OIS with teleconverters?

[Alan Martin256506]

Does use of a teleconverter (especially one such as the Raynox DCR-2020 Pro which has a higher magnification than the Panasonic one) reduce the effectiveness of the FZ20's OIS, even at the same effective zoom setting?

It seems to me that the camera needs to know the actual focal length to properly compensate for camera shake. Indeed, the FZ20 has a setting to inform it of the use of a tele or wide converter (see pp. 79-80 of the user manual at http://service.us.panasonic.com/OPERMANPDF/DMCFZ20PP.PDF ).

So, a question for FZ20 owners (and other FZ owners, presuming it works the same way) with teleconverters: Do you use this setting?

Also, could you please try OIS mode 1 at the same effective zoom setting (i.e., with the picture composed the same way) with and without teleconverter (and with and without informing the camera of it), and see if there is a noticeable difference in viewfinder steadiness? Actual photo tests in OIS mode 2 would be even better, but it would probably be a lot more effort because a meaningful comparison would require many tries in each condition.

I have seen anecdotal reports that OIS is still at least partially effective with teleconverters, but I would appreciate some hard data on this.

--
Alan Martin

 

[Godfrey]

I don't have a tele converter for the FZ10... I use a 1.4x Extender II with my Canon 10D and the 300/4L IS lens. The image stabilization helps out enormously, regardless of whether I use it with or without the extender.

As far as I'm aware, the FZ10/20's IS is very much the same design as Canon's IS so I expect it would still help out nicely, even if the effectiveness of the OIS system were reduced a little bit.

Frankly, the only reason to fit a teleconverter to the FZ20 is for when you need more reach than it can otherwise offer without it. If you also need high resolution, you really should turn off IS and use a good, sturdy tripod, and wait for a clear day... Atmospheric haze becomes an issue at focal lengths much over 300mm (effective).

Godfrey

Does use of a teleconverter (especially one such as the Raynox
DCR-2020 Pro which has a higher magnification than the Panasonic
one) reduce the effectiveness of the FZ20's OIS, even at the same
effective zoom setting?

It seems to me that the camera needs to know the actual focal
length to properly compensate for camera shake. Indeed, the FZ20
has a setting to inform it of the use of a tele or wide converter
(see pp. 79-80 of the user manual at
http://service.us.panasonic.com/OPERMANPDF/DMCFZ20PP.PDF ).

So, a question for FZ20 owners (and other FZ owners, presuming it
works the same way) with teleconverters: Do you use this setting?

Also, could you please try OIS mode 1 at the same effective zoom
setting (i.e., with the picture composed the same way) with and
without teleconverter (and with and without informing the camera of
it), and see if there is a noticeable difference in viewfinder
steadiness? Actual photo tests in OIS mode 2 would be even better,
but it would probably be a lot more effort because a meaningful
comparison would require many tries in each condition.

I have seen anecdotal reports that OIS is still at least partially
effective with teleconverters, but I would appreciate some hard
data on this.

--
Alan Martin

 

[John_Reed]

Effectiveness of OIS is a subjective field, at best. One person will say that it works, another will say that it doesn't. Even "Scientific" testing, such as the system used by Pop Photography in their August article on anti-shake systems, is still subjective by nature. I have an FZ10, I think the FZ20 works the same way: Yes, you "tell" it you have a teleconverter attached, but you don't tell it any more about the attachment. So "it" doesn't know whether you have a 1.4X multiplier, or a 2.2X multiplier attached. The main effect of the setting, I think, is to establish the zoom minimum at 6X, to save zoom time at startup, and eliminate initial vignetting. I think there must be a limit with TCs on how much you can add and still fall under control of the OIS system (a closed-loop control system with inherent limits, right?), but I've been surprised that with the FZ10, I still get framing help and image stabilization (in mode 1) at 36X exposure, with my TCON-17 attached, and I know that stabilization also works in mode 2 with that much extension.
--
Just let a smile be your umbrella!

John Reed

Panasonic Big and Lil Fluzis, Nikon Macromaker

 

[rondeann]

Do you know if a haze filter is worth the trouble to help with atmospheric haze and if yes what brand do you recommend. Anyone else with an opinion is welcome to comment.

 

[John_Reed]

I take a lot of shots of small subjects (like birds) that are within maybe 30-40 feet of my camera, with and without my telextender. My cat shot posted the other day was at 432mm zoom, at a subject distance of 15 feet, no telextender. I don't think that haze has much effect on these photos.
--
Just let a smile be your umbrella!

John Reed

Panasonic Big and Lil Fluzis, Nikon Macromaker

 

[Harlan Saperstein]

I can answer the first part of your question simply.

Yes.The more magnification you use the more your camera or binoculars will be prone to hand shake. The IS will compensate for this very effectively.

The IS technology in my experience begins to deteriorate after 10X optical zoom, although at 12 it it still very good and even at 3X digital is still usable.
This is perhaps why 420mm is where they called it.

Using a teleconverter will add to the IS burden but will still be clearer then going into digital.
Use of the cameras setting for tele does not effect IS.
It keeps the zoom in a higher range to prevent vignetting.
Harlan

Does use of a teleconverter (especially one such as the Raynox
DCR-2020 Pro which has a higher magnification than the Panasonic
one) reduce the effectiveness of the FZ20's OIS, even at the same
effective zoom setting?

It seems to me that the camera needs to know the actual focal
length to properly compensate for camera shake. Indeed, the FZ20
has a setting to inform it of the use of a tele or wide converter
(see pp. 79-80 of the user manual at
http://service.us.panasonic.com/OPERMANPDF/DMCFZ20PP.PDF ).

So, a question for FZ20 owners (and other FZ owners, presuming it
works the same way) with teleconverters: Do you use this setting?

Also, could you please try OIS mode 1 at the same effective zoom
setting (i.e., with the picture composed the same way) with and
without teleconverter (and with and without informing the camera of
it), and see if there is a noticeable difference in viewfinder
steadiness? Actual photo tests in OIS mode 2 would be even better,
but it would probably be a lot more effort because a meaningful
comparison would require many tries in each condition.

I have seen anecdotal reports that OIS is still at least partially
effective with teleconverters, but I would appreciate some hard
data on this.

--
Alan Martin

--
http://www.pbase.com/harlanjs

 

[genece]

I have taken photos with my FZ 10 at 3900 mm or about 110X zoom
While they are not perfect they are usable , so the OIS has got to work

This photo was taken with a TCon 14 and a Tcon 17 stacked plus full 3X digital zoom( 3100mm ) and hand held with mode 2. Believe me it is very difficult to even keep the subject framed.



--
Kodak DC-4800
Panasonic FZ-10
T Con 17 -- Raynox 2020 pro -- Tcon 14 --DCR 720



Just trying to learn and it's slow going!
Gene

 

[rondeann]

I believe that the OIS is independent of the focal length and just responds to the movement of the camera itself. I have run non-scientific tests and I can tell that the OIS is working when using a TC but since the TC multiplies any movement and the higher the X value the more the multiplication sometimes it seems like the OIS is not working at all.

 

[John_Reed]

Nice shot, Gene. I don't know how you'd even stack those lenses, let alone hold it steady enough to squeeze off that shot! Were you maybe 100 yards from the bear?
--
Just let a smile be your umbrella!

John Reed

Panasonic Big and Lil Fluzis, Nikon Macromaker

 

[minime80]

Does use of a teleconverter (especially one such as the Raynox
DCR-2020 Pro which has a higher magnification than the Panasonic
one) reduce the effectiveness of the FZ20's OIS, even at the same
effective zoom setting?

It seems to me that the camera needs to know the actual focal
length to properly compensate for camera shake. Indeed, the FZ20
has a setting to inform it of the use of a tele or wide converter
(see pp. 79-80 of the user manual at
http://service.us.panasonic.com/OPERMANPDF/DMCFZ20PP.PDF ).

So, a question for FZ20 owners (and other FZ owners, presuming it
works the same way) with teleconverters: Do you use this setting?

Also, could you please try OIS mode 1 at the same effective zoom
setting (i.e., with the picture composed the same way) with and
without teleconverter (and with and without informing the camera of
it), and see if there is a noticeable difference in viewfinder
steadiness? Actual photo tests in OIS mode 2 would be even better,
but it would probably be a lot more effort because a meaningful
comparison would require many tries in each condition.

I have seen anecdotal reports that OIS is still at least partially
effective with teleconverters, but I would appreciate some hard
data on this.

--
Alan Martin

I don't think an optical system is dependent on the focal length (could be wrong) because it uses gyros to sense your hand shaking and adjust the lens accordingly. You don't shake your hand any more vigorously at higher magnification. It may look like it, but that's only because a tiny angle difference of two lines makes them farther and farther apart as you get farther away, and since the OIS is only adjusting the angle it won't make a difference. It seems like the CCD shifting technique would suffer a lot more from a higher focal length.
--

Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in our universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.

 

[genece]

It was taken at Yellowstone in Lamar Valley and when a bear is spotted it creates a traffic jam and the rangers get there pretty quick.

There were people with those $10,000 lenses there, And I sure would like to see what they got. And I really wish I would have used a tripod, I had one but in the excitement I just did not use it.
My guess is that bear was way over 100 yds away but I had nothing to measure it.

I use a UV filter all the time and I think it helps when there is almost no haze but if you can see the haze with your eyes it will be in the photo when zooming.

--
Kodak DC-4800
Panasonic FZ-10
T Con 17 -- Raynox 2020 pro -- Tcon 14 --DCR 720



Just trying to learn and it's slow going!
Gene

 

[Harlan Saperstein]

Excellent shot Genice.
Very rare.
And I don't just mean the meal.
Harlan

I have taken photos with my FZ 10 at 3900 mm or about 110X zoom
While they are not perfect they are usable , so the OIS has got to
work
This photo was taken with a TCon 14 and a Tcon 17 stacked plus
full 3X digital zoom( 3100mm ) and hand held with mode 2. Believe
me it is very difficult to even keep the subject framed.



--
Kodak DC-4800
Panasonic FZ-10
T Con 17 -- Raynox 2020 pro -- Tcon 14 --DCR 720



Just trying to learn and it's slow going!
Gene

--
http://www.pbase.com/harlanjs

 

[Alan Martin256506]

I have taken photos with my FZ 10 at 3900 mm or about 110X zoom
While they are not perfect they are usable , so the OIS has got to
work
This photo was taken with a TCon 14 and a Tcon 17 stacked plus
full 3X digital zoom( 3100mm ) and hand held with mode 2. Believe
me it is very difficult to even keep the subject framed.

This seems like the best answer I'm going to get; although the shutter speed wasn't mentioned, this would be pushing the limits even at 1/2000s. Nice shot!

--
Alan Martin

 

[Alan Martin256506]

My guess is that bear was way over 100 yds away but I had nothing
to measure it.

If you estimate the width of the field of view, then you can calculate the distance to the subject. In this case, guessing a width of 6 yards, the subject distance is 6yds * (3100mm / 36mm) or about 500 yards.

Getting a photo like this at 500 yards is pretty impressive!

--
Alan Martin

 

[minime80]

My guess is that bear was way over 100 yds away but I had nothing
to measure it.

If you estimate the width of the field of view, then you can
calculate the distance to the subject. In this case, guessing a
width of 6 yards, the subject distance is 6yds * (3100mm / 36mm) or
about 500 yards.

Getting a photo like this at 500 yards is pretty impressive!

--
Alan Martin

You might want to check that post again. It was 3900mm, not 3100mm. That makes it 650 yards. Even more impressive!

--

Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in our universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.

 

[minime80]

My guess is that bear was way over 100 yds away but I had nothing
to measure it.

If you estimate the width of the field of view, then you can
calculate the distance to the subject. In this case, guessing a
width of 6 yards, the subject distance is 6yds * (3100mm / 36mm) or
about 500 yards.

Getting a photo like this at 500 yards is pretty impressive!

--
Alan Martin

You might want to check that post again. It was 3900mm, not 3100mm.
That makes it 650 yards. Even more impressive!

Oops! You were right. Maybe I should read the whole thing before opening my mouth, but he did mention getting usable shots at 3900mm.

--

Sometimes I think the surest sign that intelligent life exists elsewhere in our universe is that none of it has tried to contact us.

 

[genece]

According to the Exif, it was F4 at 1/800 of a second I have 72 more taken at the same time and the shutter speed varied between 1/400 and 1/800 . All the shots are useable but far from perfect.

Oh and I will try to remember the way to judge the distance. Thanks

This seems like the best answer I'm going to get; although the
shutter speed wasn't mentioned, this would be pushing the limits
even at 1/2000s. Nice shot!

--
Alan Martin

--
Kodak DC-4800
Panasonic FZ-10
T Con 17 -- Raynox 2020 pro -- Tcon 14 --DCR 720



Just trying to learn and it's slow going!
Gene

 

[Alan Martin256506]

I don't think an optical system is dependent on the focal length
(could be wrong) because it uses gyros to sense your hand shaking
and adjust the lens accordingly. You don't shake your hand any more
vigorously at higher magnification. It may look like it, but that's
only because a tiny angle difference of two lines makes them
farther and farther apart as you get farther away, and since the
OIS is only adjusting the angle it won't make a difference. It
seems like the CCD shifting technique would suffer a lot more from
a higher focal length.

The problem is that the gyros sense a difference in viewing angle, but the corresponding shift in the image delivered to the CCD is proportional to the angle change times the focal length.

Since the image-stabilizing element sees the image formed by the lens elements in front of it, an angular deflection at that point does not correspond directly to a change in viewing angle, instead its effect is essentially the same as shifting the CCD. (In other words, I don't think an OIS system can really just "adjust the angle".)

With no means to determine the proper ratio of camera angular deflection to stabilizing element deflection, if the camera is "fooled" about the focal length then the effect of OIS should be less than one stop. (This does not apply to DSLR lenses with IS when used with rear-mounted teleconverters, as in that case the image seen by the stabilizer element is not affected; the image is already stabilized when it is delivered to the teleconverter.)

Since the FZ20's OIS apparently works with a teleconverter, it must be the case that an adaptive system is used. In Mode 1, this need only consist of having a variable multiplier that controls the ratio of gyro-measured angular deflection of the camera to deflection of the stabilizing element, and adaptively adjusting the multiplier to minimize residual shake. In Mode 2, essentially the same idea works but the effect of moving the stabilizing element must be predicted because it isn't being physically moved. In either case, the multiplier must be set before taking the picture because it is based on feedback from the CCD.

This would suggest that in very low-contrast or nighttime situations, the OIS system could fail to set the multiplier properly. So it would not be effective in damping very small vibrations in very long exposures.

I would be a bit surprised at such a sophisticated system being used in a relatively inexpensive camera (compared with DSLR systems). Maybe my understanding of the optics here is lacking. But I don't see how a stabilizing element sitting behind the teleconverter and the front element can achieve the effect of a specified change in viewing angle without either knowing the focal length or using some kind of feedback from the CCD.

--
Alan Martin

 

[Alan Martin256506]

I can answer the first part of your question simply.
Yes.The more magnification you use the more your camera or
binoculars will be prone to hand shake. The IS will compensate for
this very effectively.
The IS technology in my experience begins to deteriorate after 10X
optical zoom, although at 12 it it still very good and even at 3X
digital is still usable.
This is perhaps why 420mm is where they called it.
Using a teleconverter will add to the IS burden but will still be
clearer then going into digital.

This is why I specified to compare at the same effective zoom, i.e., the same focal length. So the FZ20 alone at 12x zoom would be compared with FZ20 + 2.2x teleconverter at 5x zoom. Of course, this may cause vignetting and kind of defeats the purpose of using a teleconverter in practice, but it does help to determine if OIS performance is degraded by the mere use of a teleconverter, even without increasing the focal length.

--
Alan Martin

 

[germanlaws]

http://www.fotocommunity.de/pc/pc/mypics/427525/display/1814656

I took that moon with the fz10 an the raynox 2020pro using OIS on mode 2 and I think, it could just not be sharper. Of course, I used am Linhoff Tripod with a Manfrotto 141c.

regards

dieter