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.

~~

5.8.2020 A bit of a detour.

~~~

I was struggling to improve the quality of my images using the Kowa '884 and digiscoping. So I watched lots of YT videos about bird photography. Most bird photographers use long lenses. The advantage of a Micro 4/3 camera is that the crop factor is two. Which means you effectively double your focal length compared to a 35mm full frame lens. 200mm becomes a bit over 400mm. Without the bulk, weight and huge expense of a full frame telephoto lens of a "true" 400mm. 

The so-called "kit lens" which came with my Lumix G9 was the Leica 12-60mm. Effectively a 25-120mm zoom in 35mm terms. Great fun and sharp but still far short of my humble Lumix TZ7. Which reached an effective 300mm at full zoom. I only became involved in digiscoping because I wanted even more "reach" than  the TZ7.

Which meant that I needed 200mm minimum in 4/3 lenses for 400mm effective at 35mm. That gave me a nice excess of reach to bring distant subjects nearer than the TZ7. Moreover, it promised to give me much sharper and brighter images than the TZ7's tiny lens and sensor. But which lens should I buy?

I formally searched and then watched every, single, 4/3 telephoto lens review, use and abuse on YouTube. Plus I read all the forums, websites and blogs which reviewed and discussed these long lenses. Decisions-decisions! I couldn't make my mind up! There were so few options, in reality and I didn't want to make a mistake and have to buy a second lens.

What I did discover was that there was either a wide range of quality control in optical production. Or, that some photographers were simply far better at taking fantastic pictures than most others. Which rather muddied the waters for me. Because some photographers produced wonderfully sharp images. With exactly the same lens as those who voiced criticism of them as not being sharp enough.

I knew I wanted a telephoto zoom. No prime lens could do all I needed on my morning walks in the Danish countryside. It needed to provide wide views and to reach the other side of a lake or pond. It had to reach a soaring bird of prey and manage a bit of [modest magnification] macro in the verges.

The Leica 100-400 was too much of a handful for informal nature walks. I couldn't get far enough away and didn't want to carry the considerable burden. It was more of a wildlife lens for the stationary photographer. The 200mm Leica prime was fixed focal length and very expensive. Olympus lens options were well liked but foolishly absent minded in not providing for dual IS. Being denied in body IBIS and lens IS combined was incredibly limiting at these very long focal lengths.

Which reduced my potential shopping list to the Lumix 100-300 or the Leica 50-200. The Lumix had more reach but was slower and generally considered rather soft at 300mm. Though not by all users. The Leica was twice the price but I'd only need to buy it once. It was considered very sharp by most reviewers and pro photographers. I took a deep breath and placed an order for what I hoped was the safe option.

It certainly was on sharpness. I could crop heavily and still have a usable image for my blog or for posting on a forum. I was taking lots and lots of images. Capturing things well beyond the TZ7 could ever dream of. Its only obvious drawback was a lack of reach on small or distant subjects. Notwithstanding cropping for increased impact.

I took the 50-200 on my morning walks and practised endlessly. Downloading hundreds of images per hour's wandering in the local countryside. I was seeing things in a completely different light after ten years of using the TZ7. It was mind expanding without any of the the usual pharmacological risks. Only the local pond was a little disappointing when all the birds retreated to the far side.

So I spoilt myself rotten and cycled to a village with a pond full of semi-tame ducks. I sat there on the bench taking pictures of ducks and coots. Many of which almost literally wandered past my feet. It was good practice in capturing sympathetic poses. Catching their heads at the right angle. All the focus on their eyes and their shining personalities. It was a very valuable exercise. Though there were times when the birds were out of photographic reach. The far side of the quite modestly sized pond lacked the immediacy of the countless close-ups I was framing and timing so carefully nearby.

~~