Do you think the comparison shots posted on this thread would be RAW files
No, I inferred from the post that the poster was wanting to compare the RAW files by processing them whatever way they saw fit rather than relying on whoever was running the "blind test" to process them and possibly introduce some bias, and was therefore wondering how the exif data would be removed from the RAW files.
duncangr wrote:
No, I inferred from the post that the poster was wanting to compare the RAW files by processing them whatever way they saw fit rather than relying on whoever was running the "blind test" to process them and possibly introduce some bias, and was therefore wondering how the exif data would be removed from the RAW files.
How about that poster just not looking at the exif? A 'blind test'.
Yesterday marked my first outing with my Sony 300mm lens. I attached the 2x teleconverter to capture this Northern Harrier, and the combination performed exceptionally well. Having used various long telephoto lenses from Sony, Canon, and Nikon, along with their respective 2x converters, this setup feels like it might be the best of the bunch. I would still take the 600mm with 1.4x instead for the extra reach.
Clarification: I have not shot with Canon and Nikon's newest lens, bodies and 2x converters, so really not a fair comparison. The Sony 2x does seem better on the 300mm over the 400 and 600.
jaylee73 wrote:
Yesterday marked my first outing with my Sony 300mm lens. I attached the 2x teleconverter to capture this Northern Harrier, and the combination performed exceptionally well. Having used various long telephoto lenses from Sony, Canon, and Nikon, along with their respective 2x converters, this setup feels like it might be the best of the bunch. I would still take the 600mm with 1.4x instead for the extra reach.
Clarification: I have not shot with Canon and Nikon's newest lens, bodies and 2x converters, so really not a fair comparison. The Sony 2x does seem better on the 300mm over the 400 and 600.
Looking good Jason.
I have never had a lens from any manufacturer that performs this well for BIF with a 2xTC.
I haven't used the Z 2.0TC on the latest primes. But I have used the RF2xTC on the RF400 and RF600 and it isn't this good.
I wish you guys would post full resolution images or links to the full res images - these 2048px images all get upscaled on my displays and look very ordinary.
duncangr wrote:
I wish you guys would post full resolution images or links to the full res images - these 2048px images all get upscaled on my displays and look very ordinary.
Yes, spot on.
Downsized, you may get the impression that the 300GM + 2xTC approaches 600GM quality, but that is only at small size on a 4K display.
Full resolution raw files are very different and may show that the 600GM has significantly higher resolving (and cropping) abilities, especially when subjects are not close distance. 2xTC's are traditionally at their best with subjects at (near) frame filling distance.
I have found the 600GM to be spectacular with subjects a bit further out, that require copping the A1 full frame image to e.g. 3500px wide.
arbitrage wrote:
But I have used the RF2xTC on the RF400 and RF600 and it isn't this good.
Looks like the 300mm is a winner with the 2x. I could not imagine it better than the 2x on the RF 100-300 and the RF 400mm. In my opinion on R3, R1 and R5 II it is outstanding. Good job on Sony's end for sure.
DO101 wrote:
The 3rd one is the naked lens IMO, Smooth background. But in reality it's impossible to tell here, only via your EXIF .
Okay, I checked it out now. ,
I think with the 2X you may see a slight difference . With the 1.4x it's impossible to tell. I sure do like the option of 300, 420, or 600 in such a light package. Theses flight shots would not have been possible with a 600mm . Was too close
