It is currently 28 Mar 2024, 17:22

Panasonic Lumix DC-FZ82

Hang up your Chisels and Plane blades and take a load off with a recently turned goblet of your favourite poison, in the lounge of our Gentlemen's (and ladies) Club.

Re: Panasonic Lumix DC-FZ82

Postby Eric the Viking » 26 May 2022, 17:04

AJB Temple wrote:Yes....but. I have a Canon 85mm EF1.2L that we bought specifically for business portrait and brochure work. It has stunning image quality on a full frame camera, but wide open the depth of field is so shallow that you can do a face with only part of it in focus but one eye super sharp. I found it quite a difficult lens to get used to.

Mine is the cheaper f/1.8 EF, but I know what you mean. That's really handy for exact focussing though. I run Magic Lantern, 3rd party camera firmware in the 6D, which lets me have focus peaking on the back screen or the HDMI output - the faster the lens the better it works.

Irony this last week: the Domestic Controller wanted a new passport photo, so I got out the 85mm, and took the pic at f/2.2 - pin sharp, can see every hair, background nicely bland and out of focus, etc. The Passport Office's on-line app initially rejected the image as being "blurry". I'd given her the jpeg as she was in a rush, so dropped the raw file into AfterShot and bumped the contrast and brightness up a bit, and the app was perfectly happy.

The Passport Office instructions say not to post-process the image in any way.

<sigh>

E.

PS: my Canon 85 vignettes nastily. It's OK for portraiture, but very noticeable on other subjects (and the plain light-blue background to her passport photo). I inherited it recently, and I still enjoy using it, but the penny has now dropped that it was probably designed for an APS camera body (dad had a 350D).
Eric the Viking
Sapling
 
Posts: 456
Joined: 10 Dec 2020, 21:34
Location: In the downstairs shower, trying to fix the leak.
Name:

Re: Panasonic Lumix DC-FZ82

Postby Pete Maddex » 26 May 2022, 18:48

I nearly bought a Nikon 200mm f2, some one was selling it at same price the where offered from a large camera shop so it would be a no loss purchase, but the thing is a monster and I chickened out.

Pete
Let them eat static


Flickr
User avatar
Pete Maddex
Nordic Pine
 
Posts: 893
Joined: 29 Nov 2020, 12:41
Location: nottingham
Name:

Re: Panasonic Lumix DC-FZ82

Postby AJB Temple » 26 May 2022, 21:48

I think this kind of expensive glass, unless you are loaded, has to be bought for a purpose. In my case, when we did a big Japan trip I knew what we were likely to be photographing and bought a 5DIII specifically for that trip. I recently went mirrorless full frame, but that was when I had spare cash and it was specifically to assist offspring with his doctoral project, which required ultra high resolution macro. Without specific need it's so hard to justify unless you are very flush or a pro. I'm just an average snapper. I like doing aviation photography and birds in flight, but both are very difficult to do well. I tend to use a 300mm lens with a 2 times converter, as at least I can carry the thing.
Don't like: wood, engines, electrickery, decorating, tiling, laying stone, plumbing, gardening or any kind of DIY. Not wild about spiders either.
User avatar
AJB Temple
Sequoia
 
Posts: 5431
Joined: 15 Apr 2019, 09:04
Name:

Re: Panasonic Lumix DC-FZ82

Postby Eric the Viking » 27 May 2022, 10:08

A converter is probably next on my list, too, but...

... I have a nice Tokina/Sigma 400 f/5.6 in Pentax K, and several teleconverters to go with it. And a nice, professionally-made long lens support*. I will have to modify the back of whichever optical thing ends up nearest the mirror box, but then I'm good-ish to go (on APS Canons the mirror clears the PK back-of-lens gubbins, on full-frame, well let's just say I only chipped the paint on the back of the mirror!).

Converters are not ideal (basically a group of diverging optics), but still better than fighting too-few pixels to start with. Back in my Pentax days I usually had one in the bag.

E.

*It supports body and lens together at roughly the CG, so the strain on the lens mounts is minimized. I think because Canon has such a wide mount it's probably also very strong, but I prefer not to risk it. The only drawback is that I can't then work in portrait aspect ratio. But then everything optical is some sort of compromise.
Eric the Viking
Sapling
 
Posts: 456
Joined: 10 Dec 2020, 21:34
Location: In the downstairs shower, trying to fix the leak.
Name:

Re: Panasonic Lumix DC-FZ82

Postby Woodster » 27 May 2022, 10:36

Eric the Viking wrote:A converter is probably next on my list, too, but...

... I have a nice Tokina/Sigma 400 f/5.6 in Pentax K, and several teleconverters to go with it. And a nice, professionally-made long lens support*. I will have to modify the back of whichever optical thing ends up nearest the mirror box, but then I'm good-ish to go (on APS Canons the mirror clears the PK back-of-lens gubbins, on full-frame, well let's just say I only chipped the paint on the back of the mirror!).

Converters are not ideal (basically a group of diverging optics), but still better than fighting too-few pixels to start with. Back in my Pentax days I usually had one in the bag.

E.

*It supports body and lens together at roughly the CG, so the strain on the lens mounts is minimized. I think because Canon has such a wide mount it's probably also very strong, but I prefer not to risk it. The only drawback is that I can't then work in portrait aspect ratio. But then everything optical is some sort of compromise.


I used one back in the days of film. Interestingly I saw this recently so not sure I’d use one again?

https://youtu.be/S_sblsnupqQ
User avatar
Woodster
Old Oak
 
Posts: 2558
Joined: 26 Jan 2017, 13:17
Location: Dorset
Name:

Re: Panasonic Lumix DC-FZ82

Postby Eric the Viking » 27 May 2022, 20:50

I rather lost the will to continue through that, er, video.

If not interested in teleconverters, PLEASE IGNORE WHAT FOLLOWS...

Real (not imaginary) teleconverter issues:

  1. Don't use them with zoom lenses. I'll come back to this.
  2. You lose a lot of light. This upsets autofocus systems (which is why you rarely if ever see 3x converters nowadays). It also makes the viewfinder as dark as an old Zenit E, which tends to frighten young people.
  3. You can't use them with wide angle lenses. Or standard lenses. Or short focal length telephotos. So it's something you carry only for use with a long lens. OK the first two are pointless, but they are NOT good with short telephotos.
  4. Unless the glass is really well coated (REALLY well coated), there is an inevitable loss of contrast because of the extra air-glass interfaces. This is much less of an issue with long lenses than wider-angle ones, as the optics of a long lens are far simpler and there are fewer lens groups inside. And you really can do a lot to correct it in editing. You also get significant optical aberrations (chromatic aberration, coma and vignetting sometimes too). Using RAW files, chromatic aberration and common lens distortions can be quite well corrected though.
  5. There are cleaning issues - you're adding a coupling in the middle of your "lens" (and the many of the converters I've seen on eBay described as "mint" are filthy, some even with fungus). Specs of dirt also degrade the image, far more than they do on the front element of a big lens. I am very lucky, as I have a camera repairer (for the local professionals) within easy walking distance of home - I clean my lenses carefully, but they still get booked-in occasionally for a real working-over by him.
  6. Converters on zooms. Well you probably physically can, but don't expect much from that. Various issues:
    • Way too many elements in play (air-glass interfaces), so the image will, at best, be dull and possibly even slightly desaturated too. You'll possibly also get horrid flare with bright lights close to the edges of frame (both in the frame and just outside it) - I don't think the usual lens hood will help, because of the angles involved.
    • Modern zooms don't track. In fact I haven't seen a stills one that does since the mid 1980s (when autofocus became a 'thing'). They're cheaper to make that way, but it's poison to any teleconverter. If a zoom "tracks", it simply means the plane of focus stays the same, whatever focal length is zoomed to. In modern cameras autofocus will re-focus the lens in a split second after you zoom it, so for stills a non-tracking zoom doesn't really matter. But it's a complete non-starter for video, and video zoom lenses are correspondingly expensive, and usually have to be mechanically adjusted (the "tracking" part) so that they are operating in that sweet spot. Teleconverters cannot cope with this problem at all well.
    • Depending on the zoom design, the front element of the teleconverter might even hit the back element of the main lens. I think I have seen one on eBay today (sold for parts) that this happened to, but it's a guess.
    • Teleconverters are really only designed to accept light coming in from specific angles. To make a compact modern zoom, the lens groups inside have do all sorts of counter-intuitive movements during zooming, and the angle of the cone of light towards the sensor changes. So you might get lucky with the maximum zoom and it will match the converter reasonably well, but you probably won't. At shorter focal lengths all bets are off (and anyway it's pointless to leave the teleconverter fitted!).

You wouldn't think I want one, but I really do.

I have exactly the sort of long lens a teleconverter is suited for, and I tend to do the sort of photography it works well with, too. My camera body is surprisingly good in low light, which helps with the losses, and it's $loads cheaper (and lighter to carry) than a longer lens.

So I'm still scouring eBay, and I note that some quite good looking ones are now turning up at sensible prices.

E.
Eric the Viking
Sapling
 
Posts: 456
Joined: 10 Dec 2020, 21:34
Location: In the downstairs shower, trying to fix the leak.
Name:

Re: Panasonic Lumix DC-FZ82

Postby AJB Temple » 27 May 2022, 21:55

:D

Mine is a Canon L that is designed to double the focal length of Canon L lenses but with the loss of 2 f stops.

It's totally fine. I use it for stills, not video, so can't comment on that. For stills it is very good. Obviously better in good light. It does not materially compromise sharpness. It gives me a better chance of getting the shot and getting it in focus.

Is it as good as a dedicated 400mm or 600mm L lens? Of course not. But I can't afford that and for the few occasions I want it, the compromise is fine. But I am not a pro and I don't make a living from it.

In conclusion I regard a converter as a very useful and relatively cheap tool that is easy to carry around.
Don't like: wood, engines, electrickery, decorating, tiling, laying stone, plumbing, gardening or any kind of DIY. Not wild about spiders either.
User avatar
AJB Temple
Sequoia
 
Posts: 5431
Joined: 15 Apr 2019, 09:04
Name:

Re: Panasonic Lumix DC-FZ82

Postby Eric the Viking » 27 May 2022, 23:29

I quite agree - they do one job very well (and I still want one!).

E.
Eric the Viking
Sapling
 
Posts: 456
Joined: 10 Dec 2020, 21:34
Location: In the downstairs shower, trying to fix the leak.
Name:

Re: Panasonic Lumix DC-FZ82

Postby Andyp » 28 May 2022, 09:09

I am almost afraid to ask.

Is this any better.?
E1EB953A-6ABA-44DC-A20E-940CC6016424.jpeg
(519.79 KiB)


https://flic.kr/p/2noiAGk
I do not think therefore I do not am.

cheers
Andy
User avatar
Andyp
Petrified Pine
 
Posts: 11716
Joined: 22 Jul 2014, 07:05
Location: 14860 Normandy, France
Name: Andy

Re: Panasonic Lumix DC-FZ82

Postby novocaine » 28 May 2022, 10:18

I think that's pretty close to as good as you will get with the tools you have.

Are you happy with it? If so, then ignore the rest and enjoy what you do.
Carbon fibre is just corduroy for cars.
novocaine
Old Oak
 
Posts: 2560
Joined: 26 Nov 2020, 10:37
Name: Dave

Re: Panasonic Lumix DC-FZ82

Postby Eric the Viking » 28 May 2022, 11:11

Pretty jolly good! :eusa-clap: But can you do as well with a live one? It's obviously stuffed as it's a perfectly sharp image and it's not moving...

Seriously, you can see detail in every feather and the background is nicely out of focus. Your setup is working just fine.

Suggestions for post-processing:

1. If you are able, try brightening it slightly (in camera terms, about 1/2 a stop), as you're not making best use of the brightness range you have - I'd go up until you lose detail in the brightest areas, then back-off slightly.

2. Wind-up the black level a bit (it's the cutoff point below which everything is rendered as black): There's almost no really dark bits of the dove, so you shouldn't see the effect there (possibly it's beak), but it may help the noise in the out of focus areas.

It's a good image to play with in your photo editor, to see the effect of the various brightness/contrast and colour tools.

If I'd taken that I'd be pleased.

E.
Eric the Viking
Sapling
 
Posts: 456
Joined: 10 Dec 2020, 21:34
Location: In the downstairs shower, trying to fix the leak.
Name:

Re: Panasonic Lumix DC-FZ82

Postby Andyp » 28 May 2022, 12:16

novocaine wrote:I think that's pretty close to as good as you will get with the tools you have.

Are you happy with it? If so, then ignore the rest and enjoy what you do.


Yes Dave. I have long since come to the conclusion that for my eyes and expectations the camera is doing just fine.
I do not think therefore I do not am.

cheers
Andy
User avatar
Andyp
Petrified Pine
 
Posts: 11716
Joined: 22 Jul 2014, 07:05
Location: 14860 Normandy, France
Name: Andy

Re: Panasonic Lumix DC-FZ82

Postby Andyp » 28 May 2022, 12:23

Eric the Viking wrote:Pretty jolly good! :eusa-clap: But can you do as well with a live one? It's obviously stuffed as it's a perfectly sharp image and it's not moving...

Seriously, you can see detail in every feather and the background is nicely out of focus. Your setup is working just fine.

Suggestions for post-processing:

1. If you are able, try brightening it slightly (in camera terms, about 1/2 a stop), as you're not making best use of the brightness range you have - I'd go up until you lose detail in the brightest areas, then back-off slightly.

2. Wind-up the black level a bit (it's the cutoff point below which everything is rendered as black): There's almost no really dark bits of the dove, so you shouldn't see the effect there (possibly it's beak), but it may help the noise in the out of focus areas.

It's a good image to play with in your photo editor, to see the effect of the various brightness/contrast and colour tools.

If I'd taken that I'd be pleased.

E.


Thanks Eric, that is the edited version. Editing done in Photos on the iPad. If I sent you by email the unedited image do you think you could edit it and show me the difference?

I’ll send you a PM with my email.
I do not think therefore I do not am.

cheers
Andy
User avatar
Andyp
Petrified Pine
 
Posts: 11716
Joined: 22 Jul 2014, 07:05
Location: 14860 Normandy, France
Name: Andy

Re: Panasonic Lumix DC-FZ82

Postby Woodster » 28 May 2022, 12:37

Andyp wrote: Editing done in Photos on the iPad.


Did you try using the Noise Reduction slider?
User avatar
Woodster
Old Oak
 
Posts: 2558
Joined: 26 Jan 2017, 13:17
Location: Dorset
Name:

Re: Panasonic Lumix DC-FZ82

Postby Andyp » 28 May 2022, 12:42

Woodster wrote:
Andyp wrote: Editing done in Photos on the iPad.


Did you try using the Noise Reduction slider?


Yep, the noise eduction at max which is at 0 on the scale. Moving the slider up to 100 makes it worse.
I do not think therefore I do not am.

cheers
Andy
User avatar
Andyp
Petrified Pine
 
Posts: 11716
Joined: 22 Jul 2014, 07:05
Location: 14860 Normandy, France
Name: Andy

Re: Panasonic Lumix DC-FZ82

Postby Woodster » 28 May 2022, 13:25

There is some very good noise reduction software out there but I don’t think it’s cheap?
User avatar
Woodster
Old Oak
 
Posts: 2558
Joined: 26 Jan 2017, 13:17
Location: Dorset
Name:

Re: Panasonic Lumix DC-FZ82

Postby Andy Kev. » 28 May 2022, 17:34

I think it’s clear that you’re getting things sorted out from your point of view as the user of the camera. However, a slight enlargement shows the limitations of the kit, particularly in the amount of noise in the “shoulder” feathers. I reckon it will start to annoy you, particularly if you want a biggish print of an image. Time to start saving for a decent camera. :D
Andy Kev.
Nordic Pine
 
Posts: 581
Joined: 04 Jan 2021, 20:42
Name:

Re: Panasonic Lumix DC-FZ82

Postby Pete Maddex » 28 May 2022, 17:38

I have 1.4x and 2x converters for my sigms 70-200 f2.8 they are matched to a small list of lenses and work very well, they are much better than the old ones.

Pete
Let them eat static


Flickr
User avatar
Pete Maddex
Nordic Pine
 
Posts: 893
Joined: 29 Nov 2020, 12:41
Location: nottingham
Name:

Re: Panasonic Lumix DC-FZ82

Postby Eric the Viking » 28 May 2022, 19:05

Pete Maddex wrote:I have 1.4x and 2x converters for my sigms 70-200 f2.8 they are matched to a small list of lenses and work very well, they are much better than the old ones.

Pete


OK, but it's still a lot of air-glass interfaces - they must affect the contrast, surely?

But also I get that you'd really only want to use them at full focal length, so Sigma can compute for that, which probably helps a lot, and 70-200 is not a huge zoom range, also good in this context.

I'm still considering a Canon 2x converter for the 300. There are more available secondhand than I expected.
That said I'll still have to think seriously about the camera bag, as it gets rather full (and heavy!) on a trip.
Eric the Viking
Sapling
 
Posts: 456
Joined: 10 Dec 2020, 21:34
Location: In the downstairs shower, trying to fix the leak.
Name:

Re: Panasonic Lumix DC-FZ82

Postby Woodster » 28 May 2022, 20:29

I’ve got an old Canon FD fit Vivitar Series One 70-210 zoom and a 1.4 Vivitar converter, I’ll have to try it out on my FujiFilm MILC and see what it’s like. :D
User avatar
Woodster
Old Oak
 
Posts: 2558
Joined: 26 Jan 2017, 13:17
Location: Dorset
Name:

Re: Panasonic Lumix DC-FZ82

Postby Andyp » 03 Jun 2022, 19:28

A first attempt at an “action” shot.

2AFAE8AB-B964-4507-A44C-3FB7204127E7.jpeg
(582.87 KiB)


https://flic.kr/p/2npE5MH

I did not have much time to fiddle with settings etc. I think I should have used an higher ISO. This was taken at 80. I’ll try and turn up a little earlier next week and see if I can capture a full gallop. In a different position I might be able to lose the awful background too.
I do not think therefore I do not am.

cheers
Andy
User avatar
Andyp
Petrified Pine
 
Posts: 11716
Joined: 22 Jul 2014, 07:05
Location: 14860 Normandy, France
Name: Andy

Re: Panasonic Lumix DC-FZ82

Postby AJB Temple » 03 Jun 2022, 20:48

Different ball game.
Needs shutter priority.
If you want to freeze the action ISO needs to go up.
Much faster shutter speed.
Take care with framing so hooves are not chopped off.
Shutter burst helps.
Don't like: wood, engines, electrickery, decorating, tiling, laying stone, plumbing, gardening or any kind of DIY. Not wild about spiders either.
User avatar
AJB Temple
Sequoia
 
Posts: 5431
Joined: 15 Apr 2019, 09:04
Name:

Re: Panasonic Lumix DC-FZ82

Postby Eric the Viking » 04 Jun 2022, 09:08

^^^Wot Eee said above.

I'm pretty rubbish at action shots (no natural sense of rhythm? Total lack of hand-eye coordination?...), but a couple of things:

You can waste digital frames in a way you couldn't with film: Take some static-subject pics first, to check your depth of field, framing, etc. Pick a subject about the same size and distance away, and with similar lighting. If you have the subject coming towards or moving away from you, pick a 'focus cue' point in the surroundings that's at the same distance away, and use that to trigger your shutter press.

Obviously, if you want the background out of focus ("bokeh") then you need the lens wide open, but that's a trade-off with depth of field. So with something like a horse there's probably a compromise in the aperture you choose. That said, you will only get decent background blur if there is a good distance between subject and background - exactly how much depends on the lens, and the aperture setting. Depth of field isn't an exact science, it's relative. I'd guess you want both the rider and the horse's head to be sharp (enough), so again I'd practice until you find settings that work for this - a blurry horse's bum will disappoint nobody if the heads are sharp.

I've never believed much in shutter priority, as aperture controls how we perceive images much more. In real life things moving fast are at least a bit blurry (if we aren't tracking them with our head/eyes), so some blur in the image is to be expected, and it actually doesn't look as bad as we think. So, personally, I would still use aperture priority to get the DoF I want, then tweak the ISO until the shutter speed is sufficiently fast.

There are tricks that pros use. Having the 'focus cue' trigger point in ones mind all the time is essential, as is knowing one's reaction time with respect to it - obviously you need to fire the shutter slightly ahead of your subject reaching it. Also (and this is Canon experience, but may well apply to other systems), if the horse or whatever is moving right-left or vice versa, make sure you have image stabilization in the right mode. My 300mm telephoto lens has a general setting for human operator wobble, and a second setting that stops the IS from chasing a deliberate horizontally-panning camera movement. If I don't use it I get weird ghost images and the shot is ruined.

Most software will show you the metadata that goes with the image, including the zoom (usually), and certainly aperture, shutter speed, and ISO setting. So take note of these when looking at your images, to see what works and what doesn't.

Final thought: depth of field is inversely proportional to the lens's focal length. So the wider the lens angle of view (either a simple lens or a zoom - the same applies), the more depth of field you get for a given aperture. This may be unwanted, so you may find yourself moving further away from the subject, simply so you can zoom-in more and still frame-up nicely.

It's a wacky world, photography.

E.
Eric the Viking
Sapling
 
Posts: 456
Joined: 10 Dec 2020, 21:34
Location: In the downstairs shower, trying to fix the leak.
Name:

Re: Panasonic Lumix DC-FZ82

Postby Eric the Viking » 04 Jun 2022, 09:42

Of course, if you really want to stop motion you can use a flashgun, even in daylight. Depending on the camera's construction, you might need to use "2nd curtain sync" which fires the flash just before the second shutter curtain starts to close, ensuring the motion blur (from the daylight) is behind the moving object, not in front of it.

The very short duration of the flash gives you a sharp image, with a darker background (from the daylight). You can get nicer shots if you use flash in a 'fill-in' way, to illuminate the shadow when the main light (the sun or whatever) is coming from behind the subject - it will still have the effect of freezing the action, so it's quite helpful for portraiture of children, who never stay still, obviously.

I'd probably not recommended flash for horses, as they will startle at the oddest things, although in my limited experience wildlife tends to ignore flashe.

To get the best from long lenses, there's this sort of thing:
Image
Buried inside that monster is one of the equally monstrous Metz 45-series flash guns. It's a really simple flash accessory, just a Fresnel lens (like lighthouses use) clipped on in front of the flashgun to focus the light. The ring round the front isn't a control, it's a mechanical exposure calculator that actually does nothing other than suggest the aperture for a given distance to the subject. I think they only put it on so thy could charge more for it!

It gives you a quite narrow beam and makes the flashgun usable over a much longer range (and a bettter match to long lenses as a result).

I have one of the above, but hardly ever use it. To get decent lighting for wildlife (at night) you need at least two of them, and possibly a third, and I couldn't justify the crazy secondhand prices.

That said, I feel quite safe investigating odd noises down our back lane at night however - hit a burglar in the eye with one of those and they won't see anything for about a week.

Seriously, it's a simple enough idea and it does work well. There are more modern equivalents, but they all do basically the same thing. There's nothign special about it being a Fresnel lens, except that it weighs a lot less than the equivalent normal lens (and that flashgun is quite heavy enough already!).

E.

PS: Of course all lenses work in both directions. I am slightly amused to read reports of people burning their flashguns by trying to shoot towards the sun with one of those Fresnel lenses fitted - obviously it also focuses from infinity onto the front of the flashgun... for other fun solar combustion effects I have a 2ft searchlight mirror up in a cupboard (in the dark - it takes no prisoners!).
Eric the Viking
Sapling
 
Posts: 456
Joined: 10 Dec 2020, 21:34
Location: In the downstairs shower, trying to fix the leak.
Name:

Re: Panasonic Lumix DC-FZ82

Postby Woodster » 04 Jun 2022, 10:11

Some Panasonic cameras have 4K Photo mode for action shots. It makes it much easier but I don’t know what the image quality is like.

https://www.panasonic.com/uk/consumer/c ... modes.html
User avatar
Woodster
Old Oak
 
Posts: 2558
Joined: 26 Jan 2017, 13:17
Location: Dorset
Name:

PreviousNext

Return to The Woodmangler's Retreat

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: Bing [Bot] and 14 guests