I’m still mulling this over, Moose: the performance and the advisability of
replacing my perfectly serviceable Lumix ZS100/TZ100. The longer reach is of
great interest (as long as the mechanism and structure aren’t more fragile as a
result of the reach), but so is the better EVF and battery life (allegedly).
Thanks for these samples, and for the thoughts on the ISO invariance
(ISO-less?).
Chris
> On 12 Aug 2019, at 23:47, Moose <olymoose@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:
>
> Still playing and learning.
>
> I've added a dozen + photos to the ZS200 gallery.
> <https://photos.app.goo.gl/xjdsgFgZdbrZk9yL6
> <https://photos.app.goo.gl/xjdsgFgZdbrZk9yL6>>
>
> One thing I suspected would be true, and that has turned out to be so, is
> long minimum focal distances at longer FLs. I've found a pretty decent
> solution. The two C-Us in the gallery, a pressed and antiqued wood finish and
> a towel, are taken using an achromatic C-U lens in front of the built-in lens.
>
> It turns out that Lensmate, with whom I've done business before, makes a kit
> for mounting filters on the ZS200 lens. There's a tiny bayonet receiver that
> sticks to the front of the lens (with a nice tool to get it right). Adapters,
> also plastic and light, hold 52 mm filter thread accessories and bayonet on
> to the receiver. The design is low torque, to avoid straining the lens.
>
> One advantage of over accumulation of gear is that, although I never know
> what I'll be looking for, there's a decent chance I'll have it. ;-) the
> longer the FL, the weaker the diopter of C-U lens needed. So, for example, I
> use an 0.76 diopter Pentax T132 on the 100-400 and a 1.5 diopter Nikon 5T on
> the 12-60.
>
> Most of my physically small and relatively light achromats are fairly strong
> diopters. But, there is this set of old 55 mm Minoltas. . . . and the weakest
> is 0.90 diopters. It's also relatively light. After taking a couple of shots
> holding the C-U by hand, I took a flier, and bought the Lensmate adapter.
>
> So far, it's working fine, with no sign the slightly heavy "filter" is
> straining the adhesive.
> ---------------------
>
> Something DPR has been testing lately is ISO invariance. By that, they mean
> that results from shooting at low ISO and increasing exposure in post and
> from shooting at a higher ISO are essentially identical.
> <https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-zs200-tz200/5
> <https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/panasonic-lumix-dmc-zs200-tz200/5>>
>
> As they put it ". . . you can (in most instances) shoot at base ISO and
> increase the brightness several stops while processing the Raw image, with a
> minimal noise penalty. By keeping the ISO low the camera captures additional
> highlight data instead of 'throwing it away' at higher sensitivities by
> amplifying the signal." Later Sony RX100 models are the same.
>
> Remember when pulling up shadows meant lots of noise, loss of detail and
> weird colors? Not so much, anymore.
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/ZS200/Sunspots.htm
> <http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/tech/ZS200/Sunspots.htm>>
>
> Carol saw the pattern of "sun spots" on my shirt from my hat, and stopped me
> for an iPhone pic. I put the hat on her, and took my own.
>
> Light & Dark Moose
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|