Ugly Hedgehog - Photography Forum
Home Active Topics Newest Pictures Search Login Register ☰
Main Photography Discussion
Images taken with a 2x converter
Page <prev 2 of 11 next> last>>
Apr 21, 2024 10:19:03   #
Delderby Loc: Derby UK
 
btbg wrote:
I decided to post these images because of recent discussions about whether or not people should use 2x extenders. I know these are birds, but putting them in the bird subsection will prevent the converter discussion.
The photos are taken with a Nikon 400f2.8s lens. The built in 1.4 converter is being used and coupled with a 2x converter. The wren also has a 5mm extension tube for closer focus.
So, the question is are these photos sharp enough, or should people not use the converters and attempt to gain the extra reach by cropping. I believe that any loss of image quality from using the converter is more than offset by the additional reach and the ability to come closer to filling the frame, but I thought it would be interesting to see where any discussion would go. Those of you who believe that no one should use teleconverters, go ahead and have your say. The photos will be posted in the first reply.
I decided to post these images because of recent d... (show quote)


I'm not a birder, but IMHO I would not bother with the converter - if you must, then PP would be absolutely necessary. Attached is a quick PP - not perfect, but sharper.


(Download)

Reply
Apr 21, 2024 10:48:59   #
Nalu Loc: Southern Arizona
 
i guess the question is would be, how sharp is sharp enough? when i was using my canon dslrs i noticed some image degradation, especially with the 2x, but now with my sony a1, i never hesitate to put them on. i am happy with the results and don’t have to loose as many pixels with larger crops. remember, imo, how sharp an image is is only one factor in a good photo.

Reply
Apr 21, 2024 10:59:29   #
cahale Loc: San Angelo, TX
 
btbg wrote:
I decided to post these images because of recent discussions about whether or not people should use 2x extenders. I know these are birds, but putting them in the bird subsection will prevent the converter discussion.
The photos are taken with a Nikon 400f2.8s lens. The built in 1.4 converter is being used and coupled with a 2x converter. The wren also has a 5mm extension tube for closer focus.
So, the question is are these photos sharp enough, or should people not use the converters and attempt to gain the extra reach by cropping. I believe that any loss of image quality from using the converter is more than offset by the additional reach and the ability to come closer to filling the frame, but I thought it would be interesting to see where any discussion would go. Those of you who believe that no one should use teleconverters, go ahead and have your say. The photos will be posted in the first reply.
I decided to post these images because of recent d... (show quote)


A. Not sharp enough, or too grainy. B. Don't know. My master's in statistics tells me the sample is far too small for a valid result.

Reply
 
 
Apr 21, 2024 11:00:58   #
imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida
 
btbg wrote:
I decided to post these images because of recent discussions about whether or not people should use 2x extenders. I know these are birds, but putting them in the bird subsection will prevent the converter discussion.
The photos are taken with a Nikon 400f2.8s lens. The built in 1.4 converter is being used and coupled with a 2x converter. The wren also has a 5mm extension tube for closer focus.
So, the question is are these photos sharp enough, or should people not use the converters and attempt to gain the extra reach by cropping. I believe that any loss of image quality from using the converter is more than offset by the additional reach and the ability to come closer to filling the frame, but I thought it would be interesting to see where any discussion would go. Those of you who believe that no one should use teleconverters, go ahead and have your say. The photos will be posted in the first reply.
I decided to post these images because of recent d... (show quote)


Noise is really hurting your examples here .....always a concerning by-product of converter light loss ....

Reply
Apr 21, 2024 11:03:04   #
Rongnongno Loc: FL
 
btbg wrote:
.../...

Your images are sharp. They look a bit over processed. You might want to post the unprocessed image, so one can see w/o the post-production interference.

I am not sure what the pushback is about, it is not justified.

Reply
Apr 21, 2024 11:06:04   #
jbk224 Loc: Long Island, NY
 
Rongnongno wrote:
Your images are sharp. They look a bit over processed. You might want to post the unprocessed image, so one can see w/o the post-production interference.

I am not sure what the pushback is about, it is not justified.


👍👍👍

Reply
Apr 21, 2024 11:16:14   #
photoman43
 
btbg wrote:
I decided to post these images because of recent discussions about whether or not people should use 2x extenders. I know these are birds, but putting them in the bird subsection will prevent the converter discussion.
The photos are taken with a Nikon 400f2.8s lens. The built in 1.4 converter is being used and coupled with a 2x converter. The wren also has a 5mm extension tube for closer focus.
So, the question is are these photos sharp enough, or should people not use the converters and attempt to gain the extra reach by cropping. I believe that any loss of image quality from using the converter is more than offset by the additional reach and the ability to come closer to filling the frame, but I thought it would be interesting to see where any discussion would go. Those of you who believe that no one should use teleconverters, go ahead and have your say. The photos will be posted in the first reply.
I decided to post these images because of recent d... (show quote)


The first picture appears to be sharper than the second. Since long lens technique, tripod support, focus method used, etc plays a huge role in the quality of the resulting images, it is hard to make any rule or comment about the use of a 2x tc.

Reply
 
 
Apr 21, 2024 11:16:22   #
druthven
 
btbg wrote:
I decided to post these images because of recent discussions about whether or not people should use 2x extenders. I know these are birds, but putting them in the bird subsection will prevent the converter discussion.
The photos are taken with a Nikon 400f2.8s lens. The built in 1.4 converter is being used and coupled with a 2x converter. The wren also has a 5mm extension tube for closer focus.
So, the question is are these photos sharp enough, or should people not use the converters and attempt to gain the extra reach by cropping. I believe that any loss of image quality from using the converter is more than offset by the additional reach and the ability to come closer to filling the frame, but I thought it would be interesting to see where any discussion would go. Those of you who believe that no one should use teleconverters, go ahead and have your say. The photos will be posted in the first reply.
I decided to post these images because of recent d... (show quote)


I would like to see images without the extender, cropped to size. These images are not sharp enough for me.

Reply
Apr 21, 2024 11:53:59   #
btbg
 
billnikon wrote:
First, you posted in the wrong section.
Second, no teleconverter ever produced improves image sharpness.
Third, combining teleconverter's really makes sharpness suffer, as seen in your images.
Forth, I use a 600mm f4 without any converter on a full frame mirrorless camera that I use for my wildlife photography.
Fifth, I never use teleconverter's because of the reasons I have given.
Sixth, Good luck and keep on shooting until the end.


Why do you think its in the wrong section? It was posted here to start a conversatiin about converters. If it was posted in the bird subsection that would not have happened.

As to the rest of your post I'm sure it is at least mostly correct, so the question is not whether or not there is image falloff from using converters the question is when yiu don't have the reach to take the shot which is better converters or extreme cropping. I think converters is a better choice but others do not I was hoping to get a discussion about why people male the different choice and why they think their choice is better.

Reply
Apr 21, 2024 11:58:22   #
btbg
 
Rongnongno wrote:
Your images are sharp. They look a bit over processed. You might want to post the unprocessed image, so one can see w/o the post-production interference.

I am not sure what the pushback is about, it is not justified.


I putb hem through on 1 no noise and just took the dafault setting. They probably are overprocessed bit you will notice someone has already added extra sharpening.

Reply
Apr 21, 2024 12:00:16   #
btbg
 
imagemeister wrote:
Noise is really hurting your examples here .....always a concerning by-product of converter light loss ....


Whether noise is a problem or not is subjective. Get rid of the noise and you probably hurt sharpening. In my job noise is a non issue as newsprint does not show noise. For your use it may be more important to get rid of noise.

Reply
 
 
Apr 21, 2024 12:04:32   #
btbg
 
cahale wrote:
A. Not sharp enough, or too grainy. B. Don't know. My master's in statistics tells me the sample is far too small for a valid result.


The sample was meant to start a conversation as a week or so ago I posted some sports photos taken with a converter and got pushback about never using con erters. Since sometimes that is the only way to get enough reach I decided to start a discussiin. These photos are taken in a wetlans that are roped off so it is impossible to get close. My contentiin as a photojournalost is its better to sacrifice image quality than not get a shot at all. It is obvious that others do not feel the same.

Reply
Apr 21, 2024 12:09:27   #
btbg
 
druthven wrote:
I would like to see images without the extender, cropped to size. These images are not sharp enough for me.


Well, go ahead and try that experiment. I tried to shoot the wren without a converter. That would make it shot with just 400 mm and there is some cropping even with it shot at 1120. So, I don't believe it is possible to crop that mich. I was actually hoping that someone here that is a little compulsive would try exactly that as part of this discussion.

Reply
Apr 21, 2024 12:20:20   #
MJPerini
 
I have to admit these appear sharper than I ever would have expected by stacking TC's.
Usually results suffer significantly.
Now a Nikon 400/2.8 will be an exceptionally sharp lens, and the fact that the 1.4 is built inn means it is perfectly matched to that lens, so it is not surprising that that combo will be sharp.
Adding an additional 2x seems to have worked fairly well. I can't tell about critical sharpness but it looks good.

One thing it proves is that starting with a great lens is really important, followed by optical matching of the converter. There does seem to be a reduction in contrast, but I don't know if that is optical or processing.
Interesting

Reply
Apr 21, 2024 12:22:51   #
SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA
 
Rongnongno wrote:
You folks need to learn to download the image BEFORE making comments.

See the little + on your screen after you download? That allows yo to see the image close-up.

 


I downloaded both before commenting. They’re not sharp.

Reply
Page <prev 2 of 11 next> last>>
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.
Main Photography Discussion
Home | Latest Digest | Back to Top | All Sections
Contact us | Privacy policy | Terms of use | DMCA
UglyHedgehog.com - Forum
Copyright 2011-2024 Ugly Hedgehog, Inc.