Using the Panasonic FZ series of fixed zoom digital cameras.

twebster · Post by **twebster** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 12:37 am

Hi ya' guys

Our very own Danny Young has written an informative article on some of his setups when "Using the Panasonic FZ series of fixed zoom digital cameras." You can read Danny's informative article HERE. The article also contains some of Danny's great images.

Thanks, mate

S. Alden · Post by **S. Alden** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 5:06 am

Great article and of course, you have to love those images. Thanks Danny for the information.

Kenv · Post by **Kenv** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 1:04 pm

Beautiful set of images Danny, and interesting what can be done with the FZ camera.
Kenv

Ken Ramos · Post by **Ken Ramos** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 3:04 pm

Great article Danny. Very informative with great photographs, very well put together

.

MikeBinOKlahoma · Post by **MikeBinOKlahoma** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 3:53 pm

Informative article with (of course!) excellent images.

I've only shot macro in 35mm, but I"ve sometimes dabbled with the idea of gettinga digital camera because of the greater depth of field for macro. From what I've seen in photos, the smaller chip on digicams seems to result in much more DOF, am I correct or is this wishful thinking and "grass is greener on other side" dreaming?

twebster · Post by **twebster** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 4:54 pm

Hi ya' Mike

From what I've seen in photos, the smaller chip on digicams seems to result in much more DOF, am I correct or is this wishful thinking and "grass is greener on other side" dreaming?

Unfortunately it is wishful thinking. Click on the link to "Reasonable Expectations" at the top of any forum page. Select "Photography Myths" from the site menu and I have a series of articles that deal specifically about depth of field. It is all dependent on image magnification. There is an article that deals specifically with digital cameras and sub-35mm ccd/cmos sensors.

Enjoy

MikeBinOKlahoma · Post by **MikeBinOKlahoma** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 5:29 pm

I'll have to check out the articles, Tom. So I can't swipe from Danny's bucket of DOF by getting a digicam? DANG!

nzmacro · Post by **nzmacro** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 6:08 pm

LOL, I knew Tom would be into that one real quick, I just didn't realise how quick

Its like taking a small portion out of a 35mm frame and enlarging it Mike. Tom will pound me if thats wrong, but hey I'm used to it. There are sites with conflicting info on that Mike.

I'll just stay a clicker in time in that case, haha.

Thanks folks, Tom corrected what was wrong of course, so a big thanks for spellunking corrections M8t. .........Even though its in american spelling LOL. When am I going get you folks to spell "Colour", "stabilisation", etc. LOL. Never mind I give up.

All the best and thanks again macroholics.

Danny.

Charles Krebs · Post by **Charles Krebs** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 10:11 pm

Not so fast Tom...

I'm not so sure Mike's thinking is off base at all.

I'll have to read over the article you referenced more carefully when I have a bit more time. But I have thought similar thoughts to Mike and looked at a few numbers myself. (Pertaining only to photomacrography).

The camera that Danny is using has an image sensor that measures about 5x7mm. When I need 5X (5:1) in order to fill the "frame" (film size 24x36mm) with a subject using my 35mm camera and my 65mm Canon macro, Danny will only need to be at 1X (1:1) in order to fill the frame (5x7mm) in his camera with the same subject. Now there are a myriad of variables involved... circle of confusion, diffraction, effective aperture depending of optical method used... but lets just look at 35mm for moment. At 5X my DOF at f8 is about .12mm. At 1:1 my DOF is .96mm (8 times as much!).

Looking at a more modest magnification makes the difference even greater. When I need 1X (1:1) in order to fill the "frame" (film size 24x36mm) with a subject using my 35mm camera and my 65mm Canon macro, Danny will only need to be at .2X (1:5) in order to fill the frame (5x7mm) in his camera with the same subject. Again, looking at 35mm, at 1:1 and f8 my DOF is .96mm. At 1:5 and f8 the DOF is 14mm (over 14X as much).

Now you need to factor in the variables. This can be tough to quantify, but the small sensor size has some things going for it. Diffraction will be less of a problem since the magnifications are lower and therefore the effective apertures are much larger (smaller f number). With the 65mm MPE Macro at 5:1 and (marked) f8, (my effectively aperture is smaller than f45) and I'm well into the realm where diffraction is killing my resolution. At 1:1 and f8, the "effective aperture" is only f16, and I'm still in pretty safe territory as far as resolution loss due to diffraction is concerned. So not only will Danny be getting far greater DOF, he can potentially get far better resolution because he is not getting hammered by diffraction. Now I could shoot a lower magnifications and take a scissors and cut out a 5x7mm section from the center of the frame. But Danny is going to get a file that is 2300 pixels across the 7mm width of his frame. If I could obtain the same pixel density from a film scan, that would correspond to scan from a 35mm slide of over 260 megs (11500 pixels in the long dimension). There is no way a 35mm frame captures that much info. The 5x7 digital sensor can capture much more information per unit area than film.

As I said earlier, it's tough to do a real "apples to apples" comparison between the two. And there are a variety of factors that could be discussed forever, but if I were interested primarily in doing close-ups of insects at fairly high magnifications, it would be very tempting to set up a system with a digital camera using a 5x7 or 6.6x8.8mm (referred to as 2/3") sensor.

twebster · Post by **twebster** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 10:12 pm

Hi ya' guys

LOL, I knew Tom would be into that one real quick, I just didn't realise how quick

Me

Jump quickly on a depth of field discussion

Are you kidding

I don't know how long and how hard I've been trying to educate photographers about depth of field. Depth of field is dependent on image magnification and f. stop. That's all.

Now, after 4

or is it 5

years I think I have finally figured out how Danny can get such high image magnifications at such long working distances. The explanation is going to take time for me to put together so that it makes sense to everybody but I'll make sure that I will post the results on www.photomacrography.net.

Please, take a look at the "Photographic Myths" section of Reasonable Expectations. A lot of myths will make sense if you read the articles in order.

Best regards to all as always

Charles Krebs · Post by **Charles Krebs** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 10:24 pm

Tom...

Depth of field is dependent on image magnification and f. stop. That's all.

No argument here

My long-winded message above is perhaps too involved. The "key" factor is brought up near the end. The ability of these sensors to capture much more information per unit area, allows photographing at lower magnifications. Ergo, more DOF.

You can argue the fine points to death, but I think that's about it in a nutshell.

nzmacro · Post by **nzmacro** » Thu Dec 16, 2004 10:58 pm

Heck thats interesting figures there Charlie !!., Never thought about it like that.

Yep its one word, magnification.

I should also say that to fill the CCD size or frame with the eye of a fly, the lens to subject distance is around 50-60mm. In 35mm and bellows with a 50mm macro lens, I would be just about touching the rear element on the reversed lens on the bellows with the subject. Lighting now becomes tough, insects won't hang around and to even see the thing is near impossible. So the lens to subject distance is a huge bonus.

The other thing we need to look at is the lens itself. In 35mm terms I often use the optical zoom on the FZ10 to around 420mm and then we have the added lenses. Now to do that in 35mm with a 400mm lens would be darn awkward. Now if I stretch into digital zoom (which I do use allot) we now end up on the FZ10 with the equivalent of 840mm before the lenses are added. On 35mm...... phew.

As Charlie points out, its the small CCD size. It also comes down to the focal lengths as pointed out.

Where I miss out is in the resolution department and as Charlie mentions there, distortions, CA, etc. Also no way can I use anything beyond ISO 100, the noise is just hopeless beyond that. Hence I lock mine on ISO 50. So we gain on one end, but lose out on the other. The other thing I get Charlie, which is real weird, is some very strange patterns on the CCD which shows up in the images, if I go too far and use around a 28mm lens. The patterns are real weird mate

. I should post a shot of that

So now about the Nikkor 70-210 + 1.4 tc and a macro of a flies head from over 5 feet away Tom. Whats the answer M8t. Thats the one that has me completely confused. That 1.4 is really doing weird things to the optics and magnification. That is driving me nuts Tom. That one setup is a freak.

All the best folks and thanks

Danny.