LumixVario 100-300mm with 1:1 tele conversion on gh2

J

Jeremy_Sawatzky

Well-known member
I plan to shoot mostly nature and mountainscapes with my gh2 and therefore I am looking at these lenses.

First off- of coarse the kit lens the 14-140mm lens which will be very useful for a huge range of work.

http://www.vistek.ca/store/CameraLe...ixvario-14140mm-f4058-micro-43-asph-lens.aspx

Second - the 100- 300mm lens

http://www.vistek.ca/store/CameraLe...io-100300mm-f4056-mega-ois-micro-43-lens.aspx

Thirdly - The Super wide 7-14mm

http://www.vistek.ca/store/CameraLe...-lumixvario-714mm-f40-micro-43-asph-lens.aspx

Now my main question has to do with the 100-300mm tele lens and how that will work with the tele conversion feature on the gh2. From what i read here:

"The Extra Tele Conversion function virtually extends the zoom range up to 2.6x, thus the max.728mm in AVCHD Cinema/FSH mode, max. 1092mm in AVCHD SH mode and Motion JPEG HD / WVGA mode and max.1344mm in Motion JPEG VGA/QVGA mode is available with the LUMIX G VARIO HD 14-140mm / F4.0-5.8 ASPH. / MEGA O.I.S. which offering silent drive focusing developed exclusively for with movie recording."

What does that mean? (using 35mm terms here) if the lens is a 200-600mm lens will the tele conversion feature expand that to 400-1200mm? I will be using the cinema mode most of the time. With that feature and a tele lens like the 100-300 that will be a MASSIVE zoom will it not?

I would love it if someone could clarify this for me.

Secondly - anyone here use the super wide 7-14mm lens? although its bloody expensive i think it will be a huge benifit having it in my kit - being able to capture vast mountain ranges in one clip will give me some beautiful images.

All thoughts and opinions welcome!:D
 
Don't have neither GH2 nor 100-300 lens, but 100-300 lens will give you (100-300) x 1.8 (GH2 crop) x 2.6 (ETC) = 468-1404 mm
Or 180 - 1404 mm with a push of a button . All that, with no quality loss. DOF will be as of the original 100-300mm.
You should remember that you support the camera lens combo through the camera and not the lens which is not ideal (more shake prone).
 
Am I right n assuming that this GH2 crop is just like the EZ zoom for stills on the GH1... but for video as well (which GH1 can't do.)

I have the 100-300 lens. Was quite proud of my moon shot (on this this thread... http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthread.php?230278-Lumix-100-300mm-lens.)

I calculated that this was 300mm *2 crop then using the EZ zoom crop bringing it to 1200mm 35mm equivalent. Quite amazing resolving detail of small craters I reckon for a basic camera like this... so I am very happy with the glass. The main advantage of the GH2 is that you could do stuff like this with video too (though obviously taking video of the moon may not be the most useful idea!) :)
 
The 2x and 2.6x multipliers are both simply image cropping factors. Compared to a 35mm full-frame still camera, the GH2's image frame is about half as wide, thus it produces images cropped by 50% (i.e. 2x). The 2.6x mode uses an even smaller image frame cropped out of the center of the image sensor for an additional 38.5% crop (i.e. 2.6x). There is no actual "teleconversion" effect on the lens itself, and the 100-300mm lens remains a 100-300mm lens regardless of camera settings.

For video, the advantage of doing the 2.6x crop in-camera rather than in After Effects is that the camera has direct access to the RAW output of the image sensor to produce the best possible image quality. For still photography, there is no quality advantage, as you can do the cropping yourself in Photoshop using the RAW image recorded by the camera.
 
lpowell said:
For still photography, there is no quality advantage, as you can do the cropping yourself in Photoshop using the RAW image recorded by the camera.
Click to expand...

Agree with everything bar the last comment about stills. Although quality may not be any different, it forces you to shoot the shot properly and therefore gives better results. Metering and shutter speed is compensated for when cropped-in live, if you catch my drift.
 
wow correct me if im wrong but isnt that a HUGE zoom? its guna be worth it buying an expensive tripod. i think i rig something up to help hold the lens
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top