Trollshavethebestcandy
Leading Member
- Messages
- 536
- Reaction score
- 140
Leica15mm 1.7 plus teleconverter could be pretty interesting. 15 to 25 would be ideal.
-
Welcome to the new forums! Please read this first. For known issues we are working to resolve, click here.
Leica15mm 1.7 plus teleconverter
- Thread starter Trollshavethebestcandy
- Start date
Day Hiker
Forum Pro
...then why did you get on the train? If you want a 25mm, buy a good 25mm. Don't buy a Leica 15mm and ruin it with a cheap add-on TC. Jeesh. I'll wager you are also one of those guys who purchases a fisheye so he can de-fish the images.
Jim Pilcher
Summit County, Colorado, USA
dougjgreen1
Veteran Member
- Messages
- 4,068
- Solutions
- 4
- Reaction score
- 2,395
Fortunately for the OP, there is no Micro 4/3 teleconverter available, so the OP is protected from himself
N
neil holmes
Guest
If your camera has a digital zoom, use that....pretty much about as good as an average TC and much easier to use....2x gives you a 30mm and you keep the 1.7 aperture too.
Knock yourself out and use the 4x digital zoom if you have it as well 60mm without loss of aperture (though image would be really only for small size web shots).
GX7 does very well with 2x digital zoom at least.
Anders W
Forum Pro
To board the train to Chicago if you don't want to go there is a bad idea. To put a TC on a 15 mm lens is a pretty bad idea too. But to buy a fisheye for the purpose of shooting images that are eventually defished (at least sometimes) is a pretty good idea. Why wouldn't it be?
Last edited:
Trollshavethebestcandy
Leading Member
- Messages
- 536
- Reaction score
- 140
The idea was to keep with the GM1 form factor and keep size and weight down. Not removing the lens has its plusses as well. I like the aperture on the lens and the bonus of keeping cost at a minimum. Fuji seems to have been able to make a 50mm equiv TC for the X100. Pany could make more money than people not buying the 25 that is not well suited for the GM1. $600 lens and $300 TC would be a good bundle. Forums are a great place to get abuse if you are into that but not not my cup of tea y'all. Have a nice day 
N
neil holmes
Guest
Does have a digital zoom (2x and 4x)...give that a try with the 15mm lens.The idea was to keep with the GM1 form factor and keep size and weight down. Not removing the lens has its plusses as well. I like the aperture on the lens and the bonus of keeping cost at a minimum. Fuji seems to have been able to make a 50mm equiv TC for the X100. Pany could make more money than people not buying the 25 that is not well suited for the GM1. $600 lens and $300 TC would be a good bundle. Forums are a great place to get abuse if you are into that but not not my cup of tea y'all. Have a nice day
The camera will interpolate the file up and may well be all you want without adding anything and keeping your fast aperture.
better than not having anything and does work ok.
micksh6
Veteran Member
Nobody is protected from everything. Here you are, TCON-17 teleconverter. It will not make aperture smaller. It's from times when Olympus 75mm didn't exist and I converted Oly 45mm to 75 F1.8.
I would really love to see OP putting this converter and hood on GM1 and 15mm.
TCON-17 on E-P3 and 45 F1.8, from here: http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/39840239
Sergey_Green
Forum Pro
Does not moving pixels degrade the image?
micksh6
Veteran Member
Yes, corners will become worse, so what? Defished fisheye is still much wider than the widest rectilinear lens. When you want the widest possible action shot there is no other option since panoramas can't be used for motion.
Sergey_Green
Forum Pro
I always thought the middle horizontal is what it is by FL (and what it will be when de-fished), that is about the same as any other wa of the same focal length. Was I wrong then?
micksh6
Veteran Member
The widest diagonal angle of view for rectinear 14mm equiv. lens such as 7-14mm m4/3 lens is 114 degrees.
Fisheye gives 180 degrees angle of view. So yes, it's much wider regardless of longer focal length.
Fisheye's angle of view after defishing will depend on how you defish it. Rectilinear defishing will result very wide aspect ratio (like cinema 1:2.35) if you want to preserve 180 degrees angle.
However, you can combine Panini projection with rectilinear for defishing. Even if you defish to rectilinear and crop to 3:2 ratio it will still be wider than 14mm equiv. lens.
Sergey_Green
Forum Pro
But that is diagonal, which is exactly what we are trying to get rid in a process of defishing it, not? And then you get shifted pixels to degrade the image even further, what's the attraction?
Ah, ok then, looks like you already tried it.
That sounds complicated.
A good TC to mimic the 25/1.8 quality and maintaining the max aperture will be larger and heavier than the 25/1.8.
That's because they had no other choice. In M43 lenses could be changed.
It's not abuse. It's about facts. Digital zoom is very good. Likely better than a cheap, compact and light TC.Pany could make more money than people not buying the 25 that is not well suited for the GM1. $600 lens and $300 TC would be a good bundle. Forums are a great place to get abuse if you are into that but not not my cup of tea y'all. Have a nice day
Anders W
Forum Pro
Only if you rub them the wrong way. ;-)
Anders W
Forum Pro
Yes. The AoV depends on the FL but also on the projection used. The translation between FL and AoV will thus vary with the projection. For example, for rectilinear projection, 7 mm on MFT corresponds to 114 degrees diagonally but to about 180 degrees diagonally with a "fisheye" projection (there are several different ones).
If we talk about the middle horizontal, the Samyang 7.5/3.5 FE (the most popular option for MFT; I have one) has an AoV of about 132 degrees. That's significantly wider than the Panasonic 7-14 rectilinear UWA at 7 mm, which is about 102 degrees horizontally. The difference in FoV is even bigger than that in AoV, since once you get to angles this wide, the increase in the field covered is significantly greater than the increase as measured in degrees.
Sergey_Green
Forum Pro
For putting this all together.
Trollshavethebestcandy
Leading Member
- Messages
- 536
- Reaction score
- 140
A good TC to mimic the 25/1.8 quality and maintaining the max aperture will be larger and heavier than the 25/1.8.
That's because they had no other choice. In M43 lenses could be changed.
It's not abuse. It's about facts. Digital zoom is very good. Likely better than a cheap, compact and light TC.Pany could make more money than people not buying the 25 that is not well suited for the GM1. $600 lens and $300 TC would be a good bundle. Forums are a great place to get abuse if you are into that but not not my cup of tea y'all. Have a nice day
A good TC to mimic the 25/1.8 quality and maintaining the max aperture will be larger and heavier than the 25/1.8.
That's because they had no other choice. In M43 lenses could be changed.
It's not abuse. It's about facts. Digital zoom is very good. Likely better than a cheap, compact and light TC.Pany could make more money than people not buying the 25 that is not well suited for the GM1. $600 lens and $300 TC would be a good bundle. Forums are a great place to get abuse if you are into that but not not my cup of tea y'all. Have a nice day
Anders W
Forum Pro
You are welcome Sergey!
To expand a little bit on the subject, digital photography gives us options on the UWA side that we haven't had before. Lenses must use azimuthal projections, i.e., projections that render in a radially symmetric way from the center. The rectilinear projection used for ordinary lenses is one of them and fisheye projections (of various kinds) another. Both give rise to "distortion", i.e., an image that in important ways differ from what we can see with our naked eyes. With fisheye, this happens all the time. With rectilinear, it happens when you go wide enough. In fact, every sufficiently wide image must be distorted in one way or another because we can't see that wide with a single glance. We take in the scene piecemeal.
The important thing with digital photography is that it gives us access to a variety of other projections than the two our lenses give us: rectilinear and fisheye (of one kind or another). These other projections will distort too. There is no way around that. But the interesting thing is that they distort in other ways and these other ways may, depending on the scene, strike us as far more natural than either rectilinear or fisheye. Here's an example: The same scene in two different projections. Take a careful look. Which of them do you find least distorted?
Keyboard shortcuts
- f
- Forum