Images taken with a 2x converter (Page 4): Nobody said it was. The question is should one get the photo even without optimum sharpness, or just not take the photo at all. Each of us...

btbg

imagemeister wrote:

Hand holding @ 1120mm and cropping is not the receipe for optimum sharpness ....

Nobody said it was. The question is should one get the photo even without optimum sharpness, or just not take the photo at all. Each of us has to make that choice. So, if you would not hand hold and would not crop, and would not use a 2x converter, how would you go about getting the photo?

Delderby Loc: Derby UK

imagemeister wrote:

Hand holding @ 1120mm and cropping is not the receipe for optimum sharpness ....

Yes - I agree - but I think this approach would be better than the 2x converter.

btbg

gwilliams6 wrote:

The new reality is that the latest TCs, internally... (show quote)

I agree with you, but I was expecting to hear from a lot of naysayers and so far I'm not disappointed. I think converters are a relatively inexpensive way to get shots that would otherwise be impossible to take. And, like you I generally don't worry about noise reduction. Thanks also for posting the example. That was what I was looking for to create discussion.

btbg

charles brown wrote:

Seems to me this is another question and/or issue whose answer is "it depends." You do not mention what camera was used. This lens may work great on a camera with a 40-megapixel sensor but might not work as well on my Nikon camera with a 4-megapixel sensor. Again, it depends.

Camera was a Nikon Z9. You are correct that it would not work as well on your 4-megapixel sensor. The lens would not even mount on your camera. I think you are also probably correct that the answer may be it depends.

btbg

BurghByrd wrote:

In my opinion there's not enough known here to answer the question. I presume it's safe to say that the addition of TC glass will degrade sharpness; the question is how much and how does it compare to options. Were the shots taken on a tripod, with a cable or timed release? How to evaluate resullts? A real comparison might be based on comparing shots of a test chart, base lens alone, lens with TC, lens w/o TC but cropped (zoomed in comparable to TC) etc. and at some selected distance.

I don't think that it is a reasonable choice to take photos of moving objects on a timed release. I also don't think it is practical to carry a tripod on a long hike in a wildlife area, especially when the subject matter is skittish and prone to flight.

If you want to do a comparison based on taking shots of a test chart, be my guest. To me, that isn't practical. What's practical is how do you get a shot of the subject desired, and which is better to not get the picture, take the picture with the biggest lens you have and crop like crazy, or take the picture with a converter and still crop some? Although some seem to take great pleasure from the kind of test you are describing I just want to get the shot and will put anything in front of my camera body that I can in an effort to get the shot I want.

So, my curiousity is less about the testing, but for those who are convinced that tele converters are not sharp enough what they would do to get the photos in question.

MJPerini

.....So what was that combination..... 2x x 560mm 1120-mm , and you say Hand held....
I'm impressed. It says a lot about the quality of every piece of the optical chain, and your skill a whipping that thing around.
Credit where credit is due.....
Nice. As I said earlier the pix look a bit low in contrast, is that due to the amount of atmosphere you shot through or just your choice in processing combined with the small JPEG?

btbg

MJPerini wrote:

.....So what was that combination..... 2x x 560mm 1120-mm , and you say Hand held....
I'm impressed. It says a lot about the quality of every piece of the optical chain, and your skill a whipping that thing around.
Credit where credit is due.....
Nice. As I said earlier the pix look a bit low in contrast, is that due to the amount of atmosphere you shot through or just your choice in processing combined with the small JPEG?

Its a 400 with a built in 1.4 and a 2x converter added. The sparrow would be low contrast no matter what because it was backlit, but I shoot in raw and because for work they want low contrast I just ised my noal work postprocessing so it is low contrast. Doubt that atmosphere plays much of a roll.

Nalu Loc: Southern Arizona

Here is another $.02. As people shoot longer lenses and with tc’s added, one thing that I think they don’t do is shoot fast enough. At 400 to 600mm I shoot at a minimum of 1/3200 assuming I am interested in sharp results. And the older we get, the more important it is to shoot fast. The older we get, the harder it is to hold long lenses. Of coarse, tripods with good heads help, but for fast moving erratic subjects, tripods are in many instances not advisable.

btbg

Nalu wrote:

Here is another $.02. As people shoot longer lenses and with tc’s added, one thing that I think they don’t do is shoot fast enough. At 400 to 600mm I shoot at a minimum of 1/3200 assuming I am interested in sharp results. And the older we get, the more important it is to shoot fast. The older we get, the harder it is to hold long lenses. Of coarse, tripods with good heads help, but for fast moving erratic subjects, tripods are in many instances not advisable.

I think you are probably correct. I know its harder for me to hold a lens steady than it once was.

Tote1940 Loc: Dallas

btbg wrote:

I decided to post these images because of recent d... (show quote)

Which 2x converter did you use?
Looks great for 11200 equivalent ! That is 22x compared to 50 mm
Did you actually use full frame sensor and 2 teleconverters or 1.4 factor refers to DX sensor?
F/ stop and speed?
You must have rock steady tripod
One difficult I have shooting with very long lenses is finding subject, often zoom out to find the. Zoom in with Sigma 200-600 and then realize how crummy my tripod is

btbg

Tote1940 wrote:

Which 2x converter did you use?
Looks great for 11200 equivalent ! That is 22x compared to 50 mm
Did you actually use full frame sensor and 2 teleconverters or 1.4 factor refers to DX sensor?
F/ stop and speed?
You must have rock steady tripod
One difficult I have shooting with very long lenses is finding subject, often zoom out to find the. Zoom in with Sigma 200-600 and then realize how crummy my tripod is

The Nikon Z TC-2x. Yes, it's a full frame sensor on the Nikon Z9.
They are both shot at f10 with +0.3 exposure compensation. The sparrow is 1/1,600th of a second ISO2,000, while the wren is in direct sunshine so it's 1/3,200th of a second ISO 2,000. I do have a steady tripod, but these are hand held. I only use a tripod for long exposure photography.

Tote1940 Loc: Dallas

btbg wrote:

The Nikon Z TC-2x. Yes, it's a full frame sensor on the Nikon Z9.
They are both shot at f10 with +0.3 exposure compensation. The sparrow is 1/1,600th of a second ISO2,000, while the wren is in direct sunshine so it's 1/3,200th of a second ISO 2,000. I do have a steady tripod, but these are hand held. I only use a tripod for long exposure photography.

Thank you! Which was 1.4 extender?
Amazing

btbg

Tote1940 wrote:

Thank you! Which was 1.4 extender?
Amazing

The Nikon 400f2.8 s has a built in 1.4 extender. You just flip the lens element into the barrel of the lens or out to the enclosed holder that is built into the right side of the lens barrel to switch from 400 2.8 to 560f4.

Tote1940 Loc: Dallas

btbg wrote:

The Nikon 400f2.8 s has a built in 1.4 extender. You just flip the lens element into the barrel of the lens or out to the enclosed holder that is built into the right side of the lens barrel to switch from 400 2.8 to 560f4.

Wow! What a lens

btbg

Tote1940 wrote:

Wow! What a lens

You get what you pay for.