Panasonic FZ35 with and without Teleconverter

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Paul Ciszek, Jan 25, 2010.

  1. Paul Ciszek

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    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:[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.
    Paul Ciszek, Jan 25, 2010
    1. Advertisements

  2. Paul Ciszek

    SMS Guest

    Yes, well under $1000.
    SMS, Jan 25, 2010
    1. Advertisements

  3. Paul Ciszek

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Trivially. Attach a SLR to a telescope at prime focus and you can get
    the equivalent of 5,000mm easily.
    Ray Fischer, Jan 25, 2010
  4. 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

    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. :)

    Outing Trolls is FUN!, Jan 25, 2010
  5. 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

    Are all of you dSLR Trolls this amazingly desperate and stupid to try to
    justify why you waste so much time and money?
    Outing Trolls is FUN!, Jan 25, 2010
  6. Outing Trolls is FUN!, Jan 25, 2010
  7. But you already did post something. It was a good laugh. THANKS!
    Outing Trolls is FUN!, Jan 25, 2010
  8. Paul Ciszek

    SMS Guest

    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.
    SMS, Jan 25, 2010
  9. Paul Ciszek

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Now go away, troll.
    Ray Fischer, Jan 26, 2010
  10. Paul Ciszek

    Ray Fischer Guest

    You sure are stupid.

    That's why there are tripods, asshole troll.
    Ray Fischer, Jan 26, 2010
  11. Paul Ciszek

    Paul Ciszek Guest

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

    By comparison, my current best is this one:
    Paul Ciszek, Jan 26, 2010
  12. Paul Ciszek

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Ray Fischer, Jan 26, 2010
  13. Paul Ciszek

    LOL! Guest

    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

    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!, Jan 26, 2010
  14. Paul Ciszek

    ROFLMAO! Guest

    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!


    I repeat:

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


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

    ROFLMAO!, Jan 26, 2010
  15. Paul Ciszek

    Paul Ciszek Guest

    Paul Ciszek, Jan 26, 2010
  16. Paul Ciszek

    LOL! Guest

    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?


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

    LOL!, Jan 26, 2010
  17. 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!
    Chris Malcolm, Jan 27, 2010
  18. Paul Ciszek

    LOL! Guest

    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!, Jan 27, 2010
  19. Paul Ciszek

    Ray Fischer Guest

    Go away, troll.
    Ray Fischer, Jan 27, 2010
  20. [/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.
    Chris Malcolm, Jan 27, 2010
    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.