Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Digicam Help > What Camera Should I Buy?

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jul 24, 2014, 8:49 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozzie_Traveller View Post
Reversing rings for using SLR camera lenses on your FZ are of no value to you & your efforts
1- they only work with SLR cameras & interchangeable lenses
Reversing rings can be used with any camera/lens that has a filter mounting thread.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozzie_Traveller View Post
... Panny, unlike many other camera makers does put a filter thread onto the lens barrel - and in this case it is 52mm diameter
So the Panny can use a reversing ring.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 24, 2014, 10:10 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
VTphotog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Extreme Northeastern Vermont, USA
Posts: 4,234
Default

I think Phil is talking about the reversing ring which simply attaches to the camera body and uses the original camera lens, reversed, which is one way of using them with SLRs. The kind TCav and I have been talking about, use a second lens, mounted objective to objective, on the lens already on the camera. This is a double male thread filter ring, sized to fit the lenses. It could be the same diameter thread, or step up (or down, but that isn't usual) to the second lens.

brian
VTphotog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 25, 2014, 10:09 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 234
Default

So... it seems like the reversing ring lens solution is probably not going to do it. I am familiar with the lens attachment tube; my S5 works exactly like that. I didn't realize the FZ150 did the same. So, does the "Power O.I.S." ring screw off? (It doesn't seem to want to.) I was thinking that the 250D is too powerful for what I want, and that the 500D would be better; but if the degree of magnification is simply contingent on how much zoom one uses, then I might just as well go for the filter that provides the greatest flexibility?? Thank you again, everyone. I very much appreciate your help. I have been to many many websites for information with this (and other) problems, and have learned a lot, but most of the sites don't specifically address issues surrounding the FZ150, or if they do, they don't go into the kind of depth I need. That said, they may be providing information that should help me to understand my problem, but I don't have the background knowledge to appreciate what they're telling me. That's why I come here. It's a very steep learning curve for me. But you're right. I'm going to have to take a crash course on terms, especially the bewildering maze of number surrounding lens descriptions. ..... john
Shinnen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 25, 2014, 10:34 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 234
Default

Hi, OK. I found a website that shows how the adapter tube fits, inside the housing. ... john
Shinnen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 25, 2014, 5:13 PM   #15
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Location: Australia, New South Wales central coast
Posts: 2,907
Default

G'day John

On the screen above, TCav & VT have mentioned about Reversing Rings & other lenses - they are technically correct in saying that any old film-camera lens 'could' be attached to the FZ lens via a 52mm dia reversing ring. I specify a film camera lens as it wil be manual in operation, so that you can then manually set whatever aperture you need, and use its focus ring to achieve fine focus of the subject. A digital [electronic] lens is useless once attached to a reversing ring as all the connections have been lost

Why I am emphatically advising you NOT to do it, is that the weight of another lens bolted onto the FZ zoom lens will burn out the little motor that does the zooming ... and without that, your camera is dead

Hope this helps
Phil
__________________
Has Fuji & Lumix superzoom cameras and loves their amazing capabilities
Spends 8-9 months each year travelling Australia
Recent images at http://www.flickr.com/photos/ozzie_traveller/sets/
Ozzie_Traveller is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 25, 2014, 6:33 PM   #16
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 297
Default

I did a quick test with an FZ28 and +2 and +4 diopters and can easily get beyond what is 1:1 in 35mm terms.

I think it was around 30mm in frame with the +2 and about 20mm in frame with the +4. At max zoom with the manual focus activated in Program mode, it was effortless once I remembered how to do it.

I wouldn't even attempt to use auto focus and/or zoom in/out until I really nailed down the procedure, but I haven't used that set-up in years.

It worked so well with the diopters, I don't know why you'd want to use anything else.

It seemed as easy to use the +4 as the +2.
BBbuilder467 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 25, 2014, 7:30 PM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 297
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ozzie_Traveller View Post
G'day John

On the screen above, TCav & VT have mentioned about Reversing Rings & other lenses - they are technically correct in saying that any old film-camera lens 'could' be attached to the FZ lens via a 52mm dia reversing ring. I specify a film camera lens as it wil be manual in operation, so that you can then manually set whatever aperture you need, and use its focus ring to achieve fine focus of the subject. A digital [electronic] lens is useless once attached to a reversing ring as all the connections have been lost

Why I am emphatically advising you NOT to do it, is that the weight of another lens bolted onto the FZ zoom lens will burn out the little motor that does the zooming ... and without that, your camera is dead

Hope this helps
Phil
FWIW, I use the adapted legacy lenses with extension tubes, AF extension tubes and diopters with m4/3.

I get a lot more magnification, easily, with the diopters on the FZ. The m4/3 might be better, but it cost a helluva lot more than a good direct mount diopter.

I've "tested" a T-con 1.7 mounted on a 45-200 lens for the m4/3 and it's so heavy that I have to point it straight up in order to safely zoom in/out "manually". There is no way in the world that I'd direct mount a heavy prime to an FZ lens.

That would have to be an invitation for disaster.
BBbuilder467 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 25, 2014, 11:33 PM   #18
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 234
Default

Hi all, I have a feeling that one of the achromatic doublets .... I think that Nikon makes a few, or the Canon 500D or 250D will give me better quality images than the regular diopter. (At least, that's what a lot of people report.) I've found that diopter +3 gives me about the magnification I need for what I'm shooting, which would mean that the 250D or Nikon6T(?) would fit the bill. I'm a little leery about going the prime lens route, since I have no idea which one would be best, and would have to reverse fit it onto the end of an adapter tube. (Sounds like a lot of hardware for a minor(?) improvement over the achromatic doublet. I will probably buy the adapter tube, simply because I've always been afraid that I might inadvertently turn the camera on, in a tight place and screw up the lens extension mechanism. I was always afraid of doing this with my S5, and the adapter tube removed that possibility. If I have made any wrong assumptions please tell me. Thanks, .... john
Shinnen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 26, 2014, 2:21 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 297
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shinnen View Post
Hi all, I have a feeling that one of the achromatic doublets .... I think that Nikon makes a few, or the Canon 500D or 250D will give me better quality images than the regular diopter. (At least, that's what a lot of people report.) I've found that diopter +3 gives me about the magnification I need for what I'm shooting, which would mean that the 250D or Nikon6T(?) would fit the bill. I'm a little leery about going the prime lens route, since I have no idea which one would be best, and would have to reverse fit it onto the end of an adapter tube. (Sounds like a lot of hardware for a minor(?) improvement over the achromatic doublet. I will probably buy the adapter tube, simply because I've always been afraid that I might inadvertently turn the camera on, in a tight place and screw up the lens extension mechanism. I was always afraid of doing this with my S5, and the adapter tube removed that possibility. If I have made any wrong assumptions please tell me. Thanks, .... john
When I reverse mount a 50mm prime on the adapter tube of the FZ28, I can get about 5mm in frame. That's 7:1 in 35mm terms.

I already have all this gear and the only reason I'd ever use it is for "extreme" macro.

I'd be perfectly content to direct mount a diopter to the lens and be done with it.
BBbuilder467 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jul 26, 2014, 10:07 AM   #20
Senior Member
 
TCav's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Washington, DC, Metro Area, Maryland
Posts: 13,572
Default

I think that, if you're serious about macrophotography, you should get a dSLR.

But that's just me.
__________________
  • The lens is the thing.
  • 'Full Frame' is the new 'Medium Format'.
  • "One good test is worth a thousand expert opinions." - Tex Johnston, Boeing 707 test pilot.
TCav 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 12:22 PM.