5.10.2020 A new trip to Grebe Lake.

 ~~

I cycled to Grebe Lake only for it to pour down. Albeit briefly. I captured a short video to show the Grebes being bombarded with giant rain drops. Lots of pictures with the Leica 100-400 but I haven't checked them yet. Yet again I experimented with the in-built Teleconverter and Digital Zoom as the Grebes stuck to the far shore as usual.

The image [right] is more like a painting than a  photograph but I rather liked the bird's pose.

 I had the Kowa '884 telescope with me but had left a vital adapter ring at home. I shall leave the ring clamped in its housing from now on! The view through the telescope was bright, amazingly close-up at only 25x and gorgeously detailed despite the very dull conditions. The Kowa has the finest optics I have ever looked through.

The image [left] is very noisy from digital enlargement, heavy cropping and resizing. Probably captured using the G9's inboard 4x digital zoom to boot. The bird was simply too far away [120 yards] to capture well under today's very dull conditions using the Leica 100-400mm. 

The absence of any focal length data on the camera settings is a weakness of the Lumix G9. Leaving the user to wildly guess as to which settings were actually used for each image. Since this is all part of the camera's programming it can't be that difficult to have the information available. The same holds true for the zoom lenses. Why is the focal length not displayed in the viewfinder? It is readily available in image cataloguing software [like Picasa3] so obviously exists in concrete numbers.

~~

14.09.2020 More of the Grebes with the Leica 100-400.

 ~~

 Monday 14th Sept. 72F. Unexpectedly warm sunshine found me back at the lake photographing the Grebes. The young were much more independent this time. As they explored much of the pond either singly or in groups. All five of the family dived at intervals.

I had taken my lightweight stool for more comfort than the timber guard rail. Again I deliberately sat right on the edge of the water, on the grass bank, in full view. 

Sitting right back under the the shade of the trees only adds more distance. It seems not to put the birds at ease. They still kept their distance for the first hour. Hugging the far, wooded shore as usual. It was only when I raised the loose hood of my camouflage jacket that they became curious. One adult and a juvenile would dive and surface closer to me. Though still over 30 yards away.

Following the success I had last time, I took only the Lumix G9 camera, the Sirui CF monopod and the Lumix Leica 100-400mm lens. The monopod is everything one needs for a seated position. The Leica lens and G9 body provide all the image stabilization one could possibly hope for. 

Struggling with the tripod and Sirui gimbal head becomes pointless. The stiffness, or complete freedom, is a hindrance. While the horizontal freedom of the monopod can be easily adjusted. Simply by exposing more, or less, of the steel spike in the rubber foot. Gently rocking the camera from side to side will bring the image upright. The gimbal cannot be adjusted without changing the tripod leg lengths.

Yet again I made use of the in-camera teleconverter [TC 1.4x] and the 2x digital zoom. It is the only way to get close enough to the birds at the considerable distances involved: Often 120 yards or longer. 

I captured lots of stills and only a few videos. Even trying slow burst exposures at one point. This is very controllable. The harder one presses the shutter release the more images are captured. Ease off on the pressure and it becomes single exposures again.

Towards the end, as the birds came closer, I switched back to native focal length [400mm] or with the 1.4x onboard TC. Now I just have to master the same image quality using the Kowa 88mm spotting scope!

 

~~

6.09.2020 Success at last! Leica 100-400 + shorter distance. ✔

 ~~

 

Sunday 6th. Bright with a speckled sky due to high cloud. I walked a loop to take in the Grebe pond. This time my patience paid off. I had taken my Sirui CF monopod. So I sat on a wooden bar right beside the water, dressed in my cheap camouflage outfit. There seems to be no need for a hide.

The monopod provided the vital prop for effortless support of the heavy lens and body. It is no use having perfect image stabilization if the narrow field of view wanders away from the subject due to tired arms. 

 Do Grebes smile?

Over time, this morning, the grebes grew less afraid and more curious. I usually sit right back in the shade of the trees. Today I sat boldly but unmoving at the front of the grass bank. Yet again, the monopod allowed me to remain perfectly still for long periods. It actually seems much less clumsy than the tripod with the very clumsy, Sirui gimbal head.

It helped that the wind brought them towards me. They are highly susceptible to drifting in the slightest breeze. They even bumped into each other when the wind caught the upwind bird. Like little dodgem cars.

A short distance to the subject is everything in photography. One adult and a juvenile came within 30 yards of me today. I had tried onboard TC and 2x and 4x digital zoom at a distance but the results were very mixed. The problem is not knowing which image has had the augmentation. It doesn't register in the image data.

The young are growing dark crests now but still seem to be dependent on the adults for food. None of the three young dived today. Nor did the adults for that matter. 

A juvenile begs for food from its parent.

It is extraordinarily difficult to capture attractive images where the birds are too distant. There is also the completely random behaviour of birds which preen so often. Perhaps they are itchy but they seem to stab at their back feathers quite frequently. 

Sudden head twisting to reach their backs is very commonplace. Catching the light in the bird's eye can mean twenty or thirty exposures just to catch that one instant. I am avoiding exposure bursts to give myself practice in anticipation of favourable behaviour. I took 600 images today. Only half a dozen are up to my rising standards.

The Grebe family stayed together more today. On previous visits they seemed to be studiously ignoring each other. They are known to select favourites amongst their young and feed them in isolation. Even driving the others away. I have seen this behaviour repeatedly over the course of my visits. Though not today. They seemed much more relaxed than before. Were my attempts to remain invisible under the trees counterproductive? Was being of unknown identity actually upsetting them? Or have they simply become more used to the weird bod on the far bank?

~~

 

5.09.2020 When 400mm MFT is never enough!

~~

Saturday 5th. I walked to the Grebe lake to capture the grebe family. As usual they were hovering near the far shore at ~120 yards. Just too far away to make much impact at 400mm. 

So I tried the in-camera x2 and x4 Digital Zoom and the onboard 1.4x Teleconverter. The problem with 1600mm focal length is supporting the camera steadily enough. 

The IS works incredibly well but needs just a bit of extra stability to function at such extreme focal lengths. 1600mm = 3200mm in FF 35mm terms! [See image right.] 

This is serious digiscoping territory but in a compact, zoom telephoto lens. One only 170mm/7" long. Which can be carried for miles on a standard camera strap! An absolutely amazing performance!

Interestingly [?] the Lumix G9 doesn't record use of the onboard zoom and TC. I can usually read every detail of an image in Picasa3 but it only records 400mm MFT. 800mm FF.

I should have taken the lightweight Sirui monopod just to take the load of the camera and lens. I also had the battery grip fitted. Because the camera battery was low as I left home. This made the camera much more comfortable, where it rested against my stomach, but added a little more weight. Not that I noticed it until I needed to manually support the camera and lens for over quarter of an hour while I snapped away.

For video, a tripod would be absolutely vital at such extreme focal lengths. If only to avoid the viewer becoming sea-sick! 

 

Later I rode to a more distant lake. One where a field is ploughed up to the edges of the water. Making it impossible to approach nearer than the footpath. Gulls were mixed with lapwings at 200 yards. A family of swans drifted at 150 yards. Then there were shots nearby and the birds scattered. I snapped away as the lapwings circled and caught the group below.

 

When things settled down again I captured the swans. It rained lightly as clouds blew across in the headwind.  Then there were more shots and I gave up the struggle.

The Leica 100-400 is proving its value in providing sharp images. I used the onboard teleconverter again for 560mm [MFT] to bring the swans closer. A small convoy of ducks chugged back and forth.

 

I don't think I'll bother with this lake again. It is just too open, exposed and unfriendly. Particularly when hunters are disturbing the peace!

It could be so much more than it is with a few bushes and reeds around the banks for cover. Perhaps, even a hide for people to enjoy the birds without disturbing them. Though it is rather near to a village. With all the risks that entails. There is a track which ordinary cars can easily manage.

 

~~

4.09.2020 Leica 100-400 Testing-testing.

~~

Friday 4th September. First outing with the new lens. It takes some getting used to the narrow field of view and high magnification! Previous experience with the 50-200 with the 1.4x TC was valuable. The 400mm zoom is almost extreme. Its reach is remarkable. Sharpness at the long end is impressive! 

 

The Image Stabilisation is shockingly good! The shaking image just settles and holds steady. It magically freezes the wobble due to being handheld. 

 

I deliberately switched off the IS on the lens to check and the image became impossibly shaky. This is the equivalent of 800mm in 35mm Full Frame terms. In a package not much bigger, nor heavier, than the 50-200. The weight of the lens and G9 camera became effortless to carry for over an hour with the strap worn on the diagonal.

A telecoms tower seven miles away was an interesting target. Though the early morning light was rather poor. Despite the slight haze the detail is astonishing. The elements of the antennae on the upper tower are clearly visible in the original image.[Right] 

5184x3888. 1/1300s f/11 ISO 1000, 400mm. I could have reduced ISO for greater sharpness but will wait for a sunny day to try again. I ought to take the Kowa '884 telescope to where I can see the tower in the distance to make direct comparisons.

Cropping has robbed the image of its sharpness. Increasing contrast and sharpening in PhotoFiltre hasn't matched the original. Just increased the artefacts. The various images here are my attempts to improve the original in PhotoFiltre.

The image [Left] is untouched except by Google's auto-resizing to 2048 × 1536 pixels. As the blog author I have privileges to expand the image to full size. Visitors may not be able to double click for a huge view.

I might still think of a better way of sharing the

fine detail from my images. Matching it to the needs of the blog format, while retaining the detail, is proving extremely difficult.

It is ironic that there are those who still insist on full frame 35mm cameras and long lenses. They must spend many thousands of pounds/dollars. Then carry the huge and heavy lenses via a vehicle and set them up on massive tripods and heads. 

A closer view [Right] for comparison.

 Totally impractical and expensive for most users. While I, as a fit septuagenarian, can easily carry an 800mm equivalent. For hours at a time on a simple camera strap over very rough ground. Up steep firebreaks and banks without even noticing the weight and bulk of the relatively tiny, Leica zoom lens and G9 body.  

 

~~

3.09.2020 100-400mm: A new chapter.

~~

Thursday 3rd September. While I had been enjoying snapping away with the Lumix Leica 50-200 + 1.4x TC for 280mm, it still lacked enough reach. Distant subjects were shrunken below the tolerable level for heavy cropping. 

 

So I have added a [hopefully] final lens to my Micro 4/3 collection. The Lumix Leica 100-400mm. [200-800mm in 35mm FF terms] With twice the reach of the bare 50-200 its power is truly remarkable. It also holds serious promise for close-ups.

 

Here are some first examples though not standing very close. I could have done with more light but the sky had become overcast. 400mm 1/200s @ f/8 ISO250. Pinpoint metering. Cropped from 5000 to 2000 pixels. Then resized to 1000 x 800. Not ideal for maintaining the original sharpness.

My experience with the 50-200 is that its size and weight are easily tolerable on a diagonal camera strap. I hardly noticed the camera even after a couple of hours of walking over very rough ground. The size and weight of the 100-400 is not really that different to the 50-200. So it looks promising as a do-all lens for the great outdoors.

Any fear that I would be too close to many subjects evaporated after using the 1.4 TC on the 50-200. I spent most of the time at 280mm. 70mm minimum with the TC was fine except for near pictures of buildings. So 100mm minimum is not a deal breaker. I was hoping to test it out on the grebe lake but the sky has become solid grey and overcast. With rain promised for this afternoon.

~~

1.09.2020 Another exposure disaster at the lake!

~~

Tuesday 1st September. Another visit to the lake in bright but cloudy conditions with sunny periods.. 

Despite having Continuous Preview set on the Lumix G9 many of my hundreds of digiscoping images were so dark they were almost black. Yet again, most of them looked out of focus or grainy. 

 

Meanwhile, video was great on the 50-200 x 1.4 TC. Sharp and bright but simply too distant. So I tried the 1.4x, in-camera teleconverter on video and it was surprisingly good. With much better reach at 400mm equivalent focal length. [280 x 1.4 = 392.]

As I have reported before: The Kowa '884 images are absolutely stunning visually. Best I have ever seen in a long lifetime of telescope and binocular use. Why do I have such a problem capturing what I can see so clearly? 

If only I had not trusted my settings and the viewfinder and had checked Review. I could have seen, yet again, that there was a serious exposure problem. I must be missing something about settings for a contactless [manual] lens.  I shall have to do some serious research on settings for "dumb" or legacy lenses with smart camera bodies.

Update: This morning I set up the tripod in the garden with the telescope and camera attached. I used the PA7 "lenseless" Kowa adapter at 25x on the Kowa zoom eyepiece. I used the wireless shutter release to kill the obvious shake whenever I touched the camera or telescope. 

 

BTW: The Pixel Oppilas wireless sender eats AAA batteries. It is always on without any switch. The receiver has an off switch. Removal of the batteries is a bore due to the ridiculously tight battery cover! Broken thumbnails tight!

 

Otherwise it works well enough for single and short burst releases. Sadly it doesn't work for video on the G9. Now that would be real magic! Try pressing a button on a camera dangling from a 2000mm telephoto lens without causing a massive  wobble! NEWS: A YT poster suggests you should use Creative Video instead of normal. This allows the wireless remote to start and stop video. I'll look into that. 

 

Wireless Remote Video control: Setting the G9 dial to Manual Video provides start and stop on the wireless remote. That's a relief! Video is a great shortcut to worthwhile digiscoping results. Getting sharp stills is the difficult part.

The Manfrotto 055 CF tripod is not remotely stiff enough for digiscoping with the legs fully extended. I usually have only the first, thicker sections extended and sit on a camping stool behind the camera. I use a Sirui gimbal head but it has its own serious issues. Like a complete lack of friction. A total waste of money! If only I could get it apart I could modify it to provide the vital, smooth drag in panning. Complete freedom makes for jerky movements.

The "secret" to getting sharper pictures and correct exposure seems to be going over to all manual settings. Manual focus. Manual ISO. Manual exposure. Manual on the settings dial. 

 

Today's tests had ISO in the low thousands. [More image noise?] At least it meant movement freezing, shutter speeds. I captured wind blown trees at 40, 100 and 600 yards. Not razor sharp but a definite improvement. Whether this translates into sharper water bird images at the usual 80-120 yards I shall have to see. I can only judge progress after a new trial at the lake. 

 

This time I pressed the Review button on the G9 after each and every single exposure to check sharpness and brightness. Continuous Preview seems to be worthless after a useful start. Perhaps it is switched off under certain other settings? Some menu settings ae blacked out when another choice is made.
 

There is a Kowa digiscoping product advertisement/guide online. The Micro 4/3 camera and 25-60mm eyepiece with the PA7 adapter: 25x = 2000mm equivalent. 40x = 3500mm equiv. 60x = 4900mm equiv. No wonder the image magnification seems so extreme! And, so very different to the superb, visual appearance at the eyepiece. 

 

Full frame would be far easier with its much lower equivalent focal lengths halved compared to the 4/3 format. Adding the Lumix 20mm pancake lens reduces the magnification but still needs the correct settings. Another area of research to attend to.

I am guessing that these quoted figures are equivalent focal lengths in 35mm FF terms due to the usual crop factor of 2. Dividing these f/l figures by 50 will give the effective magnification. 2000mm = 40x, 3500 = 70x and 4900 = 98x. There is also the 1.6x Kowa extender = 3200mm, 5600mm & 7840mm respectively!! You do the maths!

~~

31.08.2020 Insect close-ups at 280mm focal length.

~~

The Leica-Lumix zooms have quite close focusing at full zoom so take useful close-ups. [Not macro!]

A patch of the flower garden was still in bright sunshine after lunch. So I snapped away at the butterflies and bees before the trees threw their shadows over them. 

The Leica 50-200 with 1.4x TC was used on the G9 at 280mm. Finding focus was often a struggle at close range. I was using pinpoint and AF but it would often completely ignore the foreground. Manual focus was too confusing with a greatly enlarged image overlay.

There was no shortage of butterflies but they weren't there to pose for me. Nor did they stay still for very long. I had lots of images but most were not critically sharp, not displaying their wings to full effect or falling off the edge of the frame.

Yet again I had to crop hard in PhotoFiltre to increase the scale of the subject within the image frame. Resizing [smaller] was also necessary for the blog. 

Red Admiral. [Left] Small [?] Tortoiseshell [Above] There were several sizes of almost identical butterflies but I wasn't carrying a vernier caliper.

A small bee was working over a flower but presented all too view useful poses. I also made the mistake of having a large seed head too near in the foreground. Which tended to confuse the camera's focusing mechanism. Fortunately I could crop the out-of-focus seed head. Another lesson learned.

Bees are too busy to hover over them in the hope of a useful pose. So I just kept snapping away. Then had to discard almost all of my images as worthless.

Butterflies come in threes? There were actually seven on the same flower head at the same time.

Catching numerous examples simultaneously is almost impossible when the depth of field is reduce by proximity. This lucky 'snap' was deliberately taken from further away.

Lots of valuable lessons learned today. Not least that 400mm would be even more useful for reaching insects in very deep flower beds.

~~

30.08.2020 A matter of scale and sharpness.

~~

Sunday. A nearly two hour long, early morning walk in the countryside. There was a total lack of traffic noise. The G9 was fitted with the Leica 50-200 + TC14 1.4x teleconverter for 70-280mm. All slung as usual on the diagonal across my body on its strap. So that the camera's weight goes largely unnoticed. 321 images captured today.

Small groups of deer were grazing in the stubble fields. Birds of prey and other birds flew overhead. I stumbled upon a pair of deer grazing on a quiet track. They didn't seem to notice me as I stood stock still in my [cheap] new [dark] camouflage jacket. There follows an exercise in cropping an image to improve the composition. I used PhotoFiltre7 for all processing.

The deer in the pictures started walking towards me and continued as if I were invisible. I
snapped away at 280mm hoping to get a nice pose from at least one of my images. This is the one I chose to work on. 1/640s f5.6 ISO 5000. Program, Auto ISO, Auto Exposure, Auto Aperture and Auto Focus. The ISO is far too high and must have introduced some noise.

Google has automatically resized the original 5184x3888 image [Top left] to 1600x1200. [Click]

Note that I have manually downsized all of the other images for the blog format. The original, full image [Above right] is untouched but resized from 5184x3888 pixels to 1000 x 750 pixels.

This resizing always visibly softens an image but cannot be avoided if the blog is not to crawl during downloads on slow internet connections. I am spoilt by a symmetrical, optical fibre, 110Mbps/110Mbps service but must never forget others are not usually so fortunate.You may be able to left click on some of these images for a larger version. Thought this may be limited to only the blogger himself.

The third  image [Left] has been cropped slightly and resized to 1000 pixels max. Some adjustments have been made to sharpen the image and to strengthen the colour slightly. This is arguably the sharpest image shown.

The fourth image [Right] has been far more heavily cropped to digitally enlarge the deer. This also removed the other deer from the background. Which was rather distracting because of its awkward pose. Being out of focus, due to the shallow depth of field, didn't really help. This fourth image has lost much of its sharpness due to digital enlargement [heavy cropping] and downsizing. 783 x 1000 pixels when enlarged by double clicking.

Incidentally, the shiny black "moustache" on the deer's muzzle is a natural feature despite looking so completely artificial. Presumably the result of grazing dew soaked grass and other plants.

~~

29.08.2020 Magnification v focal length.

~~

Saturday is overcast with showers. Only 250 images captured on my hour and half morning walk. A Red kite circled briefly overhead before moving away across the fields. I wasn't ready but snapped away capturing single images at 280mm as I struggled to keep the bird centred in the viewfinder. [280mm = 560mm FF:35mm] 1/640s f5.6 ISO250 [Program + Auto Focus and Auto ISO]

I had been photographing  the countryside so the camera was already at those settings.The bird arrived unexpectedly over the top of a large tree.

280mm is proving not nearly enough reach for birds or deer in the wilds. This is the only image [right] of the many I captured which tolerated  the massive cropping required. Just to make the tiny image of the bird interesting. Brightened considerably to bring out any colour and detail from the near-black silhouette. [See full frame original image below.]

50mm @ 35mm Full Frame focal length is considered equivalent to normal eyesight at 1x magnification. This would be 25mm MFT. Longer focal lengths should be divided by 50 FF [or 25 for MFT] for the resulting magnification.  

I have 200mm and 280mm max f/l available from my Leica 50-200 MFT lens with the TC14. This is equivalent to 400 and 560mm in 35mm Full Frame terms. Adding a 2x TC instead of the 1.4 would provide 400mm MFT or 800 FF 35mm. It is arguable whether the Lumix TC 2x on the 50-200 would provide the same image quality as the Leica 100-400mm. 

If large prints were of no interest then it is debatable whether doubling my expenditure for the big Leica [compared to the TC2x] is really worthwhile. In reality the big Leica 100-400 would only be used for the 300-400 range.Which is considered rather soft by most reviewers. The rest up to 280mm being duplicated by the 50-200 x 1.4, TC14. So the Lumix TC20 makes quite a lot of sense in this context. The 100-400 is slow at f6.3 at the long end. The 50-200mm [f2.8-4] x2 TC20 would be working at f/8. The loss of only one stop over the Leica 100-400 [f4-6.3]

The pair of Lumix TCs would provide a far more flexible and compact set up. My experience so far is that I use the full, 280mm, almost continuously on my rural walks. So I would be very likely to be using the TC20 on the Leica 50-200 at 400mm. Providing 100-400mm at f6.3 to f8.

Buying the Leica 100-400 instead would duplicate my lens collection in a very similar size and weight for no greater range than the TC20. If I desperately needed a shorter lens, while out on my walks, I can simply remove the TC20. To provide the considerable flexibility of 50-200mm. Or fit the TC14 1.4x teleconverter for 70-280mm. 

My little Leica 12-60 zoom offers much lower magnification and seems very underwhelming for serious wildlife use. Though it is very handy for images around the garden. Even indoors, when there is enough light. So, unlikely to be useful on my walks as a back up to the longer lens.

However, the 12-60 + 50-200 with both TCs, makes a very compact and lightweight set-up for general photography under most circumstances. Providing 25-800mm in FF 35mm terms. Without the huge bulk, sheer weight and vast expense of a matching Full Frame camera and matching lenses.

The following table shows the various f/l against resulting magnifications from my potential MFT lens options.

   TC        MFT              FF35mm          X     

   [0]    12-60/25      =  120mm/50   =  2.4   ✔

   [0]    50-200/25    =  400mm/50   =   8     ✔

[1.4]    70-280/25    =  560mm/50   =  11    ✔

[2]     100-400/25    =  800mm/50   =  16    X

Magnification can be thought of in various ways. Doubling the focal length means 2x more magnification. Which brings the subject twice as close. It makes the subject twice the size on the sensor in the camera. Or, it halves the field of view.

~~

28.08.2020 Longer lens or digital enlargement?

~~

This deer was about 200 yards away out in the middle of a field. I captured it at 280mm [my maximum focal length] and then heavily cropped the original image for far more impact. [Right]

This had the very undesirable effect of digitally enlarging the image until it became almost a "painting" of the deer. Rather than a photograph, accurately recording the deer in every detail.

The true size of the deer in the original image frame is seen to the left. Reduced from 5184 x 3888 to 1000 x 750  pixels for posting. [LIke all three images here] Note the lack of impact of the distant animal. Which is looking rather lost in its surrounding picture frame.

A longer focal length would have provided a larger image of the deer by optical means. Thus avoiding the all too obvious distortion of digital enlargement. Holding down the Ctrl key and rolling the mouse wheel will have exactly the same effect. This is also digital enlargement. No free meals in digital enlargement!

Increasing my lens focal length from my present 280mm [200 x 1.4 TC] to 400mm [200 x 2 TC] would provide a 1.42 optical enlargement without digital distortion. The image right has been digitally enlarged [cropped by a factor of 1.4 around the deer.]

I did this to show how large the deer would have appeared with a 400mm lens. [Leica 100-400 or 200 x TC20] Hardly dramatic, due to the considerable distance to the deer. Though probably worthwhile if it allowed much less cropping for greater visual impact.

Note how the smaller field of view, of the longer lens, has already added considerable impact. This, alone, has fooled the eye into thinking the animal is much closer and therefore a more interesting picture.

Is it really worth the very considerable expense of investing in a longer lens or the 2x Lumix TC20 teleconverter? Perhaps not, with distant deer. Though it would certainly help to increase the size of smaller subjects, like birds, at much shorter distances.

Long lenses can save the photographer having to approach the subject. With the serious risk of disturbing it. So that it escapes or changes its natural behaviour. There is a definite survival risk with disturbance of any birds or animals. One could drive a bird off its nest or cause it to abandon its young at a crucial moment. It seems too obvious to state that you can't just go trotting off across a field in the hope that a deer will remain calmly in place. While you carefully frame it at much closer quarters. Nor can you [usually] take to a boat to capture water birds.

~~

26.08.2020 The Peak Design Q/R "Slide Lite" camera strap. User review.

 ~~

I simply can't imagine having a permanently attached strap fitted to the G9 camera body now. I discarded the original Panasonic G9 within minutes! It took far too long to fit and remove for tripod and indoor use! Nuts! It's 2020. Not the 19th century.

A short lanyard strap for the body and lens, to go around your wrist, is going much too far. If it is just to get away from a full camera strap. Your favoured arm would end up dragging like an ape!

Peak Design do a "Cuff" wrist strap/lanyard. I'd consider this as a purely studio safety accessory. In case tired or sweaty hands let go of a heavy and expensive camera. Carrying the G9 + 200mm lens outdoors on a wrist strap would be strictly for young body builders IMO.

After several walks with the 50-200mm on the G9 I became more comfortable with the weight. I use the Peak Design 'Slide Lite' strap diagonally across my body. With the back of the camera body resting on one side of my stomach at hip level.

I can easily let go instead of steadying the lens constantly with my hand. Which is only really necessary on very rough ground. Or when jogging to avoid traffic. Just to stop the camera from swinging about. Holding the lens instantly reminds me of the considerable weight I am carrying. I find it best to just let the camera hang on the diagonal while walking on smooth ground. The weight just seems to disappear.

The Peak Design "Lite" strap has quick release anchors/buttons/toggles for rapid removal. Though only after some practice in a safe place. Don't try this when NOT at home, folks! Seriously, there is a bit of a knack to pressing and pulling the toggle in and out of the sprung holder. Once clipped in the system feels very secure and could not escape accidentally even under heavy loads.

Removal avoids having the thick, stiff and clumsy strap draped across my untidy busy desk. Which I have to do while downloading images. Or when I am fiddling with lenses or scouring the endless G9 menus. It really should have its own browser! I haven't managed to get the G9 to talk to my wireless router yet. Or I could download images with the camera sitting somewhere else.

The PD "Slide Lite" strap really isn't wide enough for full shoulder comfort with such a heavy camera/lens combination. [G9 + 200mm zoom.] While being simultaneously far too thick. More like a lifting strop for a crane! Which is completely daft when the Q/R toggles are on very short loops of very thin cord. "Weakest link," anybody?

The "Anchors" to use PD's own parlance, are rated at 200lbs or 90kg. Presumably steady state. Rather than shock loading. The strap is probably good for one ton! You get a free camera bottom plate, with anchor attached. Plus and a spare anchor with the "colour change" warning card attached.

I haven't tried the tripod screw, bottom fitting plate yet. Because it would need to be removed to fit another camera/tripod mounting plate. With a heavy lens the camera tends to go nose down anyway. So the bottom fitting plate is probably best reserved for smaller lenses.

The sheer thickness of the strap material makes the end loops unnecessarily heavy and stiff. Not too much of a problem when loaded down with the camera. Though a real nuisance when you want to turn the camera to portrait mode using the eye level viewfinder. The strap instantly becomes a giant anaconda waiting to strangle you! Eek!

It has occurred to me that I can close one loop and have a longer loop at the other end. I shall have to try this to see if it helps. I have had race/rally, multipoint, car safety harnesses with thinner straps than the PD "Lite!" While climbing safety loops would never sell in this foolishly thick, cross section.

This strap reminds me of those [overhyped] "New York safe" bike locks. Obscenely expensive for such a crude and vulnerable device. No to mention being far too heavy to carry on any, decent racing bike. While simultaneously being absolutely no use at protecting an expensive bike left alone on the city streets. Crackers!

The buckles on the PD "Lite" strap do slide nicely. A shoulder load spreader would inhibit adjustment of the trap. So I can see why they didn't fit one. Unfortunately, the bulky buckles also make it completely impossible to borrow a shoulder pad from any another strap.

I went for a plain black to avoid becoming an identikit, amateur photographer. With G9 boldly embroidered up and down the strap every few inches. As the camera hangs high on my chest and all the weight falls directly on my neck. The diagonal strap really is the only way to go.

Overall I quite like the PD "Slide Lite" trap. The overall finish is fine. I just wish it were made of much thinner material. Though wider, to spread the load better on my shoulder. The full width, PD "Slide" strap would be ridiculously heavy and stiff judging by the misnamed "Lite." So I haven't even been tempted to try one. Unfortunately the PD anchor holders do not lend themselves to being removed and fitted to a much lighter strap without any adjustment. One you have discovered your ideal strap length there really is no need to ever touch the buckles again.

These PD straps probably sell solely on the unique, Q/R facility. Which was the only reason I ordered one in the first place. How else can you differentiate them from any other strap? It's just a camera strap, after all!

~~

25.08.2020 More reach v too much?

~~

On some walks I have taken the Leica 12-60mm. This combination, with the G9, feels almost weightless on the PD "Lite" strap but 60mm MFT or 120mm [35mm] seriously lacks reach for the great outdoors. Even the 280mm reach of the 1.4x TC14 with the 200mm maximum zoom lacks enough reach for small birds and animals. I find it a good lens for small buildings and pets.

I have now added some images to give a sense of scale [or magnification] for different focal lengths. The first pair of images show a 7 mile distant tower. [Distance measured on Google Earth.] The second pair of images show a few chickens at the far end of a 600 yard field. Totally ignore the sharpness for these image scale exercises.

These were all captured with the G9 using the Leica 50-200 on the Lumix 1.4x TC14. The images have been digitally resized but NOT cropped. Cropping alters the scale and reduces resolution. Resizing reduces the resolution but not the scale by reducing the pixel count. The original images were 5184 x 3888 pixels. [4x3 format] I have reduced all of them to 1000 x 750 pixels in PhotoFiltre7.

In the original images I can clearly see the colours of the tiny chickens if the first image taken at 600 yards with 70mm zoomed 100%. In the 280mm images it is very easy to see the hen's combs, legs and plumage and detailed colouration of all these details. Digital zooming in Picasa3 reduces the resolution. As would cropping to achieve the same degree of enlargement.

280mm MFT = 560mm equivalent in FF 35mm terms. You'd have to be quite close to any small birds to have any real impact! 280mm [560mm] is more of a landscape focal length in open countryside.

Removing the 1.4x teleconverter immediately embarrasses you with its maximum 200mm reach. You could photograph nearby cows or sheep in a field with that. If there were any there and you really felt the need.

Which leaves me in another quandary. There is the Leica 100-400mm in Micro 4/3. [MFT] That's 200-800mm equivalent in 35mm Full Frame speak. This would provide much more serious reach than my present 280mm. Enough for smaller birds at greater distances. Say 50 yards maximum? Or birds of prey at even greater distances.

The weight would not be too much of a burden being so close to the 50-200 + TC14. The teleconverter doesn't fit the Leica 100-400 because it has no recess on the rear lens.Which may be just as well given the huge focal lengths tat would give. 140-560 MFT  = 280-1120 in 35mm terms!

Another, slightly cheaper alternative, would be fitting the Lumix TC20 x2 teleconverter to my existing Leica 25-200mm. The TC20 is even more expensive than the TC14!  Though less than half the price of the Leica 100-400. Which it damn well ought to be! A TC is a very small, child's toy compared to a large, full zoom, telephoto lens full of rare and expensive glass! Not the the TCs lack sophistication. They have multiple elements in spaced groups. It is just the tiny scale of the TCs compared with the 2lb/1kg 100-400 which makes one seriously question the retail price! Perhaps Panasonic merely wants to sell more 100-400 lenses than teleconverters?

Sadly the 2x TC has a much poorer [online] reputation compared to the 1.4x. It is said to be "soft" according to reviews and forum discussions. Though the quality of the lens, to which it is attached, inevitably has an affect. How much variation is there in reality with optical mass production? Is it all subjective? Or just user error? Perhaps through lack of skill and knowledge.

My real fear is that purchase of the TC20 will fulfil the hunger for more reach. Then leave me totally underwhelmed with image quality and lack of light despite the considerable expense.

With two stops lost this is strictly a bright sunshine combo. Which could well mean buying the Leica 100-400 anyway. Which is not a particularly fast lens in itself. F4-6.3 is rather slow at the long end.

Another factor is the minimum focal length of the lens [or TC combination] being carried. I have already discovered that I sometimes cannot get far enough away from some subjects with the 70-280mm. [50-200 x1.4 TC] Buildings are the main problem. The road may simply not be wide enough to get all of the building into the frame. Just remove the TC you say?

Removing the TC for a specific shot is a real nuisance compared with just zooming in and out. Even swapping primes or zooms is arguably easier. Due to the double bayonets involved with removing or refitting the TC. The teleconverter has to be safely pocketed in mid lens swap. Not ideal given the protruding front lens of the Lumix TCs.

If a bird of prey flies towards you then the field of view at such long focal lengths is very small indeed. Losing the bird is very likely as the Single Autofocus pumps in and out trying to lock onto the empty sky around the bird. As happened to me only recently with Red kites. Manual focus is a proven option but needs considerable practice. The focus ring also keeps moving further away when adding teleconverters.

Pro bird photographers probably use Burst exposure and Continuous Focus [or Manual focus.] Which is fine if you have birds crossing repeatedly in front of you on a parallel path. What if the bird arrives from behind a tall tree and is suddenly overhead without warning? The bird is very likely to take fright at your presence and sudden movement. It will usually vanish into thin air ASAP.

This is the usual occurrence on my rural walks. Where there are trees and tall hedges almost everywhere I go. Birds of prey are remarkably nervous and will rely on their excellent sight to spot you. Now with your optical cannon suddenly pointing straight up at them! After millions of years of being hunted they know not to trust humans in any shape or form.

~~

19.08.2020 More failures! More lessons learned.

~~

Wednesday 19th August. Back to Grebe lake again. I chose Shutter Priority, so no more foolishly slow exposures. However, image brightness was all over the place. I changed EV and ISO countless times. The viewfinder was too bright and very washed out. While most of the images were far too dark!

I should, of course, have used Constant Preview. So that every shutter button depression shows the actual degree of brightness or lack of in the next image.

Then I could have noticed the problem straight away and compensated with ISO or Shutter Speed. Instead of which I took lots of dark images which could not be brightened later in image handling software. 

Two Grebe adults were present but only once did they come within a few yards of each other. They ignored each other while pending lots of time diving for food for their young. One adult was accompanied by one well grown chick. The other had two rather more independent chicks. Grebes are know to feed favourite chicks and ignore the others. I have seen them repeatedly driving young away. Even charging at them when the adult just happened to drift nearby!

It is interesting to see how hydrophobic the adult bird's plumage is despite spending lots of time underwater. Glistening droplets just roll off their backs. There is lots of preening and splashing about to keep their plumage in good condition.  Meanwhile the chicks look constantly damp. They copy the actions of their parents when preening but haven't yet developed their own diving suit. Stabbing at your own back with such long, sharp beaks cannot be without risk!

Several fish of about 10cm or 4" in length were caught and delivered to each of the young. Grebe diving trips seem a very haphazard arrangement. Not only did it leave the chicks unprotected on the surface but the adult's resurfacing could happen almost anywhere on the lake! Presumably there is considerable underwater searching and chasing going on. One adult kept checking the sky for predators while on the surface. 

The images above were captured within moments of each other. Both required heavy cropping to produce acceptable scale of the distant birds in the frame. They were both taken by the Leica 50-200 with the addition of the Lumix TC14 1.4x teleconverter. 280mm in Micro 4/3 or 560mm in 35mm Full Frame terms.

This is best considered as a 50 yards maximum range lens for filling the frame with a water bird. Any lens with a shorter focal length and you had better find a much smaller lake! You may capture some birds likenesses but they will be tiny on your image processing screen.

None of my Kowa digiscoping images were really worth sharing. [But see the two images below] This was despite my having captured nearly 500 images, in total, in my hour and half beside the lake. I can well understand why photographers prefer long, camera lenses to digiscoping. Automatic everything! WYSIWYG! Almost guaranteed images unless you are doing something very wrong.

Make no mistake, the Kowa '884 provides absolutely stunning images visually at any reasonable distance or power up to 96x! However, reliably converting that gorgeous imagery into still photographs still eludes me. Distance is a major part of the problem. The Grebes constantly keep their distance near the far shore at 120-150 yards. Coming nearer than half of the width of the lake only occurs by accident. That would provide only 50-60 yards range if I was very lucky.

A faulty, guidance system, resurfacing moment brought them closer only once today. Which was soon corrected. At the time I had the camera on the Kowa telescope. Which meant a very narrow field of view even at 25x for 1200mm equivalent focal length in 35mm terms. Finding the birds at 40-50 yards was a real struggle against the almost featureless, uniformly green, watery background.

I quickly changed to the Leica 50-200 [280mm equivalent] lens but it was already too late. The adult had spotted me instantly dived. Leaving its solitary chick to paddle quickly away. Those chicks can really travel! You should see the size of Grebe's feet. Like swans flippers stuck on birds smaller than most ducks.

This was the only digiscoping image where a chick had some light in its face. It had turned its head slightly in my direction. Most of the time their faces are in deep shadow because of the position of the sun in the sky relative to my position. The unbreakable rule is always to have the sun behind you.

I have no choice where I can position myself on the northern bank looking south west. There is litweally no access to the far [southerly] side of the lake. Where tortured, dead  trees and large living specimens crowd most of the lake edges on three sides: East, south and west. Two, very large, private gardens close off all access over a quarter of the perimeter to the west of my position. Though well hidden by mature trees and tall reeds.

I have tried to explore the surrounding woodland but it is inaccessible due to impenetrable undergrowth.

I checked on Google Earth and there is really no other option for photography. I am very fortunate that the owner of the lake invited me to use his grass bank. He just happened to be walking his dog, recognised me and stopped to chat. It seems that other birdwatchers use the bank but are not always careful about their litter. Or perhaps others visit at night and leave the beer cans I see occasionally.

All joking aside, I may have to get a camouflage net to conceal my presence. Only then am I likely to have birds within a comfortable range for some serious image scale without cropping. Cropping reduces sharpness by digital enlarging. Reducing image size to suit the blog format further damages the sharpness.  If I am already using 60x on the Kowa zoom then I am expecting too much from images of 120-130 yard distant birds. [See the final image below taken at 60x at 120 yards.]

All this is despite the lowly needs of the blog with regards to image quality. Postcard size is perfectly adequate for blogging posts with 1000-1200 Pixels maximum dimension. Make your images any larger and people will complain bitterly that it takes ages for a blog page to download on their "wet piece of string," Internet connection.

I enjoy 210/210Mbps fibre in rural Denmark despite being several miles from the nearest village. Denmark has taken the digital economy very seriously for years. Few other countries seem quite so fortunate. It would be ironic indeed if they need Musk's multi-satellite, internet system in supposed "developed" countries!

Now I am wondering if I should take my tablet to the lake to better monitor my captured images. The camera viewfinder is very obviously not an accurate depiction of the captured image. This is probably due to the lack of aperture control where the Kowa has no contacts to feed information back to the camera. It is just a dumb lens. Like using a legacy, film lens on a modern, digital camera. The contactless adapter is merely a supporting tube. Nothing else.

A problem which keeps surfacing is the touch screen on the G9. As I press my cheek against the camera to see through the excellent viewfinder I seem to be accidentally making adjustments to the settings. I have repeatedly caused bursts of exposure without intending to. This is caused by my accidentally touching the exposure bracketing symbol on the edge of the screen. I also keep pushing the central focusing point out to the edge of the touch screen.

I need the viewing screen to make adjustments and to check images by pressing playback. I haven't yet mastered making changes via the viewfinder. That would allow me to fold the screen safely away and stop it being such a nuisance. Worse, is that I have to put on stronger reading glasses just to see the tiny viewing screen clearly. They may claim it is a 3" screen but the "picture" is much smaller than the frame!

 

In the menus I discovered how to "switch off" the active symbols on the right of the touch screen. I haven't found a way to expand the screen image to cover that now completely wasted area. So there is a black/blank stripe down that edge.

~~

14.08.20 Back to Grebe lake.

~~

I was fully armed for my short ride to the lake. The Sirui gimbal on the Manfrotto 055 tripod. The Kowa '884 spotting scope, the Lumix G9 with the Leica 50-200 with the TC14 extender fitted. I had both camera adapters but decided to use the Lumix 20mm f1.7 pancake lens with the DA10 and Kowa 25-50 zoom eyepiece. [Image right at about 100 yards. Cropped from 5184 to 1200 pixels.]

The three member, Grebe family was present when it wasn't submerged. Only one adult and two young. Trying to capture all three was frustrating. Because they regularly separated while on the surface.

The diving adult could reappear literally, almost anywhere on the lake. Whereupon the young would instantly home in on their parent. If there really were two parents I was unable to recognise any obvious differences. They certainly never surfaced at the same time. The young only occasionally dived and usually only for a few seconds. The adult seemed to disappear for minutes underwater. It had a four inch fish in its beak on one resurfacing and gave it to one of its young.

The camera was easily removed from the Kowa eyepiece thanks to the DA10 adapter. Then the eyeball view through the Kowa, both with and without the 1.6x extender, was crystal clear. I watched the fine surface detail on a sleeping Mallard duck's eyelid as it flickered open and shut at 145 yards using 96x!

Every power I tried was amazingly bright and sharp. Every hair and feather detail as crisp as one could possibly hope for. Sadly, my skill at capturing this incredible detail is developing much too slowly for my taste. 

I switched over to the Leica 50-200 lens with the TC14 [1.4x] tele-converter on the G9. To snap away at the now retreating grebes and distant ducks. The scale was less than half the reach at 581mm [35mm equivalent] to the Kowa telescope's minimum of 1200mm [at 25x zoom] when digiscoping.

The sharpness of the Leica lens was still very satisfying and readily allowed heavy cropping and downsizing.[Image left for comparison. 5184 pixels cropped to 1200.]

The Leica 100-400 would provide more than 25% more scale with 800mm [at 35mm FF] reach but I consider it too expensive for such a specialised lens. I can't imaging taking it with me for my everyday walks unless the marsh pond became a regular habit. Birds of prey are slightly too rare to be worth carrying the extra weight. So the bigger lens would not earn its keep like the much more flexible 50-200 + 1.4x extender. [50-280mm combined.]

Ideally the sunlight on the lake should have been behind me. The sun is on my left and beyond the lake. Which causes shadows and burnt out highlights on pale plumage. Though I really have no choice in my position for photography at this small, privately owned lake. There is only one accessible spot where the public can reach the water. Fortunately this area lies under mature trees. So provides excellent shelter from the summer sun and the shadows hide me from the wildlife to some degree. I still haven't taken any camouflage material with me.

I only extend the upper leg sections of the tripod and sit on my comfortable stool behind the camera and telescope. When used alone I held the camera freehand rather than use the tripod with the Leica lens at full zoom. Its reach is 280mm in Micro 4/3 but 581mm at 35mm equivalent. There is no sign of camera shake in any of my images at 1/640s.

The digiscoping images were much slower exposures of between 1/125-1/250s on the tripod. They ought to have been 1/1200 as a reciprocal of equivalent focal length! Getting such exposures is difficult at f/12 unless I boost the ISO. I foolishly left it on ISO200. Probably because I forgot about it in the excitement of seeing the Grebes out in the middle of the lake. Instead of their hugging the far shore at well over 130 yards away.

I really must better organise all the lens covers into a small sandwich box. There are far too many of them! I usually just drop them into the camera pouch. Then have to retrieve them all individually from the depths when I pack up for the ride home.

~~

10.08.2020 More photographic reach from the Panasonic DMW-TC14.

~~

Monday 10th. My need for more telephoto reach for distant subjects is now met by combining a 1.4x extender with the 50-200mm lens. The Panasonic DMW-TC14 Tele-Converter provides all the electrical contacts. So that the fitted lens retains its full auto-focus, aperture and image stabilization. The 1.4 TC loses one stop on the lens it supports.

Thanks to the 4/3 crop factor, of 2x, the resulting Full Frame focal lengths soon add up! I made up a simple table to show how the Micro 4/3 focal length is multiplied by the extender's 1.4x and then x2 for the Full Frame 35mm equivalents in mm.

I have been out taking landscape images using the new lens + 1.4x extender combination and it is amazingly sharp, handheld at full zoom! This is all thanks to Panasonic's combined lens and in-body Image Stabilization. In fact I never really thought about camera shake and saw none on the resulting 130 images taken on a half hour stroll. Most of the images were taken at full zoom. Typically not even a single gull, of the usual thousands, presented itself for a super-telephoto opportunity.

Picasa reports that the actual focal length is 581mm equivalent in Full Frame [35mm] terms at full zoom! All in an easily manageable, highly compact form only about a foot [31.5cm] long at full [trombone] zoom. 27cm to the outer edge of the G9's rubber eye-shield retracted to 50mm minimum zoom. Which makes it quite capable of being walked around all day long on a diagonal, camera strap. NO tripod required for stills! I haven't tried video with the TC14 + 200mm lens combo yet.

The 50-200mm Leica weighs 743g with both lens caps and lens hood. The tiny 1.4x Panasonic tele-extender weighs only 124g with both lens caps. The Lumix G9 camera body weighs 663g with lens cap and Q/R camera strap toggles. Making the total 1530g.

 My old TZ7 P&S, 12x zoom camera weighs 276g in its vinyl pouch with only half the reach.

The Leica 100-400 zoom weighs 985g but with 1.4x more maximum reach. Quite close to the weight of the TC14 + 50-200 set at 867g.   Which offers a slightly more flexible range of focal lengths from 50-200mm. [70-280mm with the TC14 fitted.] The TC14 is tiny enough to go in a pocket when not needed.

The Panasonic DMW-TC14 is only compatible with relatively few lenses due to its extended "nose." Which can only fit into a lens deliberately designed with a recess at the rear to accept this extension.

The Leica 200mm f2.8 prime lens and the Leica 50-200mm zoom are the only lenses I know of which fit the DMW-TC14 to date. BTW: The DMW-TC14 teleconverter is remarkably expensive! A 2x version is available for those looking for even more extreme focal lengths but losing 2 stops on the fitted lens. TC Models are also available for the Lumix S bodies.

After several walks with the 50-200mm on the G9 I became comfortable with the weight. I use the Peak Design 'Slim' strap diagonally across my body. With the camera a lens resting beside my stomach at hip level. I can easily let go instead of steadying the lens with my hand. Which is only really needed on rough ground. Just to stop the camera from swinging about wildly. Holding the lens reminds me of the weight I am carrying.

On other walks I have taken the Leica 12-60mm. This combination, with the G9, feels weightless but seriously lacks reach for the rural outdoors. Even the 280mm of the 1.4x TC14 with the 200mm maximum zoom lacks enough reach for small birds and animals. 560mm equivalent in FF terms? You'd have to be quite close to any small birds to have any real impact! 280 [560] is more of a landscape focal length in open countryside. Removing the 1.4x teleconverter immediately embarrasses with its 200mm max reach.

Which leaves me in a quandary. 400mm [800 FF] would provide some serious reach. Enough for smaller birds at greater distances. Say 50 yards maximum? The weight would not be too much of a burden. Being so close to the 50-200 + TC14. The teleconverter doesn't fit the 100-400.

An alternative would be the TC20 x teleconverter on the existing Leica 50-200. The 2x TC is even more expensive than the TC14 but less than half the price of the Leica 100-400. Sadly the 2x TC has a poor reputation compared to the 1.4x.

~~