Frustrations with Panasonic FZ20... help! (1 Viewer)

Less Frustrated with my Panasonic FZ20 (how do I get rid of the red face)

Hello,
I've had a Panasonic Lumix FZ20 for about 6 months. A couple of months ago, I added a Raynox 2.2 teleconverter, and bought myself a monopod to go along with it. Today was the first day I've been able to go out since with ideal conditions; until now I've been increasingly frustrated with the results: especially with, but even without the teleconverter. A word of warning: my only previous camera was a Canon Powershot G2, with which I took enough pictures I loved for me to invest more in this. Nevertheless, I have read up as much as I can on the tips and techniques, and have practiced, well if not assiduously, then regularly.
So... today I went out to my neighbourhood bird reservoir. I have figured that ducks must make ideal starting subjects since they sit around a lot and are quite large and close. I had a fantastic day's birding (peregrines, white-tailed eagle, goldeneyes and wigeons courting like crazy, my first black-necked grebe ao), and thought I'd also taken a bunch of decent photo's.

However, back on my computer, I notice that the things I am frustrated with are still around: my photo's are never as sharp as I expect, and I am suffering from horrendous purple fringes in many of my shots. I sometimes think someone could identify my tufted duck pictures as a new species, with a broad purple patch across its back...

Here are three photos to illustrate. One is a gadwall, which I have simply cropped to 800 pixels around the subject. The wigeons I have cropped about 1/3 of the frame, and resized to 800 pixels. The great-crested grebe I have cropped approx. half the frame, and resized. The camera set-up: I keep ISO on 80 now (noisy otherwise); I have spot-autofocusing & light-metering; and image-stabilizer on Mode 2 (these have all been recommended here, I think).
The exposure was 1/250 for the gadwalls, 1/200 for the two wigeon, 1/1000 for the grebe. That is probably a bit low for the first two, but even the third is still a bit soft, in my opinion.

I have deliberately not done any image manipulation (although especially the grebe is crying out for it), because I think the results coming out of my camera are simply not as good as they should be.

Have I reached the limits of my camera/teleconverter, or do any of you have any advice about how I could improve things?

Thanks,
Rob :hi: :hi: :hi:

I had one of the early 10x zoom Lumix cameras(4 meg) and found that it performed best in good light and on a tripod if using full zoom. Looking at these photos I think you were stretching the capabilities of the lens as the light doesn't look too bright so the shutter speed would be low. I'm not sure whether a monopod would help because it may afftect the behaviour of the Image Stabilising. You should check this out. With the Raynox on you would definitely need a tripod as the magnification is very high. I also used the lowest iso (50 from memory) as much as possible. I found the lens always let me down against the light with bad fringing which is why I bought the Nikon 80-400/zoom for my Nikon D100 and stopped using the Lumix for flight shots/ducks on bright water. Here is one of my photos with the Lumix which I hope shows that it can do good work. I also took the liberty of fiddling with one of you photos . I hope you don't mind. It's not too bad and the camera blue is not that bad. Light quality is main problem I think. Hope this helps, Neil.

Thanks for your advice Neil,

I'm getting a scope soon, and therefore also a tripod, and will then have the opportunity to try out the Panasonic with a tripod as you suggest.

FWIW, I should have said that only on the gadwall photo - the one you retouched - was I using the monopod. For the other two, I was in a hide, propping the camera up on pretty sturdy wooden beams.

I'll do some research about monopods and IS - maybe that was a bad investment...

I've included a photo of a lapwing that addresses some of the issues you mentioned: it's about 4pm today - a little sunny, and the sun was behind. The subject was completely motionless, so all in all a much easier photo. I still think I should have got a better result...

Also, here are a couple of photo's (photoshopped) of what I love about the Panasonic: the ability to really quickly get onto action shots, in this case some angry wigeon in the middle of a fight and a shoveler on take-off. Neither are by any means great photo's, but I'm managing to catch these events more frequently.

Yes, they should be better if the light was better. Try backing of the zoom a bit to 8x and bracketing your exposures with a plus 0.5 and plus 1.0 stop. If you're using the Raynox, ditch it as it's not helping the quality.Neil.

Another trick to reduce colour fringing is to stop down the lens to f4.

'Fraid must agree with Neil that have never been convinced about that Raynox with big lens FZs. When it first came out was in correspondence with an early taker of that converter and found there was quite bad lateral colour towards outside of pretty much all his pictures with it. Might be worth doing some tests to get a feel for the results it gives at centre vs interpolation. It does seem to work better with the FZ30 or the little FZs.

The tripod should be a great help in doing some systematic tests. Be great to have some feel for exactly how all the variables impact results so you'll know which are the best compromises to take in the field.

Hi Rob,
I used this camera for about a year and found it to be a very good camera if used within it's range. I used a TCON 17 and can't comment on the 2.2. The key to getting sharp and detailed images with this camera is to get close. I found that when shooting sparrow sized birds, you need to be within 15 feet of your subject. My gallery has some examples if you wish to view them.
Good luck!. Kevin.......

I have the FZ20 which I use with the Tcon17 and occasionally coupled with the Tcon14 as well!

As has been said the camera does need good light. I never go above ISO80 due to noise and always shoot with the sun behind me - as long as it's at least over one shoulder or the other CA isn't a problem - but the combo does not like back lit shots or dull weather.

As regards teleconverter then I think a lot of the problem is it's strength. 1.7x was quite enough without too much loss of detail and even with the Tcon14 quality was usable if stopped down to c.f8 but you need a very bright day. The 2.2x Raynox maybe a bit too much leading to soft grainy shots - though higher f-stops should help a bit.

I think you may also be asking a bit much from the camera. I find it most useful 12-15' max on it's own and maybe up to 21' with the Tcon-17.

I have never yet used the camera on a tripod or monopod as I find the IS is very effective on it's own. Having said that it the opportunity is there to stabilise myself such as leaning against a wall as this Swallow was taken - FZ20+Tcon-17 - then I'll make use of it.

Rob,
I think you need to reduce the variables so you can get to the bottom of your "soft shot" issue.

There could be lots of factors at play here. Subjects could have been too far away, so you couldn't get enough mpxls on them. The sparrows at 15 feet analogy above is spot on. Despite using a tripod, if it isn't sturdy or you used too much pressure on the shutter release, you could still have induced some camera shake. Which gets very noticeable at longer focal lengths. There's also the TC you used. My money says that this guy is your culprit.

You've seen some excellent Oly TC's mentioned here. The 14B and the TCON17, as well as the out-of-production B300, are fine pieces of glass. They work well on a multitude of prosumers and P&S's. I have had some experience with Raynox lenses and at least from a tele extender point of view, it hasn't been a good experience. I have the 1850PRO and to be kind, it is awful. Yes, it does give me 1.85X tele. But, the drawbacks were never worth the extra focal length. Negatives such as, softness (almost muddying of detail), purple and cyan CA/fringing and a severe lack of contrast. I frequent many photography forums and have used prosumers for 3 years. I have yet to read one substantiated post citing the goodness of any Raynox TC. I have seen a couple of decent reports on one of their wide angle converters. But, it's all been negative regarding their TCs :-(

I'd suggest working without the TC to see if your results improve. Yes, you will have to get closer to your subject. But, if you still have the same problems you've eliminated the TC as a cause

There are some subjects that look fine a bit soft. Birds aren't one of them :-(

Good luck,
Steve

SMC2002 said:

Rob,
I think you need to reduce the variables so you can get to the bottom of your "soft shot" issue.

There could be lots of factors at play here. Subjects could have been too far away, so you couldn't get enough mpxls on them. The sparrows at 15 feet analogy above is spot on. Despite using a tripod, if it isn't sturdy or you used too much pressure on the shutter release, you could still have induced some camera shake. Which gets very noticeable at longer focal lengths. There's also the TC you used. My money says that this guy is your culprit.

You've seen some excellent Oly TC's mentioned here. The 14B and the TCON17, as well as the out-of-production B300, are fine pieces of glass. They work well on a multitude of prosumers and P&S's. I have had some experience with Raynox lenses and at least from a tele extender point of view, it hasn't been a good experience. I have the 1850PRO and to be kind, it is awful. Yes, it does give me 1.85X tele. But, the drawbacks were never worth the extra focal length. Negatives such as, softness (almost muddying of detail), purple and cyan CA/fringing and a severe lack of contrast. I frequent many photography forums and have used prosumers for 3 years. I have yet to read one substantiated post citing the goodness of any Raynox TC. I have seen a couple of decent reports on one of their wide angle converters. But, it's all been negative regarding their TCs :-(

I'd suggest working without the TC to see if your results improve. Yes, you will have to get closer to your subject. But, if you still have the same problems you've eliminated the TC as a cause

There are some subjects that look fine a bit soft. Birds aren't one of them :-(

Good luck,
Steve

Click to expand...

Thanks for the suggestions! I'm still new and ignorant enough at wildlife photography that I tend to think that the roots of problems lie with my technique rather than the equipment! However, I had more success without the teleconverter in Utah last summer... but the light was obviously much brighter too! I think I need to do a side-by-side test with and without the teleconverter on the next sunny day in Holland (this might be May, mind).

FWIW, the grebe photo was certainly within the range of about 5m that you suggest (it swam right by the hide). The photo is actually only cropped a little. The light was ok, and from the "right direction" - I was deliberately trying to set the exposure a bit fast. It was not moving fast, and I had the fairly solid camera support of the hide wall, as well as the Image Stabilization that other people have had success with.

IanF said:

I have the FZ20 which I use with the Tcon17 and occasionally coupled with the Tcon14 as well!

As has been said the camera does need good light. I never go above ISO80 due to noise and always shoot with the sun behind me - as long as it's at least over one shoulder or the other CA isn't a problem - but the combo does not like back lit shots or dull weather.

As regards teleconverter then I think a lot of the problem is it's strength. 1.7x was quite enough without too much loss of detail and even with the Tcon14 quality was usable if stopped down to c.f8 but you need a very bright day. The 2.2x Raynox maybe a bit too much leading to soft grainy shots - though higher f-stops should help a bit.

I think you may also be asking a bit much from the camera. I find it most useful 12-15' max on it's own and maybe up to 21' with the Tcon-17.

I have never yet used the camera on a tripod or monopod as I find the IS is very effective on it's own. Having said that it the opportunity is there to stabilise myself such as leaning against a wall as this Swallow was taken - FZ20+Tcon-17 - then I'll make use of it.

Click to expand...

Thanks for your advice, Ian. That's a great photo to inspire me about what I could achieve with my camera if I get good enough!

About the light: the day I took the photo's was fairly bright, with scattered clouds; the photos were taken late afternoon, and for the grebe and lapwing photos, the light was definitely mostly from behind. It is Holland, so the light never gets too intense, obviously, but I figured it wasn't too bad.

About the distance: the grebe (12') and lapwing (15') were also definitely within the distance you suggest: they're not cropped that much.

But I definitely think I am being over-ambitious, with for example the action shots of the wigeon I was trying to take, into the light. I am much more interested in taking photos of animal behaviour than portraits, since that is what I do for a living. The Panasonic now seems a bit finicky in its lighting demands for that, since you often don't have time to adjust your position for behaviour shots. Any suggestions for a lightweight set-up that might be more suited for animal behaviour? I'm hopefully going to try digiscoping with my scope, when it arrives...

oh: one question I forgot about the f-stop advice that I've been getting. I think I'm getting mild vignetting with higher f-stop values. Is that normal?

lachlustre said:

Thanks for your advice, Ian. That's a great photo to inspire me about what I could achieve with my camera if I get good enough!

About the light: the day I took the photo's was fairly bright, with scattered clouds; the photos were taken late afternoon, and for the grebe and lapwing photos, the light was definitely mostly from behind. It is Holland, so the light never gets too intense, obviously, but I figured it wasn't too bad.

About the distance: the grebe (12') and lapwing (15') were also definitely within the distance you suggest: they're not cropped that much.

But I definitely think I am being over-ambitious, with for example the action shots of the wigeon I was trying to take, into the light. I am much more interested in taking photos of animal behaviour than portraits, since that is what I do for a living. The Panasonic now seems a bit finicky in its lighting demands for that, since you often don't have time to adjust your position for behaviour shots. Any suggestions for a lightweight set-up that might be more suited for animal behaviour? I'm hopefully going to try digiscoping with my scope, when it arrives...

oh: one question I forgot about the f-stop advice that I've been getting. I think I'm getting mild vignetting with higher f-stop values. Is that normal?

Click to expand...

It sounds like the conditions should have been fine for the photos. The metering looks way out though on both the GCGrebe and the Lapwing. The Exif though looks fine. The only difference to my camera settings being that I almost exclusively use 'A' rather than 'S' as I think you must have done. I use the 'ev' compensation quite often as well usually no more that 0.33 wither way depending on whether the subject is backlit or not as well as Mode 2 for the IS which was never switched off.

If you'd been using digital zoom then I could understand the softness but not really the exposure being so far out on the GCGrebe.

The Lapwing at least cleans up pretty well with processing with just a small amount of CA. I'd still class that as being backlit though as the stronger illumination is from the sky reflected in the water behind the bird rather than falling onto the bird else the eye would have been better lit - a catch light in the eye is a good clue as to whether the sun is from the right direction.

Just to clarify the distances I referred to were really for small birds like Tits and Nuthatches - there should be no problem at all for birds the size of the ones you took.

As regards apertures then at 12x zoom with no converter there shouldn't be any vignetting at all. With teleconverter at 12x zoom then yes even with the Tcon-17/B300 there is some vignetting - usually cropped out though.

With other suitable cameras then really I haven't kept up with the models. The similarly specified Canon S2 IS has always caught my eye and even the Olympus 10x zoom cameras have good as well - they all share the same advantages of wide angle to long zoom reach.

Digiscoping has other requirements for a camera - usually a 3x optical zoom is quite sufficient but may not be enough reach on it's own for the type of shots you want.

A follow-up: I made another concerted effort in our local park with the Raynox 2.2x teleconverter attached on Friday lunch, since there was a spell of very bright weather. No improvement over the previous images at all. So I gave up and took the teleconverter off. The whole weekend was bright, crisp and cold, and went out and managed to take some much better photos. What do you think? Criticism please!

The great-crested grebes on the canal have started dancing and nest-building, so some easy subjects . The photo of the actual dance was taken in exactly what Ian was telling me was the worst possible light: they were right in front of the sun pretty much. They were also quite far away: the photo is a 100% crop, it is just to show what the camera can do (or rather, what I can do with it) in suboptimal but bright conditions.

Oh, and this is the tit-at-less-than-10m situation that Ian suggested the FZ20 should cope with! Yes, it was cold!

Great results for the sunlit GCG and the LTT - both very well detailed. The FZ20 performs it's best in these conditions. The only other things to consider are use of filtration software whihc can add a bit mor to shots by reducing noise and using a slightly smaller aperture. I see the GCG was taken at 1/800 f3,7 - good to have a fast shutter speed for birds on water but maybe 1/250 would have done to give around f8 which I always aim for if at all possible when light permits.

The two shots against the sun as you found - don't show the FZ20 at it's best.

I've fitlered the two shots, though to be honest there isn't much in it.