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

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Feb 7, 2005, 3:43 AM   #11
Senior Member
 
playlong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 237
Default

smac wrote:
Quote:
NickTrop wrote:
Quote:
Yes... you get what you pay for. This pic is unusual. To my eye it looks like a stuffed bird in a display behind glass. Doesn't seem "real" somehow. Of course, I know it is real. Just has an unusual quality for some reason.
I agree Nick. And yet there is absolutely no Post Processing. This one is straight out of the camera (except for re sizing).
This is my opinion.



Many people on this and other forums believe that more money makes for better quality or better cost benefit. This is just not true. People who put circular polarizer on an FZ are wasting money; people who put the multicoated and thin filters are wasting money. People who buy SD cards faster then 10mbs are wasting their money. In addition, people whobuy a badged DMW-LZ10 are not getting the cost benefit of their investment. Panasonic does not make these lenses.
With high lumens as indicated in the picture, I would match a Tcon14B against the center quality of the LZ10, the only difference is I would need to do a slight edge crop, and for the money difference I will do the slight edge crop.
playlong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 7, 2005, 4:05 AM   #12
Senior Member
 
TimvdVelde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 395
Default

hey playlong,

I agree with the SD card and maybe the telelens. But if you can afford it and you're happy with it.. why not. About the circ. polarizer... Why waste of money? I can't get the contrast between clouds and sky without it. (and i'm pretty good with photoshop) and the uv filter protects the lens so why is that a waste of money?
Maybe you should explain something first before shouting thesethings around.

cheers,

Tim
TimvdVelde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 7, 2005, 8:56 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
playlong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 237
Default

TimvdVelde wrote:
Quote:
hey playlong,

I agree with the SD card and maybe the telelens. But if you can afford it and you're happy with it.. why not. About the circ. polarizer... Why waste of money? I can't get the contrast between clouds and sky without it. (and i'm pretty good with photoshop) and the uv filter protects the lens so why is that a waste of money?
Maybe you should explain something first before shouting thesethings around.

cheers,

Tim
The FZ zooms do not require a Circular Polarizer; they can use the less expensive more effective Linear Polarizer. The Pl is the original design but do not work with beam split focus cameras. The CPL is a modification to the design to support beam splitters,which the FZs are not, and made them slightly less effective when the shooting angle approach\ached 180 degrees to the sun.

FYI. The most effective camera polarizer position is having the side of you face directed toward the sun and the camera directed 90 degrees from that direction. Gradual turning in either direction will have a gradual loss of effectiveness and none when you reach 180 degrees. Here is a little secret. Linear polarizes are slightly more effect then Circular polarizer as the photographer approaches 180 degrees.


playlong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 7, 2005, 11:17 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,974
Default

playlong,

I have seen your linear polarizer shots and have not been impressed with it. I am with Tim on this one. The money you say people are wasting I guess are better spent on the product line you are making I guess. I would appreciate it if you refrain from your sales pitch slant in your posts.

The LTZ10 continues to impress me and bottom line that is what counts.

Tim's PP continues to impress me as well as his well composed shots, and to me again that is what counts. Circular polarizer and all.

Mahalo,

Komaki


By the way you made no comment on the great shot posted. I am not sure what would impress you but this by far is much better than the other shots you posted with the 14b and linear polarizer with your custom lens hood.

Just IMHO. Again I may have fallen out of the coconut tree again.
vIZnquest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 7, 2005, 12:40 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
TimvdVelde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 395
Default

I haven't said anything about the picture yet.

This is best picture I have seen from the teleconverter shots you posted Real sharp and colorfull.. I don't see any exif information.. But if this picture had a bit less depth of field (f2.8?) It could be one of a DSLR camera...

TimvdVelde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 7, 2005, 12:50 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 2,974
Default

Tim I agree.

The previous post I made was for playlong.

I do think what you post is much better overall and that is not about any contest or likes and dislikes.

As far as pictures goes with some good PP skills you show some very good stuff.

Abstracts well willow1 for sure.

Macro is by far nzmacro and treemonkey.

Humor goes to NickTrop.
vIZnquest is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 7, 2005, 3:26 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
playlong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 237
Default

vIZnquest wrote:
Quote:
playlong,

I have seen your linear polarizer shots and have not been impressed with it. I am with Tim on this one. The money you say people are wasting I guess are better spent on the product line you are making I guess. I would appreciate it if you refrain from your sales pitch slant in your posts.

The LTZ10 continues to impress me and bottom line that is what counts.

Tim's PP continues to impress me as well as his well composed shots, and to me again that is what counts. Circular polarizer and all.

Mahalo,

Komaki


By the way you made no comment on the great shot posted. I am not sure what would impress you but this by far is much better than the other shots you posted with the 14b and linear polarizer with your custom lens hood.

Just IMHO. Again I may have fallen out of the coconut tree again.
What product line am I making? Filters? Lens hood? The only thing I am making is a new adapter, and it is not available yet. When it is I certainly will not be pushing it on anyone, it will sell itself. The LP gets rid of glare and deepen colors. My two shots were water shots and would have been very poor without the filter. But since you consider them poor it is a moot point.

BTW, I will not comment on the shot, the technique, exposure or composition.
playlong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 7, 2005, 3:37 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
TimvdVelde's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Posts: 395
Default

playlong schreef:
Quote:
BTW, I will not comment on the shot, the technique, exposure or composition.
Then why did you reply... ?
TimvdVelde is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 7, 2005, 3:52 PM   #19
Senior Member
 
playlong's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2004
Posts: 237
Default

TimvdVelde wrote:
Quote:
playlong schreef:
Quote:
BTW, I will not comment on the shot, the technique, exposure or composition.
Then why did you reply... ?
By the way you made no comment on the great shot posted. I am not sure what would impress you but this by far is much better than the other shots you posted with the 14b and linear polarizer with your custom lens hood.

style="BACKGROUND-COLOR: #000000"

BTW, I will not comment on the shot, the technique, exposure or composition.

playlong is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Feb 7, 2005, 7:49 PM   #20
Senior Member
 
smac's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Northern California
Posts: 6,103
Default

playlong wrote:
Quote:
smac wrote:
Quote:
willow1 wrote:
Quote:
Very nice shot smac!!! did you use a tripod???
No tripod, So far all shots have been hand held. Even though the literature says that the Image Stabilization may not work I have found that it works quite well. Even at total maximum zoom which works out to be 1890mm focal length in 35mm terms. I have used the included lens bracket attached to my monopod and then braced that against my stomach for more stability. But I am still breathing and walking around while shooting. Here's a big tip to anyone thinking of this lens. The Quantray monopod at BestBuy works really well in the way I described above. It just add a little more stability when you are at max zoom.

smac
I think your math is wrong it equates to a 1.5 or 630mm.* You could never hand hold 1890mm.
Sorry Playlong my math isn't wrong. I didn't use any math. I was merely quoting from the Panasonic spec sheet that came with the lens. If my interpretation of the chart was wrong than I apologize for misleading you.

You neednít bother critiquing my shot of the spec sheet. I know that the Leica can do better. It was just a hurried shot to post here.

And how do you know what my hands can hold? Just kidding. Of course your right.

Thanks, smac


Last edited by smac; Jan 30, 2014 at 12:44 AM.
smac 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 11:02 PM.