More Panasonic P&S perfection

Discussion in 'Panasonic Lumix' started by agro D-Mac, Nov 14, 2007.

  1. agro D-Mac

    Trent T. Guest

    Do you think that all people who buy P&S cameras are as stupid as you are? What
    person in their right mind that is into macro-photography and uses a P&S camera
    relies on the camera's lens alone? Do you think interchangeable glass is only
    available to the DSLR? What kind of obviously fucked-up idiot are you?

    I can fit an exceptional +8 (or higher) diopter achromat on the front of my
    P&S's 12x zoom lens and obtain even better quality and more DOF in any macro
    subject than you ever will, with even more working distance. I can also use that
    in conjunction with a high-quality 1.7x tele-converter for a tele-macro setup
    which will provide even more working distance to the subject than you could ever
    obtain with any DSLR lens on the market. I often use lens combinations on my P&S
    cameras that reach well into the realm of micro-photography, let alone TRUE 1:1
    macro-photography ratios on that smaller sensor, that's easy.

    The red-herring nonsense of these DSLR activists with blinders-on speaks tomes
    about why only inexperienced idiots push DSLRs. Their limitations to reason and
    think also clearly shows in their photography.

    Hint: next time don't talk about nor offer advice about something that you know
    nothing about. It is better to remain silent and thought to be the fool than to
    open your mouth and remove all doubt.
    Trent T., Nov 14, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. agro D-Mac

    Deep Reset Guest

    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 Reset, Nov 14, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. agro D-Mac

    -hh Guest

    Unfortunately, adding adaptor optics invariably reduces image quality,
    so you've just made a trade-off in your tools selection. If it is an
    acceptable trade-off is a YMMV, so to each his own, to his own needs
    and priorities.

    Note: same old, same old recurring arguement.

    Maybe you should exercise more, so as to be strong enough to hold up a
    few piddling pounds of gear for more than 20 seconds. Afterall, if
    even little 80-year old grannies can do it, why can't you?

    Oh, thank you Lord for granting us your permission!

    BTW, can I please also keep my P&S too?

    I also have a couple hundred 19th century tin I allowed to
    keep them too? And those old comic books? Oh, how about my old
    Varsity Jacket? (I think it still fits...)

    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

    Fortunately, you're not the Emperor of the Universe, so those of us
    who have different opinions, interests and personal priorities can
    simply ignore your announcements of *your* personal decisions and go
    do as we damn well please.

    The exit door for USENET is that way --------------->
    Don't let the door hit you in the ass when you leave.

    -hh, Nov 14, 2007
  4. agro D-Mac

    Doug Jewell Guest

    Some sockpuppet by the name of Trent T. wrote:
    the same abusive crap and lies it always writes.
    Doug Jewell, Nov 15, 2007
  5. agro D-Mac

    Trent T. Guest

    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.
    Trent T., Nov 15, 2007
  6. agro D-Mac

    Douglas Guest


    I wouldn't think to try boring you... I will however show you how
    incompetent you must be whilst trying to blame the camera for your own
    lack of knowledge or desire to learn about those cameras.

    Red you say? With Yellow flowers you say? OK...

    Now, what were you saying about red and yellow and panasonic?

    I can offer you a solution to your problem. It's commonly refered to
    as... RTFM. Custom functions, mate... That's what they are there for!

    Douglas, Nov 15, 2007
  7. agro D-Mac

    Douglas Guest

    And who, prey tell is Trent performing for?
    Same old Doug Jewell. Don't have an answer to someone confronting you
    with truth or facts so you start to abuse them.

    Your balls must be getting sore by now from all that fence sitting you've
    been doing?

    Douglas, Nov 15, 2007
  8. He could do a Dogless and just disappear from the thread when confronted
    with truth and facts.
    At least while he was fence sitting you had 1/2 a person supporting you,
    looks like it is down to just you now Dogless.
    The Vintage Monk, Nov 15, 2007
  9. #2
    The Vintage Monk, Nov 15, 2007
  10. agro D-Mac

    Douglas Guest

    Kill file broke again is it?

    Douglas, Nov 15, 2007
  11. agro D-Mac

    gerrit Guest

    Is this the first time we have a photo of Doug?

    gerrit, Nov 15, 2007
  12. Has he ever taken a photo of a good looking person?
    The Vintage Monk, Nov 15, 2007
  13. Are you talking to yourself? Why don't you just check to see if the
    killfile is broken.

    As I wrote on the 9th November

    I have stated I have given up on killfiling you as you change your name
    and email so much and I have also stated that while you like to avoid
    killfiles I will reply to you as much as I want.

    But while you are asking what happened to killfiles I will expect you to
    get your bike out and do some backpedalling with this gem from 9 days ago
    Hey, didn't you write I was in the killfile?
    Yep here it is
    The Vintage Monk, Nov 15, 2007
  14. agro D-Mac

    agro D-Mac Guest

    Oh they'll love you for that one. ROTFL
    That guy has the voice of an angel.
    It's not hard to see why he hasn't gotten far up the ladder of success in
    the music industry.

    agro D-Mac, Nov 15, 2007
  15. agro D-Mac

    agro D-Mac Guest

    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.

    agro D-Mac, Nov 15, 2007
  16. agro D-Mac

    Annika1980 Guest

    LOL! What a funny troll!

    Can't wait to see your pics taken at f/1.2 like this one:
    Annika1980, Nov 15, 2007
  17. agro D-Mac

    Annika1980 Guest

    1:1? That's easy. How about at 5:1?
    Your point-and-shit does do 5x doesn't it?
    Do you have to use your CHECKDICK program for that?
    Annika1980, Nov 15, 2007
  18. agro D-Mac

    Annika1980 Guest

    You mean like D-Mac did when I asked him about his big London
    auction? Listen ..... I hear crickets!
    Annika1980, Nov 15, 2007
  19. agro D-Mac

    Trent T. Guest

    All the way up to 1000x oil-immersion phase-contrast Leica optics. Did you ask
    this just to prove to the world that my P&S and optics are superior to your dSLR
    See above. But before doing that ask your Mommy if you are allowed to stay up
    this late on her computer.
    Ask your Daddy too.
    Trent T., Nov 15, 2007
  20. agro D-Mac

    Douglas Guest

    You must be new around here Trent...
    Bret wasn't born, he was shot up against a urinal and left to hatch in
    the sun, No parents to teach him anything. That's why he's got such a
    chip on his shoulder. Someone dumped on him before he left home.

    He really dances well when you pull his strings. I get him dancing to my
    tune when I produce better pictures from my $500 FZ50 than he gets from
    that 40D he got given... We know now why she gave it to him. So he can
    further his profession as a porn photographer. He'll need to get better
    if he going be successful. Those pics he pasted into the photos he stole
    from me are a dreadful resume.

    Read all about his dirty deeds here: Fully substanciated and evidence provided. He
    really is a nasty bastard.

    Douglas, Nov 15, 2007
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.