Quality issue with TC
Posted 07/04/2010 - 10:51
Link
Have you a control image taken of that subject without the TC per chance?
Posted 07/04/2010 - 10:53
Link
Good point!! No actually. I was basically looking to see if anyone thought that this image showed signs of having a TC attached.
I will do two more. With/without TC.
Regards
I will do two more. With/without TC.
Regards
Too far from a shore.
Posted 07/04/2010 - 11:04
Link
Also, it might be helpful to show a 100% crop on an in-focus area
K-5; Siggy 10-20 f4, 30mm f1.4, 18-50mm f2.8, 70-200mm f2.8; Tammy 400mm f4, 500mm f8
Posted 07/04/2010 - 14:41
Link
Too far from a shore.
Posted 07/04/2010 - 17:06
Link
Hi,
The with TC looks softer to me.
Could you post an example of the "without TC" blown up to the same size as the "with TC" example. That would give a better idea if there was any advantage to using the TC and not just blowing up the original.
Greg
The with TC looks softer to me.
Could you post an example of the "without TC" blown up to the same size as the "with TC" example. That would give a better idea if there was any advantage to using the TC and not just blowing up the original.
Greg
Posted 07/04/2010 - 17:37
Link
There is definitely more detail in the non-TC image...
Best regards
Terry
K20D, Optio I10, DA 18-55 1:3.5-5.6 AL II, A 1:1.7/50, D FA 1:2.8/100 Macro, Sigma 70-300 1:4-5.6 APO DG Macro, Pentax AF 360FGZ
Terry
K20D, Optio I10, DA 18-55 1:3.5-5.6 AL II, A 1:1.7/50, D FA 1:2.8/100 Macro, Sigma 70-300 1:4-5.6 APO DG Macro, Pentax AF 360FGZ
Posted 07/04/2010 - 20:45
Link
gregmoll wrote:
Hi,
The with TC looks softer to me.
Could you post an example of the "without TC" blown up to the same size as the "with TC" example. That would give a better idea if there was any advantage to using the TC and not just blowing up the original.
Greg
These are 100% crops of the original jpg. To blow up the non TC to the with TC means pixelation.Hi,
The with TC looks softer to me.
Could you post an example of the "without TC" blown up to the same size as the "with TC" example. That would give a better idea if there was any advantage to using the TC and not just blowing up the original.
Greg
Unless I'm missing something. If so let me know.
Regards
Too far from a shore.
Posted 07/04/2010 - 21:16
Link
Hi,
Talking from my perspective, I try to make the subject fill the view finder so as to get the maximum size image on the sensor, obviously by moving nearer or further away. However if I can not get any closer and using the same lens then I must use a converter to get the maximum size image on the sensor.
My interest was in trying to see if the non TC image crop is better than the TC image when viewed at the same physical size on the screen.
Bit convoluted but I hope you understand my meaning
Greg
Talking from my perspective, I try to make the subject fill the view finder so as to get the maximum size image on the sensor, obviously by moving nearer or further away. However if I can not get any closer and using the same lens then I must use a converter to get the maximum size image on the sensor.
My interest was in trying to see if the non TC image crop is better than the TC image when viewed at the same physical size on the screen.
Bit convoluted but I hope you understand my meaning
Greg
Posted 07/04/2010 - 21:46
Link
I've opened both pictures in Elements and matched their physical size by zooming in and out,133% and 75% if anything the No-TC version still has a slight edge over the TC version, but only very slightly.
Greg
Greg
Posted 07/04/2010 - 22:26
Link
gregmoll wrote:
I've opened both pictures in Elements and matched their physical size by zooming in and out,133% and 75% if anything the No-TC version still has a slight edge over the TC version, but only very slightly.
Greg
Accepted Greg. My original post was more of a "blind loudspeaker test".I've opened both pictures in Elements and matched their physical size by zooming in and out,133% and 75% if anything the No-TC version still has a slight edge over the TC version, but only very slightly.
Greg
Which speakers are you listening to?
Does it look that bad whereby someone could say it had a TC on the lens?
Regards
Too far from a shore.
Posted 08/04/2010 - 07:53
Link
K10D wrote:
Does it look that bad whereby someone could say it had a TC on the lens?
Honestly, I am sure nobody could say that there was a TC behind the lens in your flower picture. To me, both focus and exposure look spot on.
Does it look that bad whereby someone could say it had a TC on the lens?
Best regards
Terry
K20D, Optio I10, DA 18-55 1:3.5-5.6 AL II, A 1:1.7/50, D FA 1:2.8/100 Macro, Sigma 70-300 1:4-5.6 APO DG Macro, Pentax AF 360FGZ
Terry
K20D, Optio I10, DA 18-55 1:3.5-5.6 AL II, A 1:1.7/50, D FA 1:2.8/100 Macro, Sigma 70-300 1:4-5.6 APO DG Macro, Pentax AF 360FGZ
Posted 08/04/2010 - 12:03
Link
On the subject of t/c i shot this one over easter with my Pentax F 1.7 converter I aquired last year. I used it with the DA* 60-250 , and I am quite pleased with the results.


Peter
My Flickr page
My Flickr page
Add Comment
To leave a comment - Log in to Pentax User or create a new account.




6414 posts
17 years
Wide open indicated f/4.5
Regards