Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digital Cameras (Point and Shoot) > Panasonic / Leica

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jan 19, 2005, 6:07 PM   #11
Junior Member
 
arrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 19
Default

jsiladi, I found it easier to see your problems by taking a negative of your image.

Below is another example taken using the stock adapter and 72mm UV filter. The reflection from the lettering on the lens can be seen clearly below/left of the main bud. I now use a Phayee and 62mm UV filter.

arrow

[img]file:///d:/digicam/pan04/72mmreflection.jpg[/img]
arrow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 19, 2005, 6:30 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
jsiladi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 587
Default

arrow wrote:
Quote:
jsiladi, I found it easier to see your problems by taking a negative of your image.

Below is another example taken using the stock adapter and 72mm UV filter. The reflection from the lettering on the lens can be seen clearly below/left of the main bud. I now use a Phayee and 62mm UV filter.

arrow

[img]file:///d:/digicam/pan04/72mmreflection.jpg[/img]
I actually hadn't thought about reversing the image. I'm not seeing your example, looks like you tried a link rather than using the browse box below the post-edit window.. I'll take your word for it.. I'm just glad I'm not the only one who has seen it (disclaimer, may have been mentioned in the filter thread but there's so much there, I may have missed it)..

Jeff
jsiladi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 20, 2005, 1:02 PM   #13
Junior Member
 
arrow's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Posts: 19
Default

jsiladi wrote:
Quote:
arrow wrote:
Quote:
jsiladi, I found it easier to see your problems by taking a negative of your image.

Below is another example taken using the stock adapter and 72mm UV filter. The reflection from the lettering on the lens can be seen clearly below/left of the main bud. I now use a Phayee and 62mm UV filter.

arrow

[img]file:///d:/digicam/pan04/72mmreflection.jpg[/img]
I actually hadn't thought about reversing the image. I'm not seeing your example, looks like you tried a link rather than using the browse box below the post-edit window.. I'll take your word for it.. I'm just glad I'm not the only one who has seen it (disclaimer, may have been mentioned in the filter thread but there's so much there, I may have missed it)..

Jeff
Sorry about the image. It was the first time I have tried to post an image and I linked it to a file on my computer in the wrong way so that it appeared to be OK on my computer but only on my computer!

Here's another attempt! The reflection is circled and enhanced a bit. The AR coating on the UV filter is not particularly good but it does confirm what you have already shown, and others have said that the filter position on the stock adapter is too far in front of the lens.

Apart from this small defect I think the FZ20 is a great camera.

arrow
Attached Images
 
arrow is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 20, 2005, 1:09 PM   #14
Senior Member
 
jsiladi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 587
Default

Arrow, I had to look at it a minute but on yours I can actually read the writing from the lens barrel. I hadn't tried it with a closeup..

Jeff
:?
jsiladi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 20, 2005, 1:23 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
nooner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,452
Default

Where's the Lab(dog)?:?
nooner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 20, 2005, 1:36 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
jsiladi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 587
Default

nooner wrote:
Quote:
Where's the Lab(dog)?:?
He's still here.. :G The one on my Avatar has been gone for a few years..
Attached Images
 
jsiladi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 20, 2005, 2:03 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
nooner's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 1,452
Default

Charlie says Hi. 150 lbs. and gentle.
nooner is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 20, 2005, 6:48 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
jsiladi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 587
Default

At 150lbs, he's considerably bigger than I thought he was.. Melvin, the lab, is at about 65 pounds. The brown dog in the current avater was named Charlie as well..

I shutter to think of what that elephant is doing on (or in) that white box.. Though, if I could train Melvin to do the same thing, what a weekly load that would take off of the back yard work :-)

Jeff
jsiladi is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2005, 4:51 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
playlong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 237
Default

jsiladi wrote:
Quote:
Note in the image above you see a circular halo in the photo evident around the half wall. What that is, is the reflection of the lens off of the filter. This could even be seen on the LCD of the camera (much to my suprise).. The photo below is with the adapter removed..

So, A question.. Does one of the aftermarket adapters solve this problem :?

Jeff
Given the fact that this is not the same angle you were able to get a lens flare in the first picture. You spent all that money and you still were nailed. Do not despair the only filter that could have "reduced" the flare is a polarizer. Why do people throw their money away on expensive filters for an improvement that they will never see? I use Hoya series B UV and liner polarizer that cost me $40.00. The only rule is you must use a lens hood but since this camera requires one it is a non-issue. The only item that can "prevent flares" is a hood, but not when you are staring directly at the source. You first snap is out of focus, and lacks contrast. Do me a favor set all Picture adjustment setting to STD except for sharpness. Set your exposure bias to –1/3. I talk the talk and walk the walk at http://lovelife.smugmug.com/


playlong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jan 23, 2005, 11:26 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
jsiladi's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Posts: 587
Default

playlong wrote:
Quote:
jsiladi wrote:
Quote:
Note in the image above you see a circular halo in the photo evident around the half wall. What that is, is the reflection of the lens off of the filter. This could even be seen on the LCD of the camera (much to my suprise).. The photo below is with the adapter removed..

So, A question.. Does one of the aftermarket adapters solve this problem :?

Jeff
Given the fact that this is not the same angle you were able to get a lens flare in the first picture. You spent all that money and you still were nailed. Do not despair the only filter that could have "reduced" the flare is a polarizer. Why do people throw their money away on expensive filters for an improvement that they will never see? I use Hoya series B UV and liner polarizer that cost me $40.00. The only rule is you must use a lens hood but since this camera requires one it is a non-issue. The only item that can "prevent flares" is a hood, but not when you are staring directly at the source. You first snap is out of focus, and lacks contrast. Do me a favor set all Picture adjustment setting to STD except for sharpness. Set your exposure bias to –1/3. I talk the talk and walk the walk at http://lovelife.smugmug.com/

WHAT, Are you talking about? The 2 indoor photos are at exactly the same angle, taken from exactly the same place, less than 60 seconds apart. I don't believe I claimed it to be flare. I do know what lens flare looks like. What I said it was, if you bothered to read the text, that YOU quoted, is the reflection of the lens bouncing off of the filter. That's happening in the half inch gap between the lens and the filter with the stock adapter. I've spent NOTHING. I already had the Tiffen from my medium format cameras.

Re your critique of the first photo. Thanks but I've already said it was crap.

Jeff
:blah:
jsiladi is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 8:30 PM.