Guess which photo was taken using a Nikon 1.4 Teleconverter? I just received a Nikon 200-500 and a Nikon 1.4 teleconverter and tested them today on a extremely long distance shot of a...

MikieLBS Loc: "Southeast of Disorder"

I just received a Nikon 200-500 and a Nikon 1.4 teleconverter and tested them today on a extremely long distance shot of a Great Blue Heron. Using a tripod I took one series of photos without the teleconverter and another set with it. Camera settings on both were f/8 and both were taken at approximately the same time, under the same lighting using a tripod. The only pp done was a small amount of color correction and a heavy 1:1 crop. Then I enlarged the photo that was taken without the teleconverter to 140% in photoshop (a 1.4 software enlargement) to make the subjects same size in both photos.

Can anyone guess which was done using the teleconverter?

#1

#2

blue-ultra Loc: New Hampshire

I would say #2 is the tele converter. a loss of detail and softness of the subject

Bill_de Loc: US

They're both a bit fuzzy, but I'd guess the second one is with the converter.

--

rleonetti Loc: Portland, Oregon

Number 2 is tele-converter.

Mike D. Loc: Crowley County, CO.

I would be completely and utterly amazed IF it was the first.

IBM

MikieLBS wrote:

I just received a Nikon 200-500 and a Nikon 1.4 te... (show quote)

More than likely the second one , but it's sure out of focus , and if it is the best it can do , I won't be buying , then again it could be the first
One only not zoomed in as much , as the other out of focus one

MikieLBS Loc: "Southeast of Disorder"

lol, yep it is #2, I spent $500 for a teleconverter that doesn't even come close to matching the photoshop enlargement to the same size magnification. Unless I can discover something I did wrong to cause it I'm going to get a refund and be happy with a 500mm reach. I knew the photos would be softer with a tc, but not that much!

IBM

IBM wrote:

More than likely the second one , but it's sure out of focus , and if it is the best it can do , I won't be buying , then again it could be the first
One only not zoomed in as much , as the other out of focus one

Also you said same size , the birds are not the same size , but it's looks as though the frame is ,

MikieLBS Loc: "Southeast of Disorder"

These are the sooc's except for converting raw to jpg.

(Download)

MikieLBS Loc: "Southeast of Disorder"

IBM wrote:

More than likely the second one , but it's sure out of focus , and if it is the best it can do , I won't be buying , then again it could be the first
One only not zoomed in as much , as the other out of focus one

Yes, 2nd one. It may do better if the subject is closer, but I got it to reach out to the edge. I'm going to test more but will send back unless I discover I can tweak the focus or I did something else wrong. Notice in the sooc above nothing in the photo was in focus and I compared 40 photos, all with similar focus.

rjaywallace Loc: Wisconsin

Mikie - You've got a 500mm lens (the equivalent of nearly 20 inches in physical length). If that lens cannot give you sufficient 'reach' by itself, you aren't paying your sherpas enough. Having said that, I'm sure Google Earth will soon offer a way to stand in Chicago and snap a photo in Moscow. This photographic penis envy has got to stop.

IBM

rjaywallace wrote:

Mikie - You've got a 500mm lens (the equivalent of nearly 20 inches in physical length). If that lens cannot give you sufficient 'reach' by itself, you aren't paying your sherpas enough. Having said that, I'm sure Google Earth will soon offer a way to stand in Chicago and snap a photo in Moscow. This photographic penis envy has got to stop.

STOP : WHY????

MikieLBS Loc: "Southeast of Disorder"

rjaywallace wrote:

Mikie - You've got a 500mm lens (the equivalent of nearly 20 inches in physical length). If that lens cannot give you sufficient 'reach' by itself, you aren't paying your sherpas enough. Having said that, I'm sure Google Earth will soon offer a way to stand in Chicago and snap a photo in Moscow. This photographic penis envy has got to stop.

Perhaps you're right. I would need a mirror and my bifocals to see it if I ever have the desire to look for it again.

rjaywallace Loc: Wisconsin

MikieLBS wrote:

Perhaps you're right. I would need a mirror and my bifocals to see it if I ever have the desire to look for it again.

Not at all, Mikie. You would simply need the new PentCaNikOnisonicYmpus 145-mile (crop sensor) focal length lens. Now, no RRS tripod will ever support, it will not have 5-way stabilization, and shooting hand-held will require 8,600 actual hands. And heaven help your shot if some little guy somewhere down the line sneezes, but you can always correct that in post.

jim quist Loc: Missouri

The second one is softer, so thats my guess