blonde wrote:
i can't beleive people actually respond to such nonsense. it is clear that Mel has no idea what he is talking about since almost all of the best wildlife and birds photographers out there use TC's all the time. Art Wolfe, Art Morris, all the guys from Naturescapes all use at least the 1.4 tc a great deal of the time. i know that the 1.4tc is glued to my 500 F4 almost 99% of the time and trust me, the files are super!!
Sorry you're so unhappy about what I said, but most photographers do NOT use converters most of the time.
And if you're going to say that converters don't degrade the IQ, then you dont know much about optics.
There are also certain combinations of lenses and converters that aren't too bad, and others that are almost unusable.
Liquidstone wrote:
I've printed 24"x36" from a shot taken with a 500 f4 + 1.4x TC (40D), and feather detail is still very good when seen from 10 inches away.
miccullen wrote:
Actually, you said the first statement above, which is a LONG way from the second.
Most photographers don't use them except to get that shot they couldn't otherwise have gotten. So, yes, they can be used. Some may, for the lower quality work they need to do.
But we've been talking about high quality over this 100+ pages. some people being so concerned about the possibility that the AF isn't perfect, etc.
So my remarks are directed towards the idea of fine art printing in large sizes. Not newspaper, or the usual magazine work with 133 or 150 line printing, or for that matter Tv.
If the detail of interest is in that "sweet spot" then you can be fine for not too large an image. If you want to close down several stops past ideal, not always useful, then you can degrade the center a bit to get the edges in focus.
Some people think something is sharp while others will think it's soft. A converter will affect a lower rez camera less than a high rez one etc.
Mel Gross wrote:
[But overall, a converter does degrade the image.
Are you arguing that it doesn't?
Of course not. I'm simply pointing out that "only in emergencies" is a gross oversimplification, which is totally incorrect in a lot of people's experience and practice.
In news unrelated to this thread, I got to play with a 5D2 + my 1.2L for an hour today. Feels nice. Video is amazing in detail, if you can focus with that DOF. I don't think I ever shot bumpier video in my life - HD camcorders definitely have an edge when it comes to stability because of their built-in IS.
The AF (set on Live Mode) had a hard time refocusing (when the AF ON button was pressed), but it could have been worse. Not sure how useful it will be for the "playground" use every day. I am sure that in the right hands with a Steadicam or tripod it would look swell. Shake and AF aside, the results were quite amazing, esp. given that we were indoors in a dungeon.
Not sure I'll be retiring my little camcorder quite yet, but that's just me. Ease of use and size sometimes trumps image quality. Other than that no real surprises. The most noticeable thing to me was the long viewfinder blackout (compared to my 1Ds3), just like the old 5D.
I am not canceling my pre-order. Having that said, back to the regular programing on this channel
stanj wroteIn news unrelated to this thread, I got to play with a 5D2 + my 1.2L for an hour today.
How was the AF when being used for stills? (Given the 1.2 isn't that quick to focus in the first place.) I found it not too bad with my 28-70/2.8L, but was only trying it in the shop, so not very realistic conditions.
miccullen wrote:
How was the AF when being used for stills? (Given the 1.2 isn't that quick to focus in the first place.) I found it not too bad with my 28-70/2.8L, but was only trying it in the shop, so not very realistic conditions.
I didn't try anything scientific. It felt about the same as my 40D. Not quite as assertive as my 1Ds3, for sure.
Here's a 20"x30" from a 1DM2 + 500 f4 + 1.4x, cropped to a native 6 MP for composition before being upressed, now on exhibit in a museum (hung at eye level, inviting the viewer to get close to examine the feather detail). The smaller prints are 12"x15"s, mostly from 4-6 MP crops of shots taken with a 1.4x TC and a few with a 2x TC:
Here's a processed 100% crop of a moonshot with a zoom + 2x TC...... show me a more detailed mooncrop taken with a naked EOS SLR lens, and I'll gladly switch religion.
stanj wrote:
How was the AF when being used for stills? (Given the 1.2 isn't that quick to focus in the first place.) I found it not too bad with my 28-70/2.8L, but was only trying it in the shop, so not very realistic conditions.
----
I didn't try anything scientific. It felt about the same as my 40D. Not quite as assertive as my 1Ds3, for sure.
Cool. I didn't think it was as quick as my 40D on the outer points, but maybe it didn't like where I was shooting (pretty low light) or maybe I was just thinking it was slower.
Oh, one more thing that I noticed: Zooming in on the LCD to check sharpness. Now it actually works / is useful. I went spelunking and found that the embedded "thumbnail" in the raw images is ... fullsize. Heavily compressed, but it's huge. Can't really speak of a "thumbnail" anymore, for sure.
First, we need to define the reference point on the use of TCs.
To me, a TC is useful if the lens has excess resolution that can't be fully harvested by the sensor used (eventually, when the pixels are small enough in future cameras, optical TCs might become obsolete, but that's another point).
On a per pixel basis, a naked lens would indeed yield the sharpest image. However, photos are always seen as a whole frame. On a per frame basis, a 1.4x TC plus a decent lens will always yield more detail than the same frame taken with the same lens (without a TC), from the same distance. IOW, if you upres in software the naked lens shot to the same magnification as the one taken with a 1.4x TC, it won't be as sharp.
Hop over to Naturescapes and other fine bird photography sites, and you'll see that most shooters there use TCs..... and these guys are not novice photographers. I'm partial to using bird photos as examples because it's one genre where most situations are focal length limited, and where TCs are more often used.
Mel Gross wrote:
Canon, and other manufacturers will tell you quite openly that converters degrade the quality noticeably.
The end results depend on what you're shooting, how far you stop down, the final destination of the images, final size, and how they are being used.
I'm not saying that they can't be used, just that they do degrade the quality.
As so many here have been talking about minor differences in quality as though it was very important, the fact that converters do degrade it, is important.
Is anyone here denying that that they DO degrade the quality? That would be strange!.
note those are NOT resized full pics those are 100% crops and good grief you can even see moire still in one of them, not exactly lacking in resolution!
stanj wrote:
In news unrelated to this thread, I got to play with a 5D2 + my 1.2L for an hour today. Feels nice. Video is amazing in detail, if you can focus with that DOF. I don't think I ever shot bumpier video in my life - HD camcorders definitely have an edge when it comes to stability because of their built-in IS.
The AF (set on Live Mode) had a hard time refocusing (when the AF ON button was pressed), but it could have been worse. Not sure how useful it will be for the "playground" use every day. I am sure that in the right hands with a Steadicam or tripod it would look swell. Shake and AF aside, the results were quite amazing, esp. given that we were indoors in a dungeon.
Not sure I'll be retiring my little camcorder quite yet, but that's just me. Ease of use and size sometimes trumps image quality. Other than that no real surprises. The most noticeable thing to me was the long viewfinder blackout (compared to my 1Ds3), just like the old 5D.
I am not canceling my pre-order. Having that said, back to the regular programing on this channel ...Show more →
Liquidstone wrote:
Wish you can visit our islands so you can pore over the prints with a magnifying glass. Right now, I can only describe to you how the prints are.
Here's a 24"x36" - 40D + 500 f4 + 1.4x TC (the 20"x30" was with the 20D + 500 f4 + 1.4x):
Here's a 20"x30" from a 1DM2 + 500 f4 + 1.4x, cropped to a native 6 MP for composition before being upressed, now on exhibit in a museum (hung at eye level, inviting the viewer to get close to examine the feather detail). The smaller prints are 12"x15"s, mostly from 4-6 MP crops of shots taken with a 1.4x TC and a few with a 2x TC:
Here's a processed 100% crop of a moonshot with a zoom + 2x TC...... show me a more detailed mooncrop taken with a naked EOS SLR lens, and I'll gladly switch religion.
Liquidstone wrote:
First, we need to define the reference point on the use of TCs.
To me, a TC is useful if the lens has excess resolution that can't be fully harvested by the sensor used (eventually, when the pixels are small enough in future cameras, optical TCs might become obsolete, but that's another point).
On a per pixel basis, a naked lens would indeed yield the sharpest image. However, photos are always seen as a whole frame. On a per frame basis, a 1.4x TC plus a decent lens will always yield more detail than the same frame taken with the same lens (without a TC), from the same distance. IOW, if you upres in software the naked lens shot to the same magnification as the one taken with a 1.4x TC, it won't be as sharp.
Hop over to Naturescapes and other fine bird photography sites, and you'll see that most shooters there use TCs..... and these guys are not novice photographers. I'm partial to using bird photos as examples because it's one genre where most situations are focal length limited, and where TCs are more often used....Show more →
skibum5 wrote:
yeah, and on a poorer lens maybe it is even a big deal, but on something great the damage isn't that bad once you undo the +18 or so CA in ACR it causes, sure it's not as amazing as pre-TC but seriously do these sample shot with the canon 1.4x TC II WIDE OPEN look like you better get worried about printing over 4x6" hah:
note those are NOT resized full pics those are 100% crops and good grief you can even see moire still in one of them, not exactly lacking in resolution!
I said that with some lenses it would be acceptable in the center, and stopped down several stops, and that with others it would be unusable. In the sizes presented, they look good.
But my point is that when compared to the actual equivalent lens, it would be inferior, noticeably so.
For people interested in the highest IQ, it would be unacceptable. Sometimes things look great, except when compared to things that look better. We've all gone through that.
Mel Gross wrote:
I said that with some lenses it would be acceptable in the center, and stopped down several stops, and that with others it would be unusable. In the sizes presented, they look good.
But my point is that when compared to the actual equivalent lens, it would be inferior, noticeably so.
For people interested in the highest IQ, it would be unacceptable. Sometimes things look great, except when compared to things that look better. We've all gone through that.
you said emergency use only
those were WIDE OPEN f/4 not several stops closed down
those were 100% crops so there is no "at the size they are presented"
the 300 2.8 IS with the TC does better than the BARE 300 f/4 wide open and same goes for the 100-400L, 100-300L, 70-300 IS at 300mm, sigma 120-300, etc. so there are a lot of lenses you better throw away as unacceptable if the TC is bad.
yes, they do degrade, but with the best lenses it's nothing to be afraid of even if you are pretty critical.
those were WIDE OPEN f/4 not several stops closed down
those were 100% crops so there is no "at the size they are presented"
the 300 2.8 IS with the TC does better than the BARE 300 f/4 wide open and same goes for the 100-400L, 100-300L, 70-300 IS at 300mm, sigma 120-300, etc. so there are a lot of lenses you better throw away as unacceptable if the TC is bad.
yes, they do degrade, but with the best lenses it's nothing to be afraid of even if you are pretty critical.
I agree, I've backed away from the "emergency only" a bit.
But you have to compare a 300 with the equivalent length lens that you get with the converter, not the same length lenses. The 300 would need to be tested against the 400, for the 1.4x, and the 600 for the 2x, etc.
