Join for FREE
It only takes a minute!
Magnifying the passion for nature. Zeiss Victory Harpia 95. New!

Welcome to BirdForum.
BirdForum is the net's largest birding community, dedicated to wild birds and birding, and is absolutely FREE! You are most welcome to register for an account, which allows you to take part in lively discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Rating: Thread Rating: 52 votes, 5.00 average.
Old Wednesday 17th December 2014, 14:06   #101
Swissboy
Registered User
 
Swissboy's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Sempach, Switzerland
Posts: 3,383
Quote:
Originally Posted by firstreesjohn View Post
..........I use Photoshop Elements 7.0 in a basic way, to sharpen and enhance/improve contrast, highlights and shadows.

Here's another Nuthatch, from the same day as the last.
Looks like the bird moved its head just a little while you took the picture. The rest is again excellently sharp, and I like the composition.

When you say you now have a 32x magnification, does that mean at full resolution, or do you reduce to 8 MP or whatever for that?

Finally, would you mind posting originals of the first nuthatch and of the fungi/lichens to allow comparing how much the improvements bring. I'm asking because I try to stay away from such alterations simply for the reason of time spent. So I might need some convincing one way or another.
__________________
Robert
--PS: That's a Sooty Falcon on the avatar, photo taken near Sharm el Sheik, Egypt. My highest priority raptor at the time.
What's your species on the avatar? I often have no clue
!
Swissboy is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Wednesday 17th December 2014, 18:30   #102
firstreesjohn
Registered User
 
firstreesjohn's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: North Norfolk
Posts: 1,924
I probably spend no more than a minute 'freshening up' each photo. Often, I will take hundreds of shots; saving fewer than, say, ten.

I reduce (that internal cropping thing) to, usually, 5MP, which gives the 32x. If quality pics are required then, of course, I use higher res.

Here is what was requested.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	331smpaint.jpg
Views:	215
Size:	645.4 KB
ID:	525791  Click image for larger version

Name:	104smpaint.jpg
Views:	186
Size:	559.7 KB
ID:	525792  Click image for larger version

Name:	479smpaint.jpg
Views:	281
Size:	539.2 KB
ID:	525802  
__________________
A Conifer ID Information Collective (ACIDIC)
Avian Considerations Examined, then Rare Bird Information Communicated (ACERBIC)
Information Recall Oblast- Nature In Charge (IRONIC)
Specific Area Research Done; Observations Not Initially Confirmed (SARDONIC)

Last edited by firstreesjohn : Wednesday 17th December 2014 at 19:16. Reason: forgot pic
firstreesjohn is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 18th December 2014, 00:52   #103
scodgerott
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Princes Hill Victoria Australia
Posts: 401
Quote:
Originally Posted by firstreesjohn View Post
Thank you, Swissboy !

The equivalent (binocular) magnification of the FZ-150 at my usual zoom setting was 37.5x; the FZ-1000, 32x.

The fact that the minimum shooting distance is now 1m may now prove to be an advantage, for the reasons stated. I think the reduced 'magnification' at a distance may not prove as much of a drawback as I thought: the quality of the (unimproved) shot seems to be higher and 'take' Photoshop better, too.

I use Photoshop Elements 7.0 in a basic way, to sharpen and enhance/improve contrast, highlights and shadows.

Here's another Nuthatch, from the same day as the last.
Those are great bird shots, plus the close ups are excellent as well. The fungus is outstanding. I had the FZ150 and still have the FZ200, with the macro setting I could never get closer at full zoom than one metre, which is the same as the FZ1000. I'm curious as to how you achieved 18" distance on your macro shots with the FZ150? That wasn't possible with any of my cameras and in fact the manual states that 1 metre is the closest you can get. Were you using an add on lens? I have the Canon 500d, which approximately halves the one metre distance, which would be about 18".
scodgerott is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 18th December 2014, 08:29   #104
firstreesjohn
Registered User
 
firstreesjohn's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: North Norfolk
Posts: 1,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by scodgerott View Post
Those are great bird shots . . . The fungus is outstanding . . . I'm curious as to how you achieved 18" distance on your macro shots with the FZ150?
Thank you, scodgerott !

I could easily be mistaken ! It happens more frequently these days. Just tried it (with the FZ-150)- and can only get to 1m.
__________________
A Conifer ID Information Collective (ACIDIC)
Avian Considerations Examined, then Rare Bird Information Communicated (ACERBIC)
Information Recall Oblast- Nature In Charge (IRONIC)
Specific Area Research Done; Observations Not Initially Confirmed (SARDONIC)
firstreesjohn is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Thursday 18th December 2014, 14:31   #105
Swissboy
Registered User
 
Swissboy's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Sempach, Switzerland
Posts: 3,383
Quote:
Originally Posted by firstreesjohn View Post
Thank you, scodgerott !

I could easily be mistaken ! It happens more frequently these days. Just tried it (with the FZ-150)- and can only get to 1m.
I had also been convinced that I'd get larger magnification when getting closer at less zoom. But trying it now, it's also about that 1m limit. At no zoom, one gets much closer but ends up with less magnification. Maybe it was different with earlier FZ models, but while I still have some around, their batteries are uncharged for a quick test. Had to change the battery in the FZ150 too.
__________________
Robert
--PS: That's a Sooty Falcon on the avatar, photo taken near Sharm el Sheik, Egypt. My highest priority raptor at the time.
What's your species on the avatar? I often have no clue
!
Swissboy is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 18th December 2014, 14:33   #106
Swissboy
Registered User
 
Swissboy's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Sempach, Switzerland
Posts: 3,383
Quote:
Originally Posted by firstreesjohn View Post
.....
I reduce (that internal cropping thing) to, usually, 5MP, which gives the 32x. If quality pics are required then, of course, I use higher res.

Here is what was requested.
Most convincing results! Thanks for this. I may have to get into this, then.
__________________
Robert
--PS: That's a Sooty Falcon on the avatar, photo taken near Sharm el Sheik, Egypt. My highest priority raptor at the time.
What's your species on the avatar? I often have no clue
!
Swissboy is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 18th December 2014, 17:03   #107
firstreesjohn
Registered User
 
firstreesjohn's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: North Norfolk
Posts: 1,924
One of the features of the FZ-50 (my first bridge camera) I most missed was the manual focus on the lens. This, of course, is so useful in certain wildlife shots, when vegetation partially obscures a creature and makes focussing difficult/impossible.

This re-appears on the FZ-1000, but with 'bells on'. Although two quick flicks of a switch/lever/button are required to change to this, with minimal practice, this can be effected very quickly.

When the focussing ring (on the lens) is rotated, the area is highlighted (called 'peaking' in the manual). In default setting, this throws a most attractive (!) turquoise 'halo' around the focussed bits. The colour can, if desired, be changed, by altering the 'detect level'. I think it's easier to understand than it sounds.

The more I use this camera, the more I like and admire it. This time, I believe, Panasonic have (at last !) listened to their customers- at a price.
__________________
A Conifer ID Information Collective (ACIDIC)
Avian Considerations Examined, then Rare Bird Information Communicated (ACERBIC)
Information Recall Oblast- Nature In Charge (IRONIC)
Specific Area Research Done; Observations Not Initially Confirmed (SARDONIC)
firstreesjohn is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 19th December 2014, 00:32   #108
scodgerott
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Princes Hill Victoria Australia
Posts: 401
Quote:
Originally Posted by firstreesjohn View Post
One of the features of the FZ-50 (my first bridge camera) I most missed was the manual focus on the lens. This, of course, is so useful in certain wildlife shots, when vegetation partially obscures a creature and makes focussing difficult/impossible.

This re-appears on the FZ-1000, but with 'bells on'. Although two quick flicks of a switch/lever/button are required to change to this, with minimal practice, this can be effected very quickly.

When the focussing ring (on the lens) is rotated, the area is highlighted (called 'peaking' in the manual). In default setting, this throws a most attractive (!) turquoise 'halo' around the focussed bits. The colour can, if desired, be changed, by altering the 'detect level'. I think it's easier to understand than it sounds.

The more I use this camera, the more I like and admire it. This time, I believe, Panasonic have (at last !) listened to their customers- at a price.
The focus peaking feature is a really nice thing to have. I like it much better than the "manual focus assist" function, which magnifies up the centre portion of the screen to help you see the focus better. Personally I find that feature a bit distracting, especially at long zoom levels. My biggest gripe with the FZ1000 and it also applies to the FZ100/150 and 200 is the retracting of the lens when you review your images for more than about 10 seconds. I don't know why they think that's a good idea. Maybe some people like it, but I haven't heard of any and they could at least give us the option of having it on or off. That way everyone would be happy.

The other feature I quite like in the macro settings is the Macro zoom, where you can get to within 3cm at wide angle then zoom 3x to get a quite big image. Its digital, but stills looks pretty good in my opinion. You can see a comparison below. One shot taken at one metre, the second shot at 3cm. Its useful for fairly static subjects and not so useful for things that will fly away or sting you if you get so close.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Flower1.JPG
Views:	198
Size:	194.4 KB
ID:	525937  Click image for larger version

Name:	Flower2.JPG
Views:	203
Size:	220.9 KB
ID:	525938  
scodgerott is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 26th December 2014, 16:03   #109
firstreesjohn
Registered User
 
firstreesjohn's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: North Norfolk
Posts: 1,924
Astonishing flash !

I had no idea that the flash would be so much more powerful.

The LH shot is without; the RH, with.

The Church is at Cley (not just known for its birds) and is quite a large area to illuminate. They were taken today, with no sun outside. The only editing: resizing.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	034sm2.jpg
Views:	212
Size:	382.3 KB
ID:	526671  Click image for larger version

Name:	032sm2.jpg
Views:	209
Size:	390.1 KB
ID:	526672  
__________________
A Conifer ID Information Collective (ACIDIC)
Avian Considerations Examined, then Rare Bird Information Communicated (ACERBIC)
Information Recall Oblast- Nature In Charge (IRONIC)
Specific Area Research Done; Observations Not Initially Confirmed (SARDONIC)
firstreesjohn is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 26th December 2014, 18:52   #110
njlarsen
Opus Editor
 
njlarsen's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Portsmouth, Dominica
Posts: 20,190
Is that the on-board flash?

Looks impressive

Niels
__________________
Support bird conservation in the Caribbean: BirdCaribbean
njlarsen is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Friday 26th December 2014, 20:21   #111
firstreesjohn
Registered User
 
firstreesjohn's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: North Norfolk
Posts: 1,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by njlarsen View Post
Is that the on-board flash? Looks impressive
Yes.

Illuminates in an equally impressive fashion.
__________________
A Conifer ID Information Collective (ACIDIC)
Avian Considerations Examined, then Rare Bird Information Communicated (ACERBIC)
Information Recall Oblast- Nature In Charge (IRONIC)
Specific Area Research Done; Observations Not Initially Confirmed (SARDONIC)
firstreesjohn is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 26th December 2014, 23:17   #112
scodgerott
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Princes Hill Victoria Australia
Posts: 401
Quote:
Originally Posted by firstreesjohn View Post
I had no idea that the flash would be so much more powerful.

The LH shot is without; the RH, with.

The Church is at Cley (not just known for its birds) and is quite a large area to illuminate. They were taken today, with no sun outside. The only editing: resizing.
That's impressive illumination. I don't think I've used the flash as yet. Maybe once, just to make sure it worked, but not in anger, so to speak. Its good to know that its effective. I find it handy to have t on the top of the camera just in case you need it. My wife's Olympus comes with a flash, but you have to put in into the hot shoe when you want its light.
scodgerott is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Saturday 27th December 2014, 00:12   #113
njlarsen
Opus Editor
 
njlarsen's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Portsmouth, Dominica
Posts: 20,190
Sometimes olympus goes overboard with making things small

I am still looking forward to reading reviews of the 300 mm and the 1,4x TC for the m4/3 system that they are expected to bring out soon.

Niels
__________________
Support bird conservation in the Caribbean: BirdCaribbean
njlarsen is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Sunday 28th December 2014, 00:51   #114
scodgerott
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Princes Hill Victoria Australia
Posts: 401
Quote:
Originally Posted by njlarsen View Post
Sometimes olympus goes overboard with making things small

I am still looking forward to reading reviews of the 300 mm and the 1,4x TC for the m4/3 system that they are expected to bring out soon.

Niels
That will be interesting to see, as the M43 are a bit limited in long lenses at the moment, so a 1.4x TC would help in that regard.
scodgerott is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Sunday 28th December 2014, 01:05   #115
njlarsen
Opus Editor
 
njlarsen's Avatar

 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Portsmouth, Dominica
Posts: 20,190
I saw a little review of the 1.4x when used with the 40-150mm pro lens. Unfortunately, it protrudes up into the end of the lens, and therefore cannot be used together with e.g., the pana 100-300mm (and I do not know if that one is sharp enough anyway).

Niels
__________________
Support bird conservation in the Caribbean: BirdCaribbean
njlarsen is offline  
Reply With Quote

BF Supporter 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 Support BirdForum With A Donation

Old Thursday 5th February 2015, 13:24   #116
stuarta21
Registered User
 
stuarta21's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Skegness
Posts: 86
Any recent low light shots to share? I'm looking to upgrade from my Panasonic fz62 and the low light performance/400mm range are the only things making me hesitate...
__________________
UK LIFE LIST (258) RED BACKED SHRIKE 20/09/17
UK YEAR LIST 2016 (208)
UK YEAR LIST 2017 (206)
stuarta21 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 6th February 2015, 09:06   #117
firstreesjohn
Registered User
 
firstreesjohn's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: North Norfolk
Posts: 1,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuarta21 View Post
recent low light shots
It was pretty dull, by this time.

The image is only re-sized: otherwise unedited.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	104sm.jpg
Views:	337
Size:	494.5 KB
ID:	531718  
__________________
A Conifer ID Information Collective (ACIDIC)
Avian Considerations Examined, then Rare Bird Information Communicated (ACERBIC)
Information Recall Oblast- Nature In Charge (IRONIC)
Specific Area Research Done; Observations Not Initially Confirmed (SARDONIC)
firstreesjohn is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 6th February 2015, 09:42   #118
stuarta21
Registered User
 
stuarta21's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Skegness
Posts: 86
Have to say that looks pretty impressive, was that at full zoom (400mm) or did you use izoom etc to increase the range?
__________________
UK LIFE LIST (258) RED BACKED SHRIKE 20/09/17
UK YEAR LIST 2016 (208)
UK YEAR LIST 2017 (206)
stuarta21 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Friday 6th February 2015, 14:17   #119
firstreesjohn
Registered User
 
firstreesjohn's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: North Norfolk
Posts: 1,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuarta21 View Post
was that at . . . ?
f/4, 1/125 sec, 146mm (out of apparent 800mm).
__________________
A Conifer ID Information Collective (ACIDIC)
Avian Considerations Examined, then Rare Bird Information Communicated (ACERBIC)
Information Recall Oblast- Nature In Charge (IRONIC)
Specific Area Research Done; Observations Not Initially Confirmed (SARDONIC)
firstreesjohn is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Monday 16th February 2015, 23:02   #120
scodgerott
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Princes Hill Victoria Australia
Posts: 401
I have been using the 4K video quite a bit of late and then extracting 8mp stills off the video. The quality is very good in most cases and sometimes better than a similar shot taken using the normal process. Here are some examples. They were originally in the 3.5-4.5mb size, but I'm not sure how good they will look at the reduced sizes this forum requires. In their original size they look as good as any "normal" still shot.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Fantail.JPG
Views:	217
Size:	246.7 KB
ID:	532807  Click image for larger version

Name:	Robin.JPG
Views:	334
Size:	274.0 KB
ID:	532808  Click image for larger version

Name:	Thornbill.JPG
Views:	198
Size:	431.7 KB
ID:	532809  
scodgerott is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 17th February 2015, 09:30   #121
firstreesjohn
Registered User
 
firstreesjohn's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: North Norfolk
Posts: 1,924
Those are impressive, scodgerott; see what you mean about the 'normal process'.

I must have a go myself, asap.

(By the way, I always thought Robins were supposed to have red breasts and hop about amidst the snow.)

Was the extracted EXIF data useful, stuarta21, or would you like to me to amplify ? My photography has been limited, of late, with little to snap.

However, there were the attached, taken locally and almost resulting in frostbite in my cheeks (and I don't mean those flanking my nose, either !). They are one of our specialities: male and female Bearded Tits; the female's colours almost exactly matching those of the reeds.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	217pse.jpg
Views:	266
Size:	242.0 KB
ID:	532840  Click image for larger version

Name:	087pse.jpg
Views:	268
Size:	168.2 KB
ID:	532841  
__________________
A Conifer ID Information Collective (ACIDIC)
Avian Considerations Examined, then Rare Bird Information Communicated (ACERBIC)
Information Recall Oblast- Nature In Charge (IRONIC)
Specific Area Research Done; Observations Not Initially Confirmed (SARDONIC)
firstreesjohn is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 17th February 2015, 09:38   #122
stuarta21
Registered User
 
stuarta21's Avatar

 
Join Date: Jan 2014
Location: Skegness
Posts: 86
Your pictures look really good, I'm still waiting to see my first bearded tit, where did you see them? I'm visiting Norfolk the first week of March would love to be able to tick them off my life list.

How far away would you say the birds are in your pics?
__________________
UK LIFE LIST (258) RED BACKED SHRIKE 20/09/17
UK YEAR LIST 2016 (208)
UK YEAR LIST 2017 (206)
stuarta21 is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 17th February 2015, 09:41   #123
punta
Registered User

 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Little Aston
Posts: 794
Quote:
Originally Posted by scodgerott View Post
I have been using the 4K video quite a bit of late and then extracting 8mp stills off the video. The quality is very good in most cases and sometimes better than a similar shot taken using the normal process. Here are some examples. They were originally in the 3.5-4.5mb size, but I'm not sure how good they will look at the reduced sizes this forum requires. In their original size they look as good as any "normal" still shot.
These do look very good
punta is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 17th February 2015, 19:22   #124
firstreesjohn
Registered User
 
firstreesjohn's Avatar

 
Join Date: Dec 2004
Location: North Norfolk
Posts: 1,924
Quote:
Originally Posted by stuarta21 View Post
How far away would you say the birds are in your pics?
About 90 miles from Skegness, stuarta21.

I've sent you a PM re your other question- and about 20 feet (7m) from me !
__________________
A Conifer ID Information Collective (ACIDIC)
Avian Considerations Examined, then Rare Bird Information Communicated (ACERBIC)
Information Recall Oblast- Nature In Charge (IRONIC)
Specific Area Research Done; Observations Not Initially Confirmed (SARDONIC)
firstreesjohn is offline  
Reply With Quote
Old Tuesday 17th February 2015, 22:16   #125
scodgerott
Registered User

 
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: Princes Hill Victoria Australia
Posts: 401
Lovely Bearded Tit shots Firsttreesjohn. I can see how well the female is camouflaged against the reeds. The photos are great quality as well.
scodgerott is offline  
Reply With Quote
Advertisement
Reply


Thread Tools
Rate This Thread
Rate This Thread:

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ72 Review ChrisKten Panasonic 18 Tuesday 11th March 2014 12:32
DP Review Panasonic GH3 review NoSpringChicken Panasonic 5 Tuesday 16th April 2013 16:53
Panasonic Lumix DMC-FZ150 Review ChrisKten Panasonic 8 Monday 12th September 2011 21:20
Panasonic FZ100 - First full review ChrisKten Panasonic 2 Saturday 14th August 2010 03:43
Review of Panasonic FZ7 ultrazoom point and shoot eliaszuniga Panasonic 9 Saturday 6th May 2006 21:48

{googleads}

Fatbirder's Top 1000 Birding Websites

Help support BirdForum

Page generated in 0.25966001 seconds with 35 queries
All times are GMT. The time now is 12:13.