Sept 26 new UPDATE on Nikon 500mm PF + TC1.4x iii RESULTS: If anyone is still following. I sent this out to a camera tech, he tested the 800e, the TC, and Lens separately and they are...

alphadog

If anyone is still following. I sent this out to a camera tech, he tested the 800e, the TC, and Lens separately and they are all functioning properly. He FINE-TUNED it, but alas, the results, IMO, is still not what I expected. Any constructive advice is appreciated. Both images posted were similar except for the data stated. IF a higher ISO makes that much difference, then I am surprised. Let me know what you think. I plan on going out again and taking another image at a lower ISO if I can find a hawk locally again [ they are pretty common] - I think the images were taken at about the same distances, but am not certain. Maybe the FT is a little off?

Harris Hawk was taken with D800e, TC1.4iii - 36mb - I expected more detail.
f16, 1/3000, ISO 1800 [auto iso]

Ferruginous Hawk was taken with Canon 5Dmkiii, TC1.4ii - 24mb
f7.1, 1/1250, ISO 200 [auto iso]

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

You've oversharpened the images, resulting in halos around both birds. Even from the thumbnail-only & undersized images, we can see the focus is misplaced on the top image, on the wire and not the bird, something the over-processing did not correct. We might offer constructive ideas on the processing and capture technique, with unprocessed and stored original image files, just downsized to JPEGs that can be attached and stored.

An immediate idea on the top image is to go no smaller than f/13. And, for a sitting (relatively static) bird, use 1/1000 to 1/1600 sec, not 1/3000sec and the resulting higher ISO.

Grahame Loc: Fiji

What I'm seeing are two images that have been post processed to the extent where very noticeable halos are seen around the edges. I'd suggest you post the original full frame unprocessed jpeg images so we can see how much has been cropped and result without additional processing.

Additionally, why are you taking static birds at f16, 1/3000s, ISO1800 ?

alphadog

OK will post shortly, thanks... I am ONLY going to post the D800e image, since I have already SOLD my canon outfit

alphadog

Ok, here is the most recent image unprocessed. NOTE: UHH would NOT load my original 36mb image, so I HAD to make it smaller...

I am not going to send the Canon image, as I was just using it as a comparison. thanks

(Download)

Grahame Loc: Fiji

The reason for your disappointment is a combination of the massive crop and noise.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

alphadog wrote:

Ok, here is the most recent image unprocessed. NOTE: UHH would NOT load my original 36mb image, so I HAD to make it smaller...

I am not going to send the Canon image, as I was just using it as a comparison. thanks

Do you have Nikon software that can convert to JPEG and retain all the EXIF? Your PS conversion loses the AF point(s). Given the focus is best on the wire and not the bird's eye -- the eye that is nearest the center of the frame -- I'd question the focus fine-tuning. But, I'd need to see all the EXIF and more examples to support that initial observation.

For an effective 700mm on a 36MP camera, you might be too far away for this configuration. But, at a resizing of just 4500x3003, the conversion may have lost too many pixels, not the distance to subject?

Beyond getting closer and filling the frame, consider over-exposing -- aka exposing to the right (ETTR). Here, we have a dark subject against a bright sky, where you want the details of the dark subject. The ISO has been lost from the EXIF, but the small aperture and fast shutter would have made the ISO unnecessarily high, where noise clean-up will take away fine details along with the digital noise.

alphadog

What is the solution? I usually crop and use Auto ISO, so I do get noise. I use Topaz DeNoise and it removes most of it. Looking at the image now, HOW MUCH can I enlarge? Is it sharp or not?

For YEARS, I have taken images and looked at the original at 100% to see IF it is sharp. That Ferruginous Hawk unprocessed image was SHARP at 100% without any processing.

IF sharp, I usually CROP AND PROCESS... what is wrong with this

alphadog

What is the solution? I usually crop and use Auto ISO, so I do get noise. I use Topaz DeNoise and it removes most of it. Looking at the image now, HOW MUCH can I enlarge? Is it sharp or not?

For YEARS, I have taken images and looked at the original at 100% to see IF it is sharp. That Ferruginous Hawk unprocessed image was SHARP at 100% without any processing.

IF sharp, I usually CROP AND PROCESS... what is wrong with this

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

alphadog wrote:

What is the solution? I usually crop and use Auto ISO, so I do get noise. I use Topaz DeNoise and it removes most of it. Looking at the image now, HOW MUCH can I enlarge? Is it sharp or not?

For YEARS, I have taken images and looked at the original at 100% to see IF it is sharp. That Ferruginous Hawk unprocessed image was SHARP at 100% without any processing.

IF sharp, I usually CROP AND PROCESS... what is wrong with this

That's a generally 'right' approach. But, it does depend on a sharp image, in the details, before any cropping and processing to harvest those sharp details. This image fails that entry criteria, for reasons stated in my reply above, based on limited EXIF from the file conversion.

alphadog

I appreciate the details here.. what Nikon software is needed to convert to JPEG and retain all the EXIF?

and HOW will this help? IF when I take the raw image it is ALREADY soft, doesn't that mean the FT is off?

Let me know, thanks, I already REGRET selling my WORKING Canon outfit, but IT was getting too heavy for me

so make the final decision to go LIGHTER with the Nikon PF lens

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

alphadog wrote:

I appreciate the details here.. what Nikon software is needed to convert to JPEG and retain all the EXIF?

and HOW will this help? IF when I take the raw image it is ALREADY soft, doesn't that mean the FT is off?

Let me know, thanks, I already REGRET selling my WORKING Canon outfit, but IT was getting too heavy for me

so make the final decision to go LIGHTER with the Nikon PF lens

I have Nikon Capture NX-D, but any free download from Nikon should be able to handle a NEF from an D800e. I realize you're asking about the extender, but I'm telling you your exposure technique would be the first item to address from this specific example image, something you fully control, before you get messed up further in questioning the equipment. Actual and full EXIF will help confirm and justify this assessment.

Grahame Loc: Fiji

Here's your image put through Topaz DeNoise AI Clear, minor tweaking in ACR, and cropped at what I would consider max for a reasonable looking image under the circumstances.

With respect to the fine tuning of the lens it is difficult to diagnose with this shot because the DoF will be relatively deep at f/16. E.g, if the subject distance was 20m, at 700mm that would give a DoF of 0.7m and considering the wires and isolators at the pole top are sharp the bird is basically on the same focus plane.

Looking at your original and estimating that the frame vertical height was around 1.7m, at 700mm FL that would equate to a 50m subject distance giving a DoF of 4.6m.

(Download)

alphadog

Thanks for your precise response and work, when my head clears from all of this, I will proceed further to provide more data properly. I will be back with more asap... many thanks again for your expertise and canon guy as well... regards, Richard ... I do want to continue taking images, IF I can get this lens to work better OR if I can get the pilot to work better as well or both

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

If you stop and look at your crop, a quick estimate is that it represents somewhere between 1/9 and 1/12 of the total image. This results in a cropped image somewhere in the range of 3 or 4 MP. With that thought in mind, the image you presented us is really pretty nice. I'm also estimating that your subject was probably 500-700 feet away. Even at the reported shutter speed of 1/3000 second, even the tiniest bit of camera motion is going to have a visible impact. You are blessed with dry air in your part of the world, but your shooting distance is so long that there is still a big opportunity for atmospheric interference. Even if you fix all possible focus and exposure oroblems, you really need to find a way to get closer to your subject.

I am actually quite impressed by the optical performance of your lens. If you think about the structure of a Fresnel lens (think the top deck of an overhead projector), it is remarkable that there are no visible artifacts from the concentric circles in the molding/polishing pattern of the phase fresnel element.