www.ukbutterflies.co.uk

Sorry for the double post - I didn't want to lose the data I'd already uploaded. I should add that these images are reduced in quality in order to fit the maximum upload size on the site. cheers.

Sorry Neil, I'll re-phrase that... "I don't think I'm ever going to take the kind of shots that get included in the UKB calendar with this (or any other) camera"
And further apologies for another double-post (our messages crossed)

Neil Hulme wrote:Hi celery/all,

"I don't think you're ever going to take the kind of shots that get included in the UKB calendar with this camera"

It's probably worth mentioning that images taken with the older models in this range have indeed appeared in the UKB calendar .... plus in various books and high quality magazines, including front covers. Here's another link to a site where the image quality produced by the Lumix range (in this case FZ38) can be better assessed due to the allowance of a larger file size https://www.flickr.com/photos/125367544 ... /lightbox/

BWs, Neil

Neil is one of my first ports of call when collecting images for the UK Butterflies calendar. As I said before, I think some people come down on the image quality way too much, the IQ is more than adequate. The qualities that I look for when selecting calendar images, are sharp subjects, with a nice clean background. Neil achieves this time and time again, using his Lumix, with a close up lens. I think the close up lens is the key here, I've had a go using a Lumix with a close up lens, the limited working distance was horrible, but I still think it's the key to getting the best macro shots from the Lumix.


Regards Gruditch

Thank you all for helping and posting pictures on this thread, this has been a useful discussion. Some of the results are impressive and I have now a more positive view on what the Lumix can offer.
I do have another question. I like to frame and focus using the viewfinder rather than the screen at the back. How easy is it to use on this camera especially for people with glasses? Thanks again.
Sylvie

Neil

It's probably worth mentioning that images taken with the older models in this range have indeed appeared in the UKB calendar .... plus in various books and high quality magazines

It might not have been a top quality photo but my claim to fame with a Lumix was to have a picture of a Purple Emperor published in the British Gliding Association magazine. The magazine published an article I wrote about the Purple Emperors in Fermyn Woods opposite the Welland Gliding Club (for those who don't know, i used to be a very enthusiastic glider pilot).

So I lay down the challenge: get a butterfly photo published in "Crown Bowls for Beginners" or "Advanced Archery (50 cm class)" - taken of course with a Panasonic Lumix.

Jack

Sylvie:

I like to frame and focus using the viewfinder rather than the screen at the back. How easy is it to use on this camera especially for people with glasses? Thanks again.

No problems at all using the Electronic Viewfinder when wearing specs.

Jack

Sylvie wrote earlier:

Thank you very much for all the answers. Some highly knowledgeable people on this website!

Certainly doesn't include me. I have just had a passport [renewal] photo rejected because my head is too small. Well, the Passport People didn't word it QUITE like that but it was apparently taken (by incidentally, a professional passport photographer who charged six quid) from "too far away" so my head appears "too small in the photo".

Jack

Hi Jack,
That reminds me of a reader's letter published in the Viz magazine during its early days, the gist being "Why waste money on an expensive pair of binoculars? Just stand closer to the object you wish to view". Wise words.
BWs, Neil

I don't think in this case, it is a matter of distance from subject. The first thing I noticed when we met at Stockbridge Down, was that Jack has freakishly small head.

Regards Gruditch

I wrote earlier:

the Passport People [said that my photo was taken] from "too far away"

I have taken a "selfie" a couple of centimetres from my nose. There is some minor distortion, but that's inevitable with a photo from close distance.

See my new submission here:

http://i888.photobucket.com/albums/ac85 ... 68cc2d.jpg

PS. Good illustration of the versatility of a Lumix bridge camera

Jack

I don't think they can moan at that.

Regards Gruditch

I'll try & summarise where I've got to in the past year, or two (apologies for the long-winded post)...

'Main' setup: Nikon D90 + Sigma 105mm Macro (+ [this year] a Sigma 2x TC - big mistake - should have gone for the 1.4x TC, as it permits AF... sometimes). Have had the D90 for four years.
'Alternative' setup: FZ200 + clip-on Raynox DCR-150 Macro lens (definitely NOT the DCR-250 - I have one, but have never been able to use it 'in the field' [far too sensitive for my unsteady hands...]). Bought the FZ200 in early 2013.

Reason for getting the bridge, was the unwieldy nature of the Nikon + macro - even without the TC. Other reasons became apparent subsequently (after using the bridge) - read on...

After 2013 & 2014 butterfly season experiences, I've reached the following modus operandi with the bridge:

1) 'Constants':
- I almost always use 'P' mode, which allows me quick adjustment of the aperture / shutter speed 'balance'. Plus, the FZ200, via a click of it's 'wheel', allows instant adjustment of the EV (really useful for the Whites, Brimstones, and so forth).
- I also have the thing set to burst mode (5 shots). Essential for the way I work.
- I have it set to JPEG (fine) + RAW. Very rarely resort to RAW post-processing. (Generally just do cropping of the JPEG, but RAW's a nice insurance to have.) This is, undoubtedly why I suffer card write problems (see below).

2) Initially, I tend to use the viewfinder, with AF (or, sometimes 'AF Macro'), and a long zoom (up to 24x). This allows me to get the initial 'record shot'. Sometimes, it's all I'm able to get - e.g. Clouded Yellow rarely seems to stay put for more than a few seconds! With cropping, these photos CAN be 'good' - if it's a severe crop, then the FZ200 does not produce great results (compared to the Nikon) - quite bad pixel 'smear', and suchlike.

3) If the 'fly is being accommodating (static), I quickly: unclip the lens hood; clip on the DCR-150; flick the AF switch to manual; and open the (articulated!) LCD screen. I can then, one-handed, get close to said 'fly, manually focus (move backwards & forwards!), and take a burst.

That (3) sounds like a lot of steps to take in a short time, but I've got it down to ~ 5 secs., or so. The only adjustment I have to make is the zoom - with the DCR-150 fitted, 8x fills the frame with a Small Blue, 5x fits-in a Red Admiral. Working distance is quite close - 30-80 cms.

In MF mode, the FZ200 has some useful features:
- there's a button next to the AF switch which, in MF mode, attempts to do a quick, initial AF (so you don't have to spend valuable seconds holding down the MF adjust).
- the rocker switch next to the AF switch, can be reprogrammed from being zoom in/out to MF adjust (which is how I have it setup).
- Using the MF adjust rocker (optionally, in the menus), enables 'focus peaking' - a 4x close-up of the centre part of the image.

The articulated screen is a massive bonus for close-up stuff - especially when the subject is high up in the brambles/tree, or low down in the grass. I really miss it, when using the D90. (I appreciate some DSLRs do have them, but they seem to be 'frowned upon' [i.e. not present] in the higher-end DSLRs!)

Downsides:
- burst mode can 'challenge' the SD card write speed - I do miss shots whilst waiting for the buffer to empty...
- the manual AF rocker is unfriendly - it's very easy to overshoot the focus point, and reversing the direction doesn't get you back to the focus point quickly - it's a 'puddingy' experience. That said, with the DCR-150 attached, I don't use the rocker, I just move the camera in/out.
- Low light performance is noisy, compared to the D90 (they're both 12MP, so the larger sensor size of the Nikon really does help).
- AF can be pretty frustrating (esp. in low light, or with 'busy' backgrounds)...

BTW, I wear specs, and the FZ200 viewfinder is 'ok' - I'd love a bigger VF, but you can't have everything!

Finally - reference all of the talk of acceptable IQ, and so forth - Padfield! Have you any idea of the camera that he uses (take a look at his EXIF info). Am probably going to sell the D90 and all of the lenses, TC, intervalometer, flash gun, etc., etc. - at great loss!

HTH, Jon

Jon. You wrote in another thread:

One other tip, relating to your frustration with the slow startup, resulting in missed shots. This drove me to distraction until I went through the Setup menus, and disabled the LCD timeout (my emphasis), and Lens resume

My FZ150 - it probably works in a very similar way to the FZ200 - mysteriously (I must have done something) defaulted to LCD display OFF (timeout) after about 15 seconds. This was most annoying and I couldn't figure out how to stop it happening.

Finally, I solved the problem by using the Setup menu (the little "wrench" as they call in - spanner to us), going to page 5 and then use the RESET to restore to factory settings. I was then able to start all over again and use my own preferred settings, eg exposure compensation.

I too am a fan of Graham Houghton. For example he gives good advice about using the histogram: it is better to avoid blown highlights by adjusting exposure to keep the histogram just away from the right hand end and let the shadows be lost if necessary rather than exposing for the shadows and losing what would be unrecoverable highlights.

And to return to the original query: I doubt that in most circumstances, the FZ200 will produces better pictures than does it predecessor, the FZ150. But it will do so more easily. The question come down to: does the extra ease of using the 200 justify the greater cost?

BTW, plug-in intervalometers are very cheap at circa £15. I am using one at this very moment to make a time lapse of the sky. If it's interesting I'll post a link later.

"Hope everyone's having a great day!" as Graham Houghton would say.

Jack

Isle of Mull 11th August

Cloud Time Lapse over 90 minutes. 1 minute >= 1 second (ie, 60x real speed). Frame interval = 6 seconds. ISO = 200 Aperture priority @F/3.0.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=www4R8p ... e=youtu.be

The original stills are of course higher resolution than the video (made with Video Velocity freeware program) and there is yet more loss with the Youtube upload.

It would be instructive to make a simple time lapse of a resting butterfly.

An earlier comment mentioned the slowness of the write/buffer when using burst mode with a Lumix. I find no problems at 12 frames/second on a bright day with short shutter speeds.

Jack

Agreed re the comparable IQ of the FZ150/200 - which is largely down to the sensor (in particular sensor size - same for both models), and lens quality. I wouldn't be at all surprised if the FZ200 lens design compromises that had to be made, in order to achieve the F2.8-across-the-range feature, means that the (older) FZ150 lens produces fairly similar IQ.

As you suggest, the USP for the FZ200 is the faster lens making it easier to achieve acceptable (lower ISO!) pictures, in poor lighting.

Thanks for info on the Intervalometer price - I'd only encountered £35+ devices on the dreaded Amazon. The £15 one that I have for my Nikon is going to get butchered (== 'adapted'), I think. Even in these software-based times, my electronic engineering background has some uses.

Cheers, Jon
P.S. Just seen your time-lapse sequence. I believe that's an "Awesome, dude!", in the modern vernacular. I recommend getting familiar with ffmpeg (command line). It's also free, incredibly flexible, and - if you really must - there are GUIs available. See https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Create%20a ... m%20images
And - think I might need to replace my ageing SD card. Suspect it's on it's last legs...

Jon:

See https://trac.ffmpeg.org/wiki/Create%20a ... m%20images

You flatter me to think that I might understand how to use that program

Jack

Apologies. No flattery intended

Jon