Panasonic Lumix FZ 200 Question

[jcuknz]

Do any of you know how the adapters work for the panasonic Lumix FZ 200. I just ordered the lens's for it. I have the adapter and not sure how to use it yet? Thanks in advance.

Dpreview tells me that the FZ200 does not have a lens mount for it [ perhaps becuase they feel it is not safe to mount anything on the end of a tromboning lens ] so I am at a loss to know what "lens' you have ordered for it [ unless perhaps a Raynox close-up lens which clips onto the camera lens and would be an excellent purchase if it is big enough to fit the end of the Lumix lens ].
Also what I know as an adaptor I know has been used with the camera but don't know the details*. To overcome the problem of the lack of a filter mounting thread on my old Nikon 5700 I discovered there was a small 'rim' around the lens barrel which suited a step-up ring after I turned off a minute amouint of the thread ... when doing a trial fit it 'stuck' and remained there for the next two or three years quite happilly and useful for just a filter but not an adaptor which in my book is a lens with some weight.

The FZ200 has a single fixed x24 zoom lens with a constant f/2.8 maximum aperture whatever setting of the zoom you use. With no filter thread I hope there is a mounting for a lenshood like on most FZ cameras which would likely need to be removed to fit the Raynox CU lens mount.

Explain further Cheryl what you have and I may be able to be more positive for you

*A question at this forum for Panasonic camera users might be more fruiitful becuase I left the Panasonic FZ cameras with the FZ50 .....http://lumixuser.co.uk/forum/ .... still have mine but not kept up with developments really.

[jcuknz]

A wonderful experience for you Manfred and great results despite 2000 ISO

That you felt you needed 2000 ISO brings into question the suitability of the bridge camera [ FZ200] against M4/3 or APS which with their larger sensors can safely be used at much higher ISO... no doubt the FZ200 is better than my FZ50 but I rarely use[d] it above 100 ISO. I would go to 6400 ISO if the situation called for it now with M4/3. Yet to try 12800 ISO of my current model

[jcuknz]

On the subject of bears .... a lady freind has been buying 'lost bears' from Goodwill and Salvation Army type stores over the past year and tidying them up, disinfecting, cleaning etc and just before Christmas took this photo on her i-pad of the 'extended family' before donating them to the local 'christmas present' organisation for distribution to the less affluent. She feels quite lonely without them though she still has numerous pigs, a couple can be seen on right of photo in alcove.

This was taken before their Christmas garb was added
It looks as it a pig or perhaps a rabbit got into the crowd, centre of group.

[Manfred M]

A wonderful experience for you Manfred and great results despite 2000 ISO

That you felt you needed 2000 ISO brings into question the suitability of the bridge camera [ FZ200] against M4/3 or APS which with their larger sensors can safely be used at much higher ISO... no doubt the FZ200 is better than my FZ50 but I rarely use[d] it above 100 ISO. I would go to 6400 ISO if the situation called for it now with M4/3. Yet to try 12800 ISO of my current model

The issue I had was trying to get a reasonable shutter speed / aperture combination in some difficult shooting conditions; constantly changing weather (rain), long lens and bobbing on the water in a boat that was not a great shooting platform. I was simultaneously shooting video as well (tripod mounted video camera). In retrospect, I probably could have cut back on the ISO a bit, but was playing it safe.

[peteshep]

Anita,
Have a look at the series of independent reviews and tutorials on the FZ200 by Graham Houghton on You-Tube:
http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list...LqgAovxwxHQXdQ
P :-)

[country girl]

I, just got the Zeikos fish eye for it, and the adapter is a Kowi LA-55FZ200, and the ring is 55-58 that comes with it. So far it works. I, am waitting on the wide angle and telephoto to come in the mail now. Thanks for the reply.

[peteshep]

My first beginner's trial shot with new FZ200 (iA mode):
(Wild native tui scoffing the sugar-water, NZ.)

P :-)
http://www.flickr.com/photos/peteshep/sets/

[lumicks]

Dpreview tells me that the FZ200 does not have a lens mount for it [ perhaps becuase they feel it is not safe to mount anything on the end of a tromboning lens ] so I am at a loss to know what "lens' you have ordered for it [ unless perhaps a Raynox close-up lens which clips onto the camera lens and would be an excellent purchase if it is big enough to fit the end of the Lumix lens ].
Also what I know as an adaptor I know has been used with the camera but don't know the details*. To overcome the problem of the lack of a filter mounting thread on my old Nikon 5700 I discovered there was a small 'rim' around the lens barrel which suited a step-up ring after I turned off a minute amouint of the thread ... when doing a trial fit it 'stuck' and remained there for the next two or three years quite happilly and useful for just a filter but not an adaptor which in my book is a lens with some weight.

The FZ200 has a single fixed x24 zoom lens with a constant f/2.8 maximum aperture whatever setting of the zoom you use. With no filter thread I hope there is a mounting for a lenshood like on most FZ cameras which would likely need to be removed to fit the Raynox CU lens mount.

Explain further Cheryl what you have and I may be able to be more positive for you

*A question at this forum for Panasonic camera users might be more fruiitful becuase I left the Panasonic FZ cameras with the FZ50 .....http://lumixuser.co.uk/forum/ .... still have mine but not kept up with developments really.

I recently bought the FZ200. It has thread on its lens. You can attach 52mm filters. I have a Canon teleconverter lens that fits directly to the 52 mm end of the zoom lens but creates a round vignetting on the edges. Maybe its compatible teleconverter lens got to have an adapter with a bigger diameter than 52 mm.

As expected FZ200 has 1/2.3 in. size sensor. Whichever way I toy with the camera, using lowest ISO, zooming it to its tolerable optical range, IQ is still not comparable with a DSLR. So far there are images I've taken lately that is acceptable to my judgement as an enthusiast. Comparing it with other bridge cameras somehow the constant f2.8 apperture is its edge.

[lumicks]

Here are some images I have taken.

[peteshep]

Hurried hand-held using the FZ200 "Hand held Nite Shot setting". Quick early trial.
'twas just before midnight :-)

P :-)

[peteshep]

http://www.flickr.com/photos/peteshe...in/photostream

[jcuknz]

Hurried hand-held using the FZ200 "Hand held Nite Shot setting". Quick early trial.
'twas just before midnight :-)
P :-)

Since the result appears over exposed on my monitor I suggest next time you play with manual settings after getting a 'starting point' using the NiteShot. Taking one with a half shutter speed and then a quarter shutter speed from what the camera picked.

Your shot is interesting because it completely breaks the hand holding rule of the reciprocal of the effective focal length. The camera picked 1/125 at f/4 when 'the rule' tells us the shutter speed should have been 1/1200 It would have been interesting to see shots taken in Manual mode f/4 at 1/250 and 1/500 which would have given us more detail on the near side of the moon.

[peteshep]

NZ wild native Tui with FZ200.
P mode; F4.0; ISO800; 160; 600mm equivalent; single small focus square.
http://flickr2.netbits.co.uk/large/photo/8848930666

(Let's know if this doesn't display for you.)
P :-)

[jcuknz]

Peter ... I am not knocking the FZ200 and it might be the camera I am using except I stopped replacing my FZ cameras with the FZ50 and laast year went to a Panasonic MFT . I didn't need the x24 zoom [600mm AoV] of the FZ100/150 becuase with my Raynox tele adaptor I already had 950mm AoV at a working aperture of about f/4.5 whereas the 100/150 only had f/5.6 lenses, plus the lens trombiones so I believe unsuitable to have a heavy tele-adaptor added without a suitable cradle.

So the 100 and 150 were steps backwards IMO for an enthusiastic FZ user ... but going to MFT was a big step forward with some bad points ... but if the 200 had replaced the 50 I likely would still be with the FZs.

It is obvious that the small sensor is liable to turn out less good results but within certain limitations the bridge camera can compete and beat DSLR produced images as happens from time to time when my results find favour with judges

[ajohnw]

I tried a super zoom "bridge" camera recently but the Fuji one. A present. It went on ebay quickly after only a few shots. I also spent some time looking at reviews on a number of them especially ones that included full frames that could be downloaded. Must admit I am comparing with a dslr but there is some very clever software in these cameras that may or may not work in a given set of circumstances. They seem to be able to latch onto a subject and manage to enhance it. All's ok if it gets the subject correct but backgrounds can be a bit strange as can subjects at times. The thing that amazes me about them is all those really tiny pixels that no lens can really use effectively yet sometimes they get it right.

Noticing the comments about M 4/3 personally I feel they are a better option. More expensive though by the time the telephoto lens is added. In fact probably twice as much when an 100-300mm is added. Oddly I just posted a shot in the recent macro thread taken with the Pansonic 100-300mm that is cropped and representative of a 1200mm view. I've added a note as I was being unfair to the lens. Shot hand held with OM-D but I would be happy to use a Pen E-P3 as well like that. Pen's have a lot and I do mean a lot of options which is good but some might prefer a Pansonic. My reason for going that way is walking. My walks range from 5 to 20miles and carrying a selection of even APS lenses about would be a bit of a strain. I also pixel peep and zooms with a range of much over 3:1 would annoy me. Actually that is a fact we all have to live with and make our own minds up about. I find that it's better to crop to double the focal length of a given lens. That's why I pixel peep.

John
-

[peteshep]

Hurried Auckland city shot ------ FZ200:
http://flickr2.netbits.co.uk/large/photo/8898890618
P :-)

[peteshep]

In case of interest ----------- FZ200
Newly uploaded photostream of recent fascinating trip in northern India --
Delhi mid-summer, Agra and Taj, Jodhpur old Blue town, Bishnoi rural villages, Rajasthani colours and dye works;
but best of all isolated Ladakh high in the Himalayas. Culture and colour.
All hurried, hand-held, with the FZ200, jpegs:
http://flickr.com/peteshep
In the photostream order is in reverse. Hover for titles, click on an image to go to the photo-page, and scroll down. Explore. Enjoy.
P :-)

[peteshep]

Lost track of where we got to.
But, in case of FZ200 interest:
12 more travel Sets/albums in flickr -- all hurried hand-held jpegs with FZ200 ---- Corners of Italy with an architectural eye:
Currently top twelve Sets/albums from:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/peteshep/albums
Click Set/album for thumbnails. Click image for individual photo-page, enlarge, scroll-down text, etc. Enjoy. P :-)