High-end bridge cameras: Sony RX10, Panasonic FZ1000 etc

Shot through the window at ISO1600 with the LT55 attached to the maxed out rx10 iv. That's 1020mm equivalent in 35mm terms. Just need some better light to bring down the iso.
Quite underexposed due to lack of light and need for shutter speed.

GSWP_ by Ajophotog, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
ajophotog said:
Shot through the window at ISO1600 with the LT55 attached to the maxed out rx10 iv. That's 1020mm equivalent in 35mm terms. Just need some better light to bring down the iso.
Quite underexposed due to lack of light and need for shutter speed.

GSWP_ by Ajophotog, on Flickr
Click to expand...
That's come out remarkably well Alby! :clap:
 
ajophotog said:
It just connected to the filter ring using a 72-55mm stepdown ring. I do the same on the panasonic too. It isn't massively heavy so works great.

LT-55 by Ajophotog, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Interesting thanks Alby. I did a bit of Googling and opinions seem rather polarised - some love them and some seem to think you're better off just cropping in and using the original lens... I guess you fall into the former category!
 
dibbly dobbler said:
Interesting thanks Alby. I did a bit of Googling and opinions seem rather polarised - some love them and some seem to think you're better off just cropping in and using the original lens... I guess you fall into the former category!
Click to expand...
Both of those shots are cropped as well so I don't think it has done a too bad a job really. I already had the LT-55 so thought I would give it a go as it was just stuffed in the back of my photography cabinet.
Here is a shot of the back of a sparrowhawk that landed on the fence while I was shooting the blue tits maxed out at iso 1600 with the LT-55 straight out of the camera no editing done.

Sparrowhawk by Ajophotog, on Flickr

and quick edited version.
Sparrowhawk by Ajophotog, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
ajophotog said:
Both of those shots are cropped as well so I don't think it has done a too bad a job really. I already had the LT-55 so thought I would give it a go as it was just stuffed in the back of my photography cabinet.
Here is a shot of the back of a sparrowhawk that landed on the fence while I was shooting the blue tits maxed out at iso 1600 with the LT-55 straight out of the camera no editing done.

Sparrowhawk by Ajophotog, on Flickr

and quick edited version.
Sparrowhawk by Ajophotog, on Flickr
Click to expand...
Yep - looks good to me! The edit has made quite a difference - do you sharpen it with Topaz or some such?
 
I sharpen with Lightroom and ran it thru topaz denoise ai, it was only a quick edit but shows the end file even at iso1600 is workable I think.
 
dibbly dobbler said:
A few more recent efforts :)


Ringed Plover by Mike Smith, on Flickr


Turnstone by Mike Smith, on Flickr


Great Black Backed Gull by Mike Smith, on Flickr


Treecreeper by Mike Smith, on Flickr


Teal by Mike Smith, on Flickr
Click to expand...
A great selection of Birds here Mike.
ajophotog said:
Head of a guppy in my fish tank. RX10 iv + Raynox DCR-250. No flash, handheld f4, iso 1600 at 1/160.

Head of a Guppy by Ajophotog, on Flickr

and one with the Raynox MSN-202. F4 iso1600 1/40

Head of a Guppy by Ajophotog, on Flickr

Raynox DCR-250. F4 ISO1600 1/50
Head of a Guppy by Ajophotog, on Flickr
Click to expand...
WOW! some great macro images here Alby, not the sort of pics you see often.
Cheers Paul.
 
Last Sunday was spent searching for Reptiles (at a local Woodlands in Kent).
I was using both Panny FZ1000 (an a G9) alongside each other, testing/comparing etc.

These images were shot with the FZ1000/Canon 500D close up filter. As usual, Jpegs, Auto Focus, Handheld.
Conclusion - The FZ1000 works for me! Cheers Paul.

Common Lizard. (uncropped).
P1070884-copy-to-800.jpg

Then tested the above image with a fair size crop.
P1070884-crop-to-800.jpg

Next image is of one of the male Adders seen. No cropping.
P1070834-copy-to-800.jpg
 
Testudo Man said:
Last Sunday was spent searching for Reptiles (at a local Woodlands in Kent).
I was using both Panny FZ1000 (an a G9) alongside each other, testing/comparing etc.

These images were shot with the FZ1000/Canon 500D close up filter. As usual, Jpegs, Auto Focus, Handheld.
Conclusion - The FZ1000 works for me! Cheers Paul.

Common Lizard. (uncropped).
View attachment 382038

Then tested the above image with a fair size crop.
View attachment 382039

Next image is of one of the male Adders seen. No cropping.
View attachment 382040
Click to expand...
Super photos Paul, do you get much dof with the 500d? I find the raynox lenses have a very shallow dof especially the msn-202 which is paper thin.
 
ajophotog said:
Super photos Paul, do you get much dof with the 500d? I find the raynox lenses have a very shallow dof especially the msn-202 which is paper thin.
Click to expand...
Thanks Alby.
The 500D does throw everything out, so depth of field will be narrower than normal, but the 500D isnt as strong (magnification) as even the Raynox 150, so it is workable.
With my Reptile images im not too concerned with the shallow depth of field, but later on in the year (when its all about the butterflies) if i want open butterfly winged shots, with as much as the butterfly in focus, then i will have to go up to f/8 aperture, at the close distances/lens zooms that i use.
Cheers Paul.
 
After much deliberating, I pulled the trigger on the RX10 IV, although I'm experiencing buyer's remorse now. I was quite hung up about the zoom, and preferred the extra 120mm of reach over the FZ2000 (every little helps, right?), but now I'm not so sure. It doesn't seem to make that big of a difference close-up or with subjects further away.

I did get a look at the RX10 IV a few weeks ago at the LCE in Worcester, and had similar thoughts, but I didn't test it extensively. When I went to Wex, I was able to hold both cameras, but I didn't think to compare the differences between 480mm and 600mm (I was concentrating on the weight and how the two cameras felt in my hands). I only got to test the RX10 IV with a battery in, the FZ2000 was without a battery as they had no demo model.
 
Testudo Man said:
Thanks Alby.
The 500D does throw everything out, so depth of field will be narrower than normal, but the 500D isnt as strong (magnification) as even the Raynox 150, so it is workable.
With my Reptile images im not too concerned with the shallow depth of field, but later on in the year (when its all about the butterflies) if i want open butterfly winged shots, with as much as the butterfly in focus, then i will have to go up to f/8 aperture, at the close distances/lens zooms that i use.
Cheers Paul.
Click to expand...
I use the raynox DCR-150 which is pretty decent for larger items like butterflies.
 
Kaidonni said:
After much deliberating, I pulled the trigger on the RX10 IV, although I'm experiencing buyer's remorse now. I was quite hung up about the zoom, and preferred the extra 120mm of reach over the FZ2000 (every little helps, right?), but now I'm not so sure. It doesn't seem to make that big of a difference close-up or with subjects further away.

I did get a look at the RX10 IV a few weeks ago at the LCE in Worcester, and had similar thoughts, but I didn't test it extensively. When I went to Wex, I was able to hold both cameras, but I didn't think to compare the differences between 480mm and 600mm (I was concentrating on the weight and how the two cameras felt in my hands). I only got to test the RX10 IV with a battery in, the FZ2000 was without a battery as they had no demo model.
Click to expand...
I now have both the fz2000 and the rx10 iv and both are great cameras. I am happy to take either out with me.
 
Kaidonni said:
After much deliberating, I pulled the trigger on the RX10 IV, although I'm experiencing buyer's remorse now. I was quite hung up about the zoom, and preferred the extra 120mm of reach over the FZ2000 (every little helps, right?), but now I'm not so sure. It doesn't seem to make that big of a difference close-up or with subjects further away.

I did get a look at the RX10 IV a few weeks ago at the LCE in Worcester, and had similar thoughts, but I didn't test it extensively. When I went to Wex, I was able to hold both cameras, but I didn't think to compare the differences between 480mm and 600mm (I was concentrating on the weight and how the two cameras felt in my hands). I only got to test the RX10 IV with a battery in, the FZ2000 was without a battery as they had no demo model.
Click to expand...
It's a great bit of kit Andrew - you won't have any doubts once you have taken a few pics :)
 
Kaidonni said:
After much deliberating, I pulled the trigger on the RX10 IV, although I'm experiencing buyer's remorse now. I was quite hung up about the zoom, and preferred the extra 120mm of reach over the FZ2000 (every little helps, right?), but now I'm not so sure. It doesn't seem to make that big of a difference close-up or with subjects further away.

I did get a look at the RX10 IV a few weeks ago at the LCE in Worcester, and had similar thoughts, but I didn't test it extensively. When I went to Wex, I was able to hold both cameras, but I didn't think to compare the differences between 480mm and 600mm (I was concentrating on the weight and how the two cameras felt in my hands). I only got to test the RX10 IV with a battery in, the FZ2000 was without a battery as they had no demo model.
Click to expand...
Something you couldn't compare without a battery in the FZ2000 is how much better the RX10 IV's autofocus is. The RX10 range trailed the FZ1000 & FZ2000 until then but the IV was a great leap ahead.
 
ajophotog said:
I now have both the fz2000 and the rx10 iv and both are great cameras. I am happy to take either out with me.
Click to expand...

dibbly dobbler said:
It's a great bit of kit Andrew - you won't have any doubts once you have taken a few pics :)
Click to expand...

Snapsh0t said:
Something you couldn't compare without a battery in the FZ2000 is how much better the RX10 IV's autofocus is. The RX10 range trailed the FZ1000 & FZ2000 until then but the IV was a great leap ahead.
Click to expand...

Thanks for the replies.
 
Last edited:
GSWP taken with the Panasonic FZ2000 and LT-55 Maxed out (eqv 816mm) 1/320 f5 iso1600 handheld thru the glass window.
View sharper on Flickr.

GSWP by Ajophotog, on Flickr
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top