Images taken with a 2x converter
Apr 22, 2024 01:50:08 #
Sinewsworn wrote:
What kind of comment is that?
THIS is what sharp looks like.
Apr 22, 2024 01:56:30 #
SuperflyTNT wrote:
THIS is what sharp looks like.
Owl appears a bit soft.
Apr 22, 2024 02:03:10 #
Sinewsworn wrote:
Owl appears a bit soft.
Well they’re both owls and if you’re talking about the wingtips on the flying owl, that’s what I wanted to set it a part from the face. Ask any wildlife photographer, (or people photographer), and they’ll tell you the most important part to get in focus is the eyes.
Apr 22, 2024 06:08:21 #
Apr 22, 2024 06:38:23 #
2X teleconverters generally cost two f stops in exposure. Given the same shutter speed, the depth of field will be reduced, perhaps so that the entire bird will not be in sharpest focus. Other than that, the sharpness of detail would be a function of the quality of the lens/converter. I see no reason to not use the teleconverter to get closer to the bird.
Apr 22, 2024 06:48:06 #
Paulco2 wrote:
2X teleconverters generally cost two f stops in exposure. Given the same shutter speed, the depth of field will be reduced, perhaps so that the entire bird will not be in sharpest focus. Other than that, the sharpness of detail would be a function of the quality of the lens/converter. I see no reason to not use the teleconverter to get closer to the bird.
As the focal length gets longer you do have narrower DOF but that is not because you're losing 2 stops in exposure.
Apr 22, 2024 06:57:00 #
btbg wrote:
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.
The problem is that some people have a pathological hatred of a TC…and to prove they’re right they will examine an image at 2:1 in LR and compare it to a non TC image. The problem though…is that there are many other factors affecting image sharpness besides the use…or not…of a TC. And in addition…nobody looks at finished images at 2:1 in LR…no matter whether they’re going to be printed or displayed on screen…they’re going to get down sampled in resolution and physics decrees that most to all of any minute differences ar 2:1 will disappear in the downsampling. Better is really the enemy of good enough in this situation.
It is true that a 9 pound 24 inch long 600 f4 lens costing in excess of $15K will produce better images t 2:1 in LR than say a Z 180-600…but at display resolution the outputs are a lot closer and in many situations the results are just different, not better or worse. Then add in physical limitations, skill, lifting, processing capabilities and whether good enough is enough or whether one demands ‘better’ with all the effects of that demand becomes a personal decision. Me…the Z 1.4 on any of my Z lenses is plenty good enough…and the 2.0 is good enough in some situations…depends on how important the shot is and if one can get closer…but if the choice is 2x or no shot…I make an informed decision.
Don’t listen to the naysayers.
Apr 22, 2024 07:02:47 #
Apr 22, 2024 07:05:31 #
Sinewsworn wrote:
What kind of comment is that?
Most certainly an uncalled for one…but typical for some around here. 🥹
Apr 22, 2024 07:37:53 #
They are not sharp; that is, I do not see the individual parts (barbules) of the feathers. Before people say my monitor is not good enough I see the individual hairs on my family when taken with the 28 - 300 mm at 10' mounted to my D850.
I do not think these would print well on an enlargement.
But: the composition and posing are very well done.
Just to be clear, you asked me what I thought, I notice that others disagree with me.
I do not think these would print well on an enlargement.
But: the composition and posing are very well done.
Just to be clear, you asked me what I thought, I notice that others disagree with me.
Apr 22, 2024 07:48:09 #
Nice shots! Yes, lens converters are great idea and tools. There is no question that prime lenses are made designed for best quality while zoom lenses are not, because zoom lenses are "continuous" converter lens and so convenient BUT loss of image quality. In the use of 1,4 or 2X, even 3X converters, youare still getting goods of prime lenses?
Once I met a pro photographer who told me that he had 17mm to 300mm by two zoom lenses (17-40, and 35 to 300mm), so he had covered all lenses (focal lengths) available. Then, I thought, why there are over dozen prime lenses still made and used by all.
Once I met a pro photographer who told me that he had 17mm to 300mm by two zoom lenses (17-40, and 35 to 300mm), so he had covered all lenses (focal lengths) available. Then, I thought, why there are over dozen prime lenses still made and used by all.
Apr 22, 2024 08:12:32 #
btbg wrote:
I decided to post these images because of recent d... (show quote)
Its your photo and the question is....do you like it? I personally like them.
Apr 22, 2024 08:26:11 #
Cropping is the issue , so , if you start with a pic that is twice the size , you wont have to crop as much . Also the camera used , the difference in shooting with a 6 mp , or a 50 mp . So the issue of using a device to magnify the pic depend on what you are using .
Apr 22, 2024 08:32:50 #
Unless you have used a really, really SHARP lens - like the Canon 300 2.8 - you probably do not have a good concept of what sharp is ! 8-(
Apr 22, 2024 08:35:58 #
btbg wrote:
I decided to post these images because of recent d... (show quote)
Use whatever makes you happy.
If you want to reply, then register here. Registration is free and your account is created instantly, so you can post right away.