There are many Californians on this forum who are much more knowledgeable than me, but I would certainly not miss Point Sur (Big Sur) and lunch at Nepenthe (outdoor seating). http://www.nepenthebigsur.com/ Enjoy!

Thank you Mark. I'm in Raleigh and will try to attend. Appreciate the heads-up.

Cheers,
Chris

A good reason to set Windows (in control panel) to "ask before downloading/installing updates" - that way you have some control over the update process.

I feel your pain - can't tell you how many negatives I ruined by badly threading Nikkor reels and having 2 consecutive layers touch. Finally gave up and moved to Jobo self-threading reels. Not nearly as cool, but no more trashed film :)

Mark, I am neither offering a methodology or rendering an opinion- just sharing information. I am not wasting your time, you are doing so by acting like a jerk. If you find it worthless, don't read it ( or better yet, contribute something of your own) - your choice.

Mark, why so hostile? I think both you and most others know what I meant by losing reach - I haven't missed the concept, and if you re-read the post, you'll see that I made no conclusions- I asked the viewers to give me their opinions.

Regarding the testing and methodology, I've never claimed to be professional or that my test represented anything except my own curiosity. What about that do you object to? If you'll note, I revised my testing based on comments from others. I shared this test, not to prove any point or portray myself as a professional tester with a lab, but because I thought it might be of interest to others with similar questions. Again, not sure the reason for your hostility to my sharing these images, but unless the forum is limited to pros only, I don't need to be "authorized", "credentialed" or "certified" to participate.

Thanks Alan for your thoughtful and thorough reply - I'll incorporate some of your suggestions in future tests. Another question that I've had and you may be able to answer: comparing your FF with the 70-200 plus the TC, how does that compare IQ-wise to your crop body without the TC (since the resulting focal lengths are similar)?

Cheers,
Chris

Thanks for everyone's comments and suggestions - much appreciated. I've re-run the test using most of the suggestions. I've downloaded and printed the ISO chart. I've then taken 3 shots: one without TC @200mm, one with the TC also with the lens set at 200mm (280mm equivalent), and one with no extender set at f4 - that covers most of the suggestions. In all cases, I've cropped the resulting image to fill the frame. They are all raw CR2s exported to high quality JPEGs from PSE with no other corrections or sharpening. Let me know your thoughts please, and thanks again for participating.

200mm no Extender @f2.8

(Download)

200mm no Extender @f4.0

(Download)

200mm with Ext (280mm equiv. - f4.0)

(Download)

Thanks for the suggestions and evaluation. I'll re-shoot and crop to get equivalent size and post the result.

Changed the shutter speed (was in aperture priority mode) to compensate for the extender. Didn't want to change the ISO or aperture as that would have affected the IQ. Thanks for looking.

Searching the forums, there are varied opinions on tele-extenders/converters ranging from "severe IQ compromise" to "barely noticeable", often depending on whether the extender was designed/matched to the particular lens, After moving from crop to full-frame, I missed some of the "reach" I previously had, but after the expenditure, I couldn't immediately justify a longer lens. Instead, I opted for a matched Canon Tele-extender (used), but the potential degradation of IQ was nagging me, so I decided on a controlled test.

For the test, I photographed a target consisting of the printed lettering and bar code on the back of my grey card, shot at 100" with the target square to the lens. The camera was a Canon 5D MKIII, the lens was a 70-200 f2.8L IS and the extender was the Canon Ex1.4 MKII. The WB was set to Tungsten, the AF was on, but the IS was off. The ISO was set to 100, the aperture was wide open (f2.8) in aperture priority mode with spot metering. Both the lens and the tele/lens combo were MFA calibrated to the body. The camera was tripod mounted, with mirror locked up, and the exposure controlled remotely. For the test, I shot without the tele-extender at 200mm and with the extender at 143mm (giving a 200 mm equivalent). The results are shown below - each of the shots is labeled. For uploading to UHH, I'm using JPEGs exported from PSE at max quality, derived from the raw CR2 files with no processing or sharpening except crop to fill the frame. What are your thoughts regarding the relative IQ with and without the extender (and the test methodology)?

200 mm (143mm x 1.4x) with extender

(Download)

200 mm without extender

(Download)

Thank you. Very true and a good insightful summary - SSD / NAND flash and DVDs are not a good long-term archival media. Have you considered Mdisc? If you're serious about long-term digital archiving, the majority of current Blu-Ray writable drives will support the new Mdisc media available in 25, 50 and 100 GB sizes. Not cheap ($3-$10 per disc), but will reportedly last longer than any other recordable digital media currently available by far. The manufacturer claims that a properly stored Mdisc will last 1,000 years, and whether or not this is true (hard to verify!), they have been extensively tested by numerous govt. agencies including DOD. Also available in smaller (4.7GB) DVD format. They are not rewritable. I'm considering trying them, but I'm always reminded as to how good film is. I still have B&W negatives and slides that are 50 years old and look great, except for a bit of fading on the Ektachrome...

There is no micro focus adjustment on the T3I, but it's an autofocus correction only, so no effect on manual focus...

Well done! I especially like the clown - looking forward to seeing more...

It was mentioned earlier in the thread that it was shot at f13... DOF ~ 1 inch at the stated distance of 98".