Panasonic FZ35 with and without Teleconverter

Someone here suggested that a teleconverter lens for a point-and-shoot
would distort as much as it magnified, and one might as well just take
the photo without the teleconverter and expand it digitally. I decided
to test this.

The following image shows the same subject--the moon--photographed with
and without the Panasonic DWM-LT55 teleconverter; in the latter case,
the raw image was stretched by a factor of 1.7 with Irfanview. No other
alterations were performed:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/[email protected]/4303433104/sizes/l/in/photostream/

Unfortunately, flickr appears to have shrunk the images somewhat.

There is some chromatic aberration with the teleconverter, true. But the
image without the teleconverter does not seem to be entirely without it,
either. There can be no question, though, that more detail is visible
with the teleconverter.

As for the justification of using a teleconverter with a P&S instead of
buying a DSLR: Could this degree of magnification be obtained with a
DSLR without paying at least a thousand dollars?

In a month I am going to attempt the same shot again, this time with
tripod sitting on pavement instead of a wooden deck, and perhaps some
additional weight hanging from the tripod to stablilize it further.

 

Yes, well under $1000.

 

Trivially. Attach a SLR to a telescope at prime focus and you can get
the equivalent of 5,000mm easily.

 

Another DSLR-Troll, right on cue. One that doesn't even own a camera too,
proved many times over.

Do point out where he can get a 27-826mm f/2.4-4.0 zoom lens for under
$1000.

This is definitely worth a laugh and a half.

Paul, for fun, read the kind of deranged imaginings that this particular
DSLR-Troll likes to post on the net. It's worth another good laugh.

<http://www.wifi-forum.com/wf/showpost.php?p=448381&postcount=101>

 

Now unless you are willing to hand-hold steady that telescope and deal with
apertures of f/16 or smaller, then you're going to have to get a
catadioptric telescope that weighs well over 250 lbs. to mount on your
tripod or carry in your pocket. I also defy you to find *any* apochromatic
telescope that would provide LESS CA than what his lenses display for under
$1000.

Are all of you dSLR Trolls this amazingly desperate and stupid to try to
justify why you waste so much time and money?

 

You call that "better"? LOL!

 

But you already did post something. It was a good laugh. THANKS!

 

Actually there are at least three ways I thought of to get better
results with D-SLR gear for under $1000. This sort of thing requires an
understanding of the big difference in sensors between P&S cameras and
D-SLRs, as well as the equipment available for D-SLRs.

Also note that while it's very easy to get better results for sub-$1000
than a tele-converter equipped P&S that's not because the sub-$1000
set-up using a D-SLR is so good, it's because the bar has been set so
low to begin with.

Back when D-SLRs were too expensive for the non-professional to afford
there were lots of people using tele-converters on P&S cameras (though I
hesitate to even call them tele-converters, they were really something
else). They were always kludgey, with sub-par optical quality and had
other limitations as well, but it's what you did if you wanted longer
telephoto range without spending a lot of money.

The problem here is that our favorite troll has never had the
opportunity to use both a D-SLR and a P&S for extreme telephoto range
and compare the differences, nor is he aware of the equipment available
for D-SLRs to achieve extreme telephoto range at low cost.

 

Now go away, troll.

 

You sure are stupid.

That's why there are tripods, asshole troll.

 

Those are nice. But what this guy was able to do with a P&S plus
teleconverter lens makes me weep with envy:

http://www.flickr.com/photos/tedsla/4289424632/sizes/o/

By comparison, my current best is this one:

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2694/4305983982_50e5897df0_o.jpg

 

That's funny. I didn't know that parts of the moon were green.

 

So for just the price of a DSLR body + $400 (the lens alone more than the
price of his whole camera) he only has to give up the convenience and the
superior aperture and reach of his 27-826mm f/2.4-4.0 zoom lens.

For images that aren't even up to the resolution of his own camera. Check
the detail. There's more detail in the image from the P&S+telextender
camera.

Yeah, that's a wonderful solution! LOL!

I swear, all you fucking DSLR-Trolls are complete and utter morons. No
wonder you buy the cameras that you do.

Because you're JUST THAT FUCKING STUPID.

LOL!

 

OH GOODY! He can mount a DSLR on a telescope that weighs about 250-1500
lbs. and cost anywhere from $15,000 to $500,000 and carry that around!

LOL!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

I repeat:

Because you're JUST THAT FUCKING STUPID!!!!!

LOL!

Yep! DSLR-Trolls are worth a laugh per post. Some heartier than others!

ROFLMAO!

 

http://www.atalaia.org/filipe/moon/colorofthemoon.htm

 

BTW: Did you think nobody would easily discover that you removed all color
information from your DSLR's less-resolution-than-a-P&S-camera image so
that none of your "superior" lens' chromatic aberrations would show up?

LOL!!!!!

More than a laugh per post on this DSLR-Trolls offerings.

LOL!

 

What's really hilarious is the self-inflated fool thinking you have to
go monochrome to conceal the chromatic aberration from a catadioptric
reflex lens!

 

Holy ****! You ARE an idiot! Are you not aware that that lens design is
also prone to CA problems? What? Do you think the corrector plate is a very
thin achromat or something??? LOL!!!!!!

DAMN! I thought for sure I was dealing with those with IQs well under 110,
but I never suspected IQs this low around here.

LOL!

 

Go away, troll.

 

[/QUOTE]

Of course it's possible to get CA problems from a poor catadiotric
camera lens. What you clearly haven't yet managed to google up in your
haste to appear a sniggering expert is that generally speaking for
very good optical reasons they're inherently much lower than in
conventional lens designs, usually not a problem, and not a problem
with the Rubinar design. All this is very easily discovered.

If you want to stop looking like an idiot see if you can manage to do
a little bit more homework before your next explosive evacuation of
exclamation marks.