Images taken with a 2x converter (Page 7): My goal is to get as good a shot that makes me happy. I try not to get too possessed with the technicality of a picture and just look at how...

boomboom Loc: Stow, Ohio

My goal is to get as good a shot that makes me happy. I try not to get too possessed with the technicality of a picture and just look at how pleasing the picture is to the eye. I do find a small deterioration to the quality when I use a converter, but I'm not a perfectionist and shoot for pure enjoyment and documentation. I think the first picture is pretty darn good and the second is also acceptable. It depends on your goal as a photographer as to whether your happy.

Sinewsworn Loc: Port Orchard, WA

SuperflyTNT wrote:

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.

Why are you doing this? If you had the mental capability to view my posts you would see, if you are capable of comprehending, superior skills.

olemikey Loc: 6 mile creek, Spacecoast Florida

boomboom wrote:

My goal is to get as good a shot that makes me happy. I try not to get too possessed with the technicality of a picture and just look at how pleasing the picture is to the eye. I do find a small deterioration to the quality when I use a converter, but I'm not a perfectionist and shoot for pure enjoyment and documentation. I think the first picture is pretty darn good and the second is also acceptable. It depends on your goal as a photographer as to whether your happy.

Unless one is:A Perfectionist, B Shooting for money, It is best to shoot what pleases you to the best of ability and equipment capability, and don't stress on the less than perfect outcomes.....as for the converter-no converter arguement, it will go on.....

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Sinewsworn wrote:

Why are you doing this? If you had the mental capability to view my posts you would see, if you are capable of comprehending, superior skills.

Doing what? You questioned something about my photos. I answered. It takes no great mental capacity to view your posts. And yes, I am capable of “comprehending” superior skills. When I see them I acknowledge them.

Sinewsworn Loc: Port Orchard, WA

SuperflyTNT wrote:

Doing what? You questioned something about my photos. I answered. It takes no great mental capacity to view your posts. And yes, I am capable of “comprehending” superior skills. When I see them I acknowledge them.

I Did Not question your photos. You do good work. Seems you may have deep-rooted psycho issues. In my professional opinion.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Sinewsworn wrote:

I Did Not question your photos. You do good work. Seems you may have deep-rooted psycho issues. In my professional opinion.

Psycho issues? You said about the OP’s photos, “My very good monitor shows good detail, color rendition, sharpness-looks good tome”. I ve say that’s objectively not true. If he just posted to the gallery, go right ahead, but he was asking if using a TC was ok and if these were sharp enough. I was honest and told him I believe on modern mirrorless cameras with native lenses that TC’s can effectively be used, but that these photos aren’t a good example.

flyboy61 Loc: The Great American Desert

jerryc41 wrote:

Nice results. I don't have a 2x, but I have used something under 2x, and it works fine. It's not very often that it's necessary to zoom in 200%. If it looks good as is, then it's good.

texasdigital Loc: Conroe, Texas

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.

First, he stated that he did not post in the bird section because he wanted a wider view of his post.
Second, you are correct; however, with new AI software, he can recover some of the lost sharpness
Third, I've never seen a recommendation to combine teleconverters, so I agree with you.
Fourth, Since he already owns a costly 400mm 2.8 lens, purchasing a 600mm f4 at $13,000 seems a bit outrageous since it appears he is not a professional selling his work. Many people use teleconverters but accept that they will not be tack sharp.
Fifth, with a 600mm lens, you will not need a teleconverter for most shots unless you migrate into wildlife, where an 800mm lens is better. However, either lens requires deep pockets.
Sixth, I also say good luck and keep on shooting. However, I'd only use the 1.4 or the 2, not both.

Seventh is not part of the question but from my personal experience. I recently shot a local rodeo from the stands. Being at the far end of the arena, I used a 1.4 tele on my Nikon 200-500 f5.6 lens. This was mounted on a Nikon D850. This, in effect, made my lens one stop higher, which wasn't the effect I wanted. I switched to my 70-200 f2.8 and exposure was much better, but I lost one stop when I tried the 1.4 tele. It may not seem like much, but one stop was noticeable.

petercbrandt Loc: New York City, Manhattan

btbg wrote:

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

The photos look great to me!
For anything sharper, is it to do a biopsy of a feather ?
Peter

Sinewsworn Loc: Port Orchard, WA

SuperflyTNT wrote:

Psycho issues? You said about the OP’s photos, “My very good monitor shows good detail, color rendition, sharpness-looks good tome”. I ve say that’s objectively not true. If he just posted to the gallery, go right ahead, but he was asking if using a TC was ok and if these were sharp enough. I was honest and told him I believe on modern mirrorless cameras with native lenses that TC’s can effectively be used, but that these photos aren’t a good example.

Good for you. Assholes are like opinions-everyone has one.

I am a mirrorless guy, too. Z9, Z8, 600pF, 100-400 Z, 70-200Z 105 Z. Selling my DSLRs and F-mount glass.
My best work does Not include TCs. I do not own or use TCs.

The images were good.

Sinewsworn Loc: Port Orchard, WA

Sinewsworn wrote:

Good for you. Assholes are like opinions-everyone has one.

I am a mirrorless guy, too. Z9, Z8, 600pF, 100-400 Z, 70-200Z 105 Z. Selling my DSLRs and F-mount glass.
My best work does Not include TCs. I do not own or use TCs.

The images were good.

Thought to add a couple of recent examples from our yard. Z9, 600pF.

(Download)

btbg

neillaubenthal wrote:

The problem is that some people have a pathologica... (show quote)

I only have the big lens because of shooting sports in low light. Other than that I would have stuck with my Sigma 150_600 sport. Think is its almost as heavy as the 400 though. The 180-600 is a much better choice for most people.

As to the naysayers I posted just because of a previous discussion about converters and expected what has happened. Thats a non issue. I have always done my own thing photographically good and bad.

And you are absolutely correct about good enough. Good enough is far better than not at all, especially in my line of work.

texasdigital Loc: Conroe, Texas

I recently took a photograph of a rattlesnake that snuck into my backyard. I used a Nikon 50mm 1.4 lens. My wife scolded me, saying I should have used a telephoto lens. Should I have used my 2x teleconverter? Do you think the quality would have suffered?

By the way, I'm currently in the hospital, so if I don't answer for a while, don't get concerned.

Sinewsworn Loc: Port Orchard, WA

btbg wrote:

I only have the big lens because of shooting sport... (show quote)

Close enough for gov't work! I enjoy, means have fun with photography. I enjoy the out of doors and bird photography offers that for me in spades.

texasdigital Loc: Conroe, Texas

btbg wrote:

And you are absolutely correct about good enough. Good enough is far better than not at all, especially in my line of work.

At the risk of sounding rude, what is your line of work?