More Panasonic P&S perfection

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

  1. agro D-Mac

    Sosumi Guest

    Perhaps you need -20 correction glasses? And a seeing eye dog ;-))
    Sosumi, Nov 15, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  2. agro D-Mac

    Sosumi Guest

    So? Where are the red and yellow bright flower close ups??
    I do see the washed out skin tones and the washed out whites and skies. You
    just end up proofing my point. Thanks!
    Sosumi, Nov 15, 2007
    1. Advertisements

  3. agro D-Mac

    Doug Jewell Guest

    Whoaa.... hold the phone.... D-Mac said something that I
    actually agree with!!
    In all seriousness Doug, did you try the FZ50 with the #2 at
    telephoto? In theory at least, with a #2 infinity should be
    at about 500mm, which at 300'ish should be pretty close to
    1:1 (35mm equiv).
    The trouble with closeups of course is that you are adding
    an additional optical element, which has it's own
    characteristics and may have odd interactions with the
    existing glass, so you are perfectly correct to say that the
    results won't be as good as a dedicated macro lens. I am
    surprised a little though that you say it was acceptible but
    not good enough for big prints.
    I've never really been happy with closeups myself, but
    then I've never bothered using them on good glass. Although
    your little panasonic gets bagged out, I know they do have
    good lenses, and I would have thought that with it's good
    optics, it would have done ok with a closeup filter.
    Doug Jewell, Nov 15, 2007
  4. Why are you satisfied with the restricted shallowness of small format
    cameras when you can get even more with medium and large format?
    Chris Malcolm, Nov 15, 2007
  5. agro D-Mac

    Doug Jewell Guest

    C'mon Doug, there were no truth or facts in Trent's crap,
    even you would admit that surely. You said yourself that a
    DSLR and macro lens is needed for real good macro stuff, and
    that a P&S + Closeup adapter resulted in less than ideal
    I'm not sitting anywhere near a bloody fence. I call 'em as
    I see 'em. On the odd occassion you say something I agree
    with, I'll agree with you. If you say something I disagree
    with, I'll disagree with you. I've been over this before
    with you I'm sure.
    Doug Jewell, Nov 15, 2007
  6. You mean like the ad-nauseam DSLR advocates do? So that's why the Pro-P&S people
    have to keep constantly correcting all the misinformation, lies, blatant errors,
    red-herring runarounds, and stupidity that the DSLR idiots constantly spew?

    If you keep spewing your misinformed P&S propaganda then someone's always going
    to have to come along and prove what an idiot another DSLR owner truly is. It's
    as simple as that. Considering that only idiots buy DSLRs it could be a never
    ending task anytime one of them posts anything to the internet.

    You've already lost all credibility by not even knowing what SLRs were made and
    when. Proving you're nothing but just another useless arm-chair photographer and
    resident-troll. You fuckingly useless know-nothing newbie, wasting the time of
  7. agro D-Mac

    traveller © Guest

    You should know; you've used a FZ50 until recently.


    de groeten van Martin
    traveller ©, Nov 15, 2007
  8. Same here now - worked yesterday - maybe the op hasn't paid his
    mark.thomas.7, Nov 15, 2007
  9. agro D-Mac

    -hh Guest

    Still a yellowbellied cowardly anonymous sockpuppet, once again using
    the "X-no-archive" option to hide his offensive nature from the
    archives....but is still pnwed...writes as follows:

    Your 'nausea' has nothing to do with dSLRs or P&S: its your pathetic
    self-worth that's causing you to "act up" because its the only way
    that anyone will talk to you. The way to punish you is to ignore

    ....a task which is only ever undertaken by even greater idiots.

    Non-credible and irrelevant.

    First, no consumer is ever responsible to to keep completely up-to-
    date on every single available product in the marketplace, which means
    that your criteria isn't relevant.

    Second, I never claimed that I knew everything, so you're lying.

    Well, even a blind squirrel does occasionally find a nut: you
    did ...almost... get one thing correct: I do occasionally take some
    personal amusement in the baiting of obnoxious trolls. I'm told it
    gives them "nausea" :)

    Would love to chat more, but I'm picking out my gear for my next
    trip. It looks like this time it will be a P&S, a dSLR and a 35mm

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

    jdear64 Guest

    Oh come on, Trent and all the other names he post as is the same
    person as Douglas. This is the only way he gets any support on news
    groups. Quit replying to the idiot and he'll go away. Attention is
    all he's after.
    jdear64, Nov 15, 2007
  11. agro D-Mac

    Marty Fremen Guest

    Asking for true 1:1 in sensor terms is a pretty tall order when sensor
    size is so small since you're moving towards the realms of
    photomicrography: I think such a field of view would be hard to achieve
    with a 35mm SLR even using bellows. The actual field of view and image
    resolution are surely the important thing, after all you're unlikely to
    be trying to photograph a smaller object when using a smaller sensor
    camera than a bigger sensor one.

    The Ricoh GX100 can do twice as big as 35mm 1:1, in the tele setting you
    have 25x19mm field of view at 4cm distance. In actual sensor terms this
    is about 1:3.4 magnification. Since the lens has a fairly narrow snout
    (about 30mm) it doesn't tend to overshadow the subject much. You can
    also shoot macro in wideangle mode but this is less satisfactory as
    there is a lot of field curvature and you have to be about 1cm away to
    get similar magnification. I think all the Ricohs have fairly similar
    macro abilities.
    Marty Fremen, Nov 15, 2007
  12. agro D-Mac

    Douglas Guest

    Well Monk(ey) that was until I started collecting evidence about you.
    Had you resiprocated as your post prior to that suggested, I'd have just
    ignored you. Not now. Now I'm recording you. What a nice job of self
    incrimination you are doing too!
    Douglas, Nov 15, 2007
  13. agro D-Mac

    Douglas Guest

    Well you certainly seem to be providing your fair share. How many socks
    have you used so far? And have any of them made an on-topic post?

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

    Douglas Guest

    The resolving power of the Leica lens is adaquate for the job but
    compared to larger diameter, wider aperture glass, it simply doesn't
    resolve enough detail for really fine macro work. Macro shots would look
    fine at 640x480 pixels. Maybe OK at 8" x 12" but enlarged to 24" x 36"
    they look pretty rough compared to something taken with good glass. I use
    a 5D for such work but as I've pre-ordered Nikons, pretty soon I'll be
    using exceptional glass instead of just good glass.

    In the mean time my P&S cameras will continue to provide photographs that
    equal and often exceed that which I could take with a DSLR under the same
    conditions. Nothing will change when the Nikons arrive. They still have
    flapping mirrors. It all gets down to "horses for courses".

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

    Douglas Guest

    Maybe his filters missed your IP yesterday too.
    Douglas, Nov 15, 2007
  16. agro D-Mac

    Deep Reset Guest

    35mm? As in film? Dead easy, even with rings.
    Equally easy with bellows.
    50mm lens, non-reversed, 50mm extension. Or there abouts.
    So much easier with APS-C.
    What is "35mm 1:1" ?
    What do you mean by "twice as big"?

    1:1 is 1:1, regardless of sensor size
    That is how you define 1:1 - if the objext is x mm wide, the image on the
    sensor/film is x mm wide.

    Deep Reset, Nov 15, 2007
  17. agro D-Mac

    Marty Fremen Guest

    I'm talking about the absolute field size here, not rather irrelevant
    relative magnification. You asked for a P&S 1:1 size, this is something
    like 5x7mm. To achieve that with a 35mm camera with 50mm lens would need
    some bellows at full stretch I think.
    36x24mm = 35mm 1:1. Actually "twice as big" was wrong, I was thinking in
    area terms (the Ricoh manages what would be half-frame 1:1).
    Marty Fremen, Nov 15, 2007
  18. Oh no, Doug is recording me!!

    Did anyone notice Doug started this reply with a bit of name calling?
    I think that allows me to reply with DOUG YOU ARE A FUCKWIT

    Record that, oh and if you accidently remove the 'monkey' reference
    google groups will record it.

    While we are recording I would also like to point out to the legal team
    that this week Doug has called an innocent poster to this group a "CYBER
    SLUT". Not real nice coming from someone that hates internet bullies.
    While ever you are firing shots at innocent woman Dogless I will reply
    to you in whatever what I feel fit.

    BTW, If the NSW authorities can let people get away with murding and
    bashing 5 kids under 3 in the last 3 weeks I doubt they are going to
    give a flying **** about some dyslexic, no talent old man from QLD.
    The Vintage Monk, Nov 15, 2007
  19. I found a good site for you after this comment

    And have any of them made an on-topic post?
    Record that knucklehead
    The Vintage Monk, Nov 15, 2007
  20. HIS?? HIS??

    Did you forget to open the sock drawer before making this post?

    Record this knucklehead
    The Vintage Monk, 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.