btbg

I appreciate your oppinion. Historically I would agree with you about stacking tcs but Nikon says that you can sta k the vuilt in tcs on both their 400 and their 600 S lenses.

As to not hand holding thats great. Only thing is a huge number of sports photographers I know hand hold, so its what I'm used to.

texasdigital Loc: Conroe, Texas

Funny you say that. We brought the snake into the ER in a large plastic bucket with a lid. While I was lying on the table, I saw the nurse look at the snake and immediately called for a crash cart. While I waited for anti-serum, I saw them using the paddles to shock the snake, and then the bravest nurse in the world was giving the breath of life. The snake did not survive. I don't know if it was because of me or if the nurse had a bad case of coffee breath. You ER nurses do like your strong coffee. I'm having the snake stuffed with its eyes wide open and its cheeks puffed out like someone was blowing down its throat.

selmslie Loc: Fernandina Beach, FL, USA

Can you tell us some more about that A9 image? The EXIF information is missing. It looks a bit noisy for broad daylight.

jojo Smith Loc: Northern Michigan

they look good to me

Picture Taker Loc: Michigan Thumb

The pictures are fine. We must decide are we taking the shot for a picture or is it a technical project to be scrutinized of imperfections. I'm a picture taker, I take em, I like em and sell em (because the buyer likes em).
It's what YOU want photography to be.

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

My sister got bitten by a rattlesnake in far eastern New Mexico a few years ago. I don't know if they took the snake with them, but she was flown by Life Flight helicopter to Amarillo. It saved HER life, but I think that, given her hard bitten attitude, the Rattlesnake probably sealed his own fate at soon as he contacted her!

tkphelps

You listed two options: 2X TC or cropping. Your pics don't really allow a direct comparison of that question. It would make a great thread if you wanted to put in the work, but I believe the work will show that the 2X TC has better detail than cropping.
The discussions about enhancements in Post is really moot because the question you ask is how to get the best image to start with.
The option that your naysayers choose is to buy a 1200 mm PF and lug the additional 6 pounds to the destination. It is obvious that better detail will be available with this solution. Is it worth the effort?
Remember that BETTER is the mortal enemy of GOOD ENOUGH.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

It all DEPENDS on the camera used, the volume of ambient light and how fast the subject is moving.......and, to a lesser degree, on the exact pixel enlargement software you are using.
.

Kencamera

[quote=btbg]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.[/quo

I think these photos look pretty good. I did find that microcalibrating my lens, 2X extender and camera helped greatly to get sharp pictures.

ialvarez50

[quote=Kencamera][quote=btbg]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.[/quo

I think these photos look pretty good. I did find that microcalibrating my lens, 2X extender and camera helped greatly to get sharp pictures.[/quote]

Where can I see your photos? None of them are in this thread.

Kencamera

I don't post very many, but just a few minutes ago I posted one of an Immature Bald Eagle while trying out my new R7 + 100-400mm L IS II lens +1.4 Teleconverter. Ken

btbg

I will have to check that out, thanks for letting me know.

jlg1000 Loc: Uruguay / South America

I've been scanning old dias taken by my Dad with his Zeiss Contaflex in the 70's.

The thing had central shutter and an excellent 50mm 2.8 lens (not so with the converters).

None of them are remotely as sharp the ones you are showing in your post.

I believe that with the extraordinary advancement of technology some judge a photo by subtle technical detail over composition, color and the overall message.

I'd ask to those people who judged you photos as not sharp enough if they pixel peeped the photo of the naked girl running on a street of Vietnam, or the one of the afghan woman with blue eyes.

To me, yours are excellent photos and I'd be glad to hang them on my wall.

Greg Biggs Loc: Billings, MT

It really depends on your intended purpose for the 2X converter. If you plan to display the pictures on the internet to be viewed on a computer monitor then you should get more than satisfactory results. If you know you’re going to want to print the pictures especially at a larger size such as 12 by 18 then you might not want to use one. Prints usually will reveal softness looking like blur more so than a smaller reduced size image on a computer screen. It’s a persons personal preference as to what you’re satisfied with. I think we sometimes place too much importance on sharpness of our photos. The subject we are shooting may require more or less detail. I’ve seen some beautiful landscapes with a soft focus . So if you’re pleased with the results, do it.

jim quist Loc: Missouri

I use a 1.4 and a 2x converter with my Canon 500 f4, 400 f4 DO, 300 2.8 and 70-200 2.8. The images are sharp enough to print 8x10’s that look great.