Open your eyes Iran is trying to start an all out war with Israel and the U.S. Obama foolishly gave them the ability to develop nuclear weapons and they have made clear that once they have them their intent is to destroy both Israel and the U.S.

Russia is a danger but only indirectly to us. Iran is a direct danger to us. Supporting Israel against Iran and Hamas is far more important to U.S. interests than what happens in Europe.

But that isn't even the issue I was trying to address. 1) we dont have the money to support either. 2) Both are similar as they are attacking allies of ours and the agressors are our enemies so the two should be treated somewhat similarly. And 3) NATO is there to help Ukraine but we are the only ally there to support Israel. So people who are arguing that we need to support Ukraine but not Israel are not thinking clearly.

Denny, please answer the question how do you get rid of Hamas? Raz posted an article the shows at length that they hide ilegally among civilians. What should Israel do? They lost 1100 citizens to a barberic attack and tjere are still 140 hostages, so just answer the question, what should Israel be doing differently?

Well either your eyes are better than mine or they arent as bad as you claim. Sparrows are common, at least around here wrens are not. So the choice is shoot it when its there or dont shoot it at all.

Then how do you propose to get rid of Hamas. We are not misunderstanding you. Either Hamas is allowed to continue to attack Israel or they have to be destroyed. Hamas is evil. Look at what they did on Oct.7. That is pure evil. If you were Israel would you allow them to remain? Hamas hides in schools and hospitals so there will be civilian casualties, but why do you choose to accept the word of the Palastinians as to what is happening. They started it and they have clearly lied during this conflict so why do you believe anything they say?

Also you forget that more than 70 percent of Palistine v**ed to elect Hamas. Thet is their chosen government. They chose to support terrorism and now they are paying the price for that.

Thats fine. What Im asking is if you dont use the TC how are you even going to get the photo? What is the alternative?

You get what you pay for.

Thats correct, thats exactly why we should limit our support to Ukraine to the same levrl as the rest of NATO. You and Denny need to remember that Iran is allied with Russia, is working to develop nuclear weapons, thanks to Obama, and have promised to use them. Of the two conflicts the moddle east is far more dangerous to the U.S.

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.

I'm not saying that is incorrect. I'm saying that the same thing applies to Israel and Iran as to Ukraine and Russia. Denny is saying that we shouldn't support Israel. If he is correct then we should not be supporting Ukraine either. On top of that, Ukraine has the support of NATO, while no one but us is supporting Israel, and Iran is a dangerous enemy who is trying to sow terrorism around the world, and is a close ally to Russia.

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.

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

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.

We are not at war with Russia, so why are we funding Ukraine? And, we aren't funding the k*****g of children we are funding the eradication of a terrorist group.

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.

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.