arbitrage wrote:
Fun comparison...I got into position and had the 2x on, took some shots and then decided to take the TC off and hope for a flight shot opportunity. It gave me a chance to take two very similar images from the exact same location and see how the bare lens compares to the lens/2xTC when posted for web.
Weirdly the down-sampled TC shot looks a good deal softer to my eyes than the even more down-sampled scandalized shot. Even though for the higher resolution images you provided the shot with TC has way mode detail in it. Do you also see this? What do you use for subsampling? Or maybe you uploaded a higher resolution crop from the TC version and your image got poorly subsampled by FM?
BTW: I'm not a fan of what you are using for noise reduction (or the settings?). Those high-rez shots have a distinctly artificial flair to their look. Much less obvious in the lower resolution versions, though still there, I think.
From the same distance , the 300+TC will win out since you basically bring the subject 2 times closer
If you shoot with the same field of view meaning bringing the subject closer to the 300 while leaving it as is for the 300+TC combo then the 300 wins (by a sliver)
For (99%) all my birdings the 300 + 2XTC is a must (I don't even care for the 1.4TC)
The rest of the time is when the bird is real close like a diving Tern at less than 10M away
Morale of story: I'd not downplay the importance of the 2XTC for birding
Daran wrote:
Weirdly the down-sampled TC shot looks a good deal softer to my eyes than the even more down-sampled scandalized shot. Even though for the higher resolution images you provided the shot with TC has way mode detail in it. Do you also see this? What do you use for subsampling? Or maybe you uploaded a higher resolution crop from the TC version and your image got poorly subsampled by FM?
BTW: I'm not a fan of what you are using for noise reduction (or the settings?). Those high-rez shots have a distinctly artificial flair to their look. Much less obvious in the lower resolution versions, though still there, I think....Show more →
Using LR Denoise AI, one click done. These were at setting of 35 I think. I typically use 35-50.
Output using LR publishing to meet FM posting size guidelines at 1400KB. Output 1600px wide. LR output sharpening Screen:High
The Flickr outputs go out at full size and Standard sharpening for screen. I believe only I can see the full Flicker size version and anyone else clicking over can only see up to the XL-6K version which Flickr is creating. And depending on the size of the output file it will be less than the 6K version so not sure what problems Flickr's downsizing introduces.
Basically what I've been doing with files for the past year or so since LR added Denoise AI. Before that used Topaz Denoise and PureRAW but when LR Denoise came out I did a bunch of comparisons between the outputs of the three programs....LR either bested or tied the others in my tests so I decided to stop paying for more and more updates with Topaz and PR.
To be honest, I'm a very lazy processor these days. I used to somewhat enjoy time at the computer but now I have a really hard time even bothering culling my shots and I spend 5-10s per shot processing. I'm sure people could work these files way better. As long as I'm happy with how they look posted to FM and Flickr (at regular viewing size) then I'm happy to spend as little time at the computer as possible. All I care about these days is being outside and working the subjects. It probably shows in the final processed results.
nmerc_photos wrote:
quadruple b time... boring backyard buddies in bad light
I haven't taken any photos in a few weeks so I just sat outside for awhile and took anything I could get
once I get back from Iceland I hope to be out using the 300GM naked for some big white tails and lots of owls this fall/winter
I wish my BBBs were as pretty as that oriole!! Most of my yard is dominated by juvenile house and purple finches right now (drab grey/brown)....I can't even bring myself to aim the camera at them unless I'm trying to test pre-capture for a launch/flight sequence.
arbitrage wrote:
I wish my BBBs were as pretty as that oriole!! Most of my yard is dominated by juvenile house and purple finches right now (drab grey/brown)....I can't even bring myself to aim the camera at them unless I'm trying to test pre-capture for a launch/flight sequence.
Douglas L wrote:
I thought you have hummers in your backyard.
From my front yard few days ago
I do have the hummers...but the Anna's are so drab right now they barely have any color...mostly looking grey and most missing wing feathers. I do still have the young rufous which at least look okay despite not being mature males. But the rufous won't last much longer. Hopefully these Anna's (which stay the entire winter) will start to molt into good plumages in a few more months. Most of the winter I'll have a dominant male in great plumage but no flowers for a good shot...they just live off the feeders and bugs.
arbitrage wrote:
I do have the hummers...but the Anna's are so drab right now they barely have any color...mostly looking grey and most missing wing feathers. I do still have the young rufous which at least look okay despite not being mature males. But the rufous won't last much longer. Hopefully these Anna's (which stay the entire winter) will start to molt into good plumages in a few more months. Most of the winter I'll have a dominant male in great plumage but no flowers for a good shot...they just live off the feeders and bugs.
Pity those of us who only got ruby-throated hummers, and only from late April to mid Sept.. I used to put bird feeders (not for hummers) on my deck, I got gold finches, blue jays, cardinals, dark-eyed juncos, chickadees and sparrows. I lost interest in shooting them so I don't have feeders for them anymore. Now I have a bunch of crows standing on my neighbor's roof and come down to my pear tree to eat pears when they are hungry.
arbitrage wrote:
I wish my BBBs were as pretty as that oriole!! Most of my yard is dominated by juvenile house and purple finches right now (drab grey/brown)....I can't even bring myself to aim the camera at them unless I'm trying to test pre-capture for a launch/flight sequence.
We have a ton of orioles here, but they never seem to land in favorable spots. They come for the jelly feeders and then immediately fly up as high as it seems they can go heh. I'm still looking to get a good picture of one of them... one day...
We just moved into this house about a year ago and I'm working to transform it to bring out more nature. There are a ton of bluebirds but they all live on the other side of the property. Next year I'm putting up more houses and hoping to bring them near the backyard for better photo ops.
Once November comes or so, the backyard will be all drab looking birds here as well
jorjacman wrote:
anyone try macro w/ the 2x TC? bugs, etc? saw the frog post from @arbitrage@ but didn't see much else going through the posts.
Haven't really tried the 300+TC for bugs much, except these. Most of my hummer shots were taken at close to the MFD of the 300 GM.
I also have the 100-400 GM, which is a better lens for "macro" than the 300 GM due to it's much shorter MFD (3.22 ft/0.98 for the 100-400 GM). I haven't tried 2X TC on my 70-200 f4 G II macro yet, it can get real close to subjects and gives me 1:1 magnification.
@Douglas L thanks for sharing! looks good to me. the 600 MFD has been...annoying me...as of late. thinking the 300 might fit the bill here (not sure if supplement or replace!).
have 200-600 too but that's been collecting dust. feel bad for it. maybe i should take it out for a spin
man those shots are awesome Douglas. even if the 100-400 is a better quasi macro lens on paper, I don't know how you could really beat those images. so sharp.
arbitrage wrote:
Using LR Denoise AI, one click done. These were at setting of 35 I think. I typically use 35-50.
Output using LR publishing to meet FM posting size guidelines at 1400KB. Output 1600px wide. LR output sharpening Screen:High
The Flickr outputs go out at full size and Standard sharpening for screen. I believe only I can see the full Flicker size version and anyone else clicking over can only see up to the XL-6K version which Flickr is creating. And depending on the size of the output file it will be less than the 6K version so not sure what problems Flickr's downsizing introduces.
Basically what I've been doing with files for the past year or so since LR added Denoise AI. Before that used Topaz Denoise and PureRAW but when LR Denoise came out I did a bunch of comparisons between the outputs of the three programs....LR either bested or tied the others in my tests so I decided to stop paying for more and more updates with Topaz and PR.
To be honest, I'm a very lazy processor these days. I used to somewhat enjoy time at the computer but now I have a really hard time even bothering culling my shots and I spend 5-10s per shot processing. I'm sure people could work these files way better. As long as I'm happy with how they look posted to FM and Flickr (at regular viewing size) then I'm happy to spend as little time at the computer as possible. All I care about these days is being outside and working the subjects. It probably shows in the final processed results....Show more →
jorjacman wrote:
@Douglas L@ thanks for sharing! looks good to me. the 600 MFD has been...annoying me...as of late. thinking the 300 might fit the bill here (not sure if supplement or replace!).
have 200-600 too but that's been collecting dust. feel bad for it. maybe i should take it out for a spin
I have mentioned several times, the main reason I bought the 300 GM is to use it with the 2XTC to shoot hummingbirds in my yard at close to MFD, the image size at this distance is larger than the 200-600 at 600mm because the 200-600 is more like 550mm at MFD. Of course the 300 GM is a bit sharper and brighter too even with the 2X TC.
I keep the 200-600 specifically for airshows, complementing the 600 GM+1.4 TC. I sold the 100-400 GM shortly after I bought the 200-600 few years ago but bought the 100-400 GM again six months ago for air to air shoots, where its size and weight are more suitable than the 200-600.
---------------------------------------------
nmerc_photos wrote:
man those shots are awesome Douglas. even if the 100-400 is a better quasi macro lens on paper, I don't know how you could really beat those images. so sharp.
Thank you! I have been enjoying shooting the 300 +2XTC, which is like a new girl friend, and the 600 GM is like the neglected old wife..... just kidding!
All I care about these days is being outside and working the subjects. It probably shows in the final processed results.
