the additional length affects sharpness. That said, for video use, the WCON8 is probably good enough, given the lower resolution of video, and the importance of motion over detail in video.

Apr 28, 2006, 4:23 PM	#16
KentC Junior Member Join Date: Feb 2006 Posts: 12	Gene said, and I quote:"What is your take on the results?.......while they are better than I thought , it seems to me the WA does not do any good to the photos for sure. And I am not too sure of the LT55 either."Well, the WCON8 on the camcorder works well at full wide. Any difference seen by pixel-peeping can be covered by the larger view/pixel count ratio. Similarly, the LT55 works well at full zoom. As magnification increases, there is an inevitable loss of contrast in any optical chain, but the LT55 doesn't add much of its own distortion. ED or fluorite lenses would do better, but at much greater cost.On the FZ30, the WCON8 does cause a small loss in detail and increased chromatic aberration at its best full-wide setting, but you do get that extra field (not hampered by bad edge blur), which can be handy in close quarters. The LT55 is quite good at full tele, especially when you consider the balance of sharpness across the field, colour, and cost.For printing stills or viewing video on a TV, both lenses give good results when used as intended (wideangle for wide shots, tele for close shots).

Apr 28, 2006, 4:50 PM	#17
genece Senior Member Join Date: Jun 2003 Posts: 2,111	Thanks .... thats about the way it looked to me but at times I seem to come to different conclusions than others.

Apr 28, 2006, 7:19 PM	#18
lokosofia Member Join Date: May 2005 Posts: 38	Thanks KentC, The results seem to be good enough for me. There is no noticeable barrel distorsion. Also, there is no visible lost of shaprness between stock lens and WCON 08E at both wide angle and full zoom. I'm gonna try to find a local photography shop and try 08B with step up rings. If I'm not happy, I'll just go for 08E. Thanks.