fbpixel

Moderators: Greg Downing, E.J. Peiker

All times are UTC - 5 hours

  
« Previous topic | Next topic »  
Reply to topic  
 First unread post  | 12 posts | 
by Robert Sabin on Sun Feb 11, 2018 10:38 pm
Robert Sabin
Forum Contributor
Posts: 7389
Joined: 23 Feb 2004
How Good is this combination?
Artie Morris Raves about it in his Blog today...
Says focus is quick, and sharpness is great...
 

by Bruce Sherman on Mon Feb 12, 2018 12:40 am
User avatar
Bruce Sherman
Forum Contributor
Posts: 4309
Joined: 21 Aug 2003
Location: Rockport, TX
Member #:00092
Robert,

I have tried this combo with my 7DII. Results were OK. I could definitely tell from looking at a picture if it was taken with or without the TC. Sharpness was not as good with the TC. Focusing speed and accuracy was not as good with the TC, especially for distant subjects, such as a bird in flight, even a slow moving bird. I think one could do just as well by not using the TC and cropping.
 

by E.J. Peiker on Mon Feb 12, 2018 7:50 am
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 81694
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Zooms and TCs are a big compromise and will never give you anything even remotely close to prime lens quality or even zoom without TC. I have never used a zoom where I am happy with the performance with a TC attached including the Canon 100-400 + 1.4x. That includes the Canon 200-400 with the built in TC. For example, I even took equivalent photos at 400mm without the TC and then pop in the TC and set the lens for 285mm to give you the same 400mm - the differences in acuity, microcontrast and fine detail are stark! And that's from the only company that actually knows how to make high IQ teleconverters.
 

by jnadler on Tue Feb 13, 2018 7:38 am
jnadler
Forum Contributor
Posts: 6846
Joined: 06 Oct 2003
Location: New York State
Quality standards are too personal to make absolute equipment decisions. I have taken many exceptionally sharp bird photos and sold many of them with this combination. I travel with this combo when I don't care to take my larger lens.
Jeff Nadler
Jeff Nadler Nature Photography
Moose-loons-325 bird species-Adirondacks
 

by Robert Sabin on Tue Feb 13, 2018 8:48 am
Robert Sabin
Forum Contributor
Posts: 7389
Joined: 23 Feb 2004
My Original Post said:
How Good is this combination?
Artie Morris Raves about it in his Blog today...
Says focus is quick, and sharpness is great...

I Left out WITH THE 5D4.....Any experience out there with this combination?
 

by Charlie Woodrich on Tue Feb 13, 2018 2:48 pm
User avatar
Charlie Woodrich
Forum Contributor
Posts: 846
Joined: 22 Jan 2004
Location: Glen Allen, VA
Member #:00334
Robert Sabin wrote:
My Original Post said:
How Good is this combination?
Artie Morris Raves about it in his Blog today...
Says focus is quick, and sharpness is great...

I Left out WITH THE 5D4.....Any experience out there with this combination?



I have this combo with the 5D3 and the results are very good for still images.  I would have to imagine they would be even better with a 5D4.  The 100-400 V2 is a great lens and the 1.4 III is a very good TC.
 

by Primus on Wed Feb 14, 2018 6:57 am
Primus
Lifetime Member
Posts: 819
Joined: 12 Oct 2012
Location: New York
Member #:02003
E.J. Peiker wrote:
Zooms and TCs are a big compromise and will never give you anything even remotely close to prime lens quality or even zoom without TC.  I have never used a zoom where I am happy with the performance with a TC attached including the Canon 100-400 + 1.4x.   That includes the Canon 200-400 with the built in TC.  For example, I even took equivalent photos at 400mm without the TC and then pop in the TC and set the lens for 285mm to give you the same 400mm - the differences in acuity, microcontrast and fine detail are stark!  And that's from the only company that actually knows how to make high IQ teleconverters.



EJ, I think I know the answer as this has been discussed before, but just to confirm. And sorry, this may be OT for this particular thread.

How do you think an image taken with a higher resolution sensor (e.g. A7R3) and then cropped to an APS-C size compares with that taken with an APS-C sensor (e.g.a6500)? And if we throw in the 1.4X TC, so that the comparison is between cropped high-res FF vs 'normal res' FF plus 1.4X - i.e. A7R3 vs A9 plus 1.4X?

The ultimate objective is a print, say 13X19 size. If there is no difference in the final print, at what size do you think there would be any difference, or will the cropped image from a high-res FF always yield better results - all other things being equal?

Pradeep
 

by E.J. Peiker on Wed Feb 14, 2018 7:16 am
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 81694
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Primus wrote:
E.J. Peiker wrote:
Zooms and TCs are a big compromise and will never give you anything even remotely close to prime lens quality or even zoom without TC.  I have never used a zoom where I am happy with the performance with a TC attached including the Canon 100-400 + 1.4x.   That includes the Canon 200-400 with the built in TC.  For example, I even took equivalent photos at 400mm without the TC and then pop in the TC and set the lens for 285mm to give you the same 400mm - the differences in acuity, microcontrast and fine detail are stark!  And that's from the only company that actually knows how to make high IQ teleconverters.



EJ, I think I know the answer as this has been discussed before, but just to confirm. And sorry, this may be OT for this particular thread.

How do you think an image taken with a higher resolution sensor (e.g. A7R3) and then cropped to an APS-C size compares with that taken with an APS-C sensor (e.g.a6500)? And if we throw in the 1.4X TC, so that the comparison is between cropped high-res FF vs 'normal res' FF plus 1.4X - i.e. A7R3 vs A9 plus 1.4X?

The ultimate objective is a print, say 13X19 size. If there is no difference in the final print, at what size do you think there would be any difference, or will the cropped image from a high-res FF always yield better results - all other things being equal?

Pradeep

The a6300/a6500 has higher resolution than the a7R III or a7R II or D850 or even the EOS 5DSR when those cameras are cropped to 1.5x crop APSC.  You have to crop both in the X and Y direction so that's 1.5x1.5=2.25.  So basically you take the full frame pixel count and divide by 2.25.  All of the FF cameras are less than 24 megapixels when you do that.  So the amount of detail you can render is higher with the a6300/a6500 or with just about any APS-C camera on the market.  That of course isn't the full picture, there's whether or not the camera is capable of getting the shot (AF performance) or whether the sensor has enough dynamic range or any other number of factors.

Whether or not you get more resolution out of shooting the full frame camera with a 1.4x and having all of those extra pixels depends almost entirely on how good that optical combination is (assuming accurate focus of course).  With good prime lenses and a good 1.4x the high megapixel full frame will generally give you a better image, but zooms generally not.  Sure you have more pixels but you don't actually have more real information recorded.

All that said, I think any of the options are capable of acceptable 13x19 print given perfect focus and good photographic technique but of course the more quality pixels you bring to the table, the better the chance of getting a great print.
 

by Karl Egressy on Thu Feb 15, 2018 8:34 am
User avatar
Karl Egressy
Forum Contributor
Posts: 30639
Joined: 11 Dec 2004
Location: Guelph, Ontario, Canada
Member #:00988
Robert Sabin wrote:
My Original Post said:
How Good is this combination?
Artie Morris Raves about it in his Blog today...
Says focus is quick, and sharpness is great...

I Left out WITH THE 5D4.....Any experience out there with this combination?



It works with 5DM4 much better. I tried it on BIF and focusing was fast image was very good.
Also tried it on 7D Mark II and it was very disappointing.
I won't use it on either one of the cameras for now.
Artie might be switching to Nikon full time after decades of promoting Canon as I noticed that he used Nikon D850 most recently.
 

by Primus on Thu Feb 15, 2018 2:56 pm
Primus
Lifetime Member
Posts: 819
Joined: 12 Oct 2012
Location: New York
Member #:02003
E.J. Peiker wrote:
Primus wrote:
EJ, I think I know the answer as this has been discussed before, but just to confirm. And sorry, this may be OT for this particular thread.

How do you think an image taken with a higher resolution sensor (e.g. A7R3) and then cropped to an APS-C size compares with that taken with an APS-C sensor (e.g.a6500)? And if we throw in the 1.4X TC, so that the comparison is between cropped high-res FF vs 'normal res' FF plus 1.4X - i.e. A7R3 vs A9 plus 1.4X?

The ultimate objective is a print, say 13X19 size. If there is no difference in the final print, at what size do you think there would be any difference, or will the cropped image from a high-res FF always yield better results - all other things being equal?

Pradeep

The a6300/a6500 has higher resolution than the a7R III or a7R II or D850 or even the EOS 5DSR when those cameras are cropped to 1.5x crop APSC.  You have to crop both in the X and Y direction so that's 1.5x1.5=2.25.  So basically you take the full frame pixel count and divide by 2.25.  All of the FF cameras are less than 24 megapixels when you do that.  So the amount of detail you can render is higher with the a6300/a6500 or with just about any APS-C camera on the market.  That of course isn't the full picture, there's whether or not the camera is capable of getting the shot (AF performance) or whether the sensor has enough dynamic range or any other number of factors.

Whether or not you get more resolution out of shooting the full frame camera with a 1.4x and having all of those extra pixels depends almost entirely on how good that optical combination is (assuming accurate focus of course).  With good prime lenses and a good 1.4x the high megapixel full frame will generally give you a better image, but zooms generally not.  Sure you have more pixels but you don't actually have more real information recorded.

All that said, I think any of the options are capable of acceptable 13x19 print given perfect focus and good photographic technique but of course the more quality pixels you bring to the table, the better the chance of getting a great print.


Thanks EJ, that seems logical enough. 

I think it is reasonable to assume that if 'reach' is what one is after, then with the same lens, putting a 1.4x on may give no better results than using a higher resolution sensor (of the same quality) and cropping in. Provided of course that the light on the subject and focus etc are the same. 

OTOH, a APS-C camera does provide greater 'reach' with the same lens, without needing a 1.4x - under identical conditions. 

However, as far as image quality is concerned, my own subjective experience has been that the files from the 1DX (and 1DX2) were more appealing to me, even though the image was smaller, than those from the 7D2, even with good light and good  focus. 

The same thing seems to be happening with the Sony. I find the images from my  A7Rx and A9 are more contrasty and seem sharper/cleaner than those from the a6500. It may just be my imagination, but is it possible that there is something different about a FF sensor, all other things being the same?

I haven't taken it to its final test, i.e. the 13X19 print yet, but on the screen there does seem to be a difference. I wonder what your thoughts are.

Pradeep
 

by E.J. Peiker on Thu Feb 15, 2018 4:15 pm
User avatar
E.J. Peiker
Senior Technical Editor
Posts: 81694
Joined: 16 Aug 2003
Location: Arizona
Member #:00002
Primus wrote:
Thanks EJ, that seems logical enough. 

I think it is reasonable to assume that if 'reach' is what one is after, then with the same lens, putting a 1.4x on may give no better results than using a higher resolution sensor (of the same quality) and cropping in. Provided of course that the light on the subject and focus etc are the same. 

OTOH, a APS-C camera does provide greater 'reach' with the same lens, without needing a 1.4x - under identical conditions. 

However, as far as image quality is concerned, my own subjective experience has been that the files from the 1DX (and 1DX2) were more appealing to me, even though the image was smaller, than those from the 7D2, even with good light and good  focus. 

The same thing seems to be happening with the Sony. I find the images from my  A7Rx and A9 are more contrasty and seem sharper/cleaner than those from the a6500. It may just be my imagination, but is it possible that there is something different about a FF sensor, all other things being the same?

I haven't taken it to its final test, i.e. the 13X19 print yet, but on the screen there does seem to be a difference. I wonder what your thoughts are.

Pradeep

I'm wondering if what you are experiencing is the shallower DOF and more "buttery bokeh" that you get from a full frame camera when the subject takes up the same amount of room in the frame on a FF camera compared to a cropped camera (due to needing a 1.5x longer lens on the FF camera to get the same viewfinder coverage).
 

by Primus on Fri Feb 16, 2018 2:52 pm
Primus
Lifetime Member
Posts: 819
Joined: 12 Oct 2012
Location: New York
Member #:02003
^
Thanks EJ, that may be what it is.

Pradeep
 

Display posts from previous:  Sort by:  
12 posts | 
  

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group