Poor man's 600mm

Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
354
Location
Northen NJ
I was just wondering if anyone here has used a 2x teleconverter on the 300mm f4 afs? I am not expecting good af ability. would liketo know about the optical performance of this combo. for situations where the extra reach could be helpful in good light. like an eagle on the other side of a river.
here is one with 50% cropped away. would the tc give better resolution than a upsized crop without tc?

http://i2.pbase.com/u16/craigh/upload/39065153.eaglecrop.jpg
regards
 
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
354
Location
Northen NJ
Thanx Harris and Gordon. I was quite suprised how well it held up. i think i could do better with tc and no crop. hoping anyway.
 
Joined
Jan 25, 2005
Messages
994
Location
Alabama
Hey Craig....

I get an 'Image Forbidden' message when I try to view your shot. :cry:

What's the scoop? Another pbase glitch??

Frank
 
Joined
Jan 29, 2005
Messages
33,092
Location
St. George, Utah
CraigH. said:
I was just wondering if anyone here has used a 2x teleconverter on the 300mm f4 afs? I am not expecting good af ability. would liketo know about the optical performance of this combo. for situations where the extra reach could be helpful in good light. like an eagle on the other side of a river.
here is one with 50% cropped away. would the tc give better resolution than a upsized crop without tc?

http://i2.pbase.com/u16/craigh/upload/39065153.eaglecrop.jpg
regards
Craig, go to edit for your post and then put your cursor just ahead of the URL and click on the IMG button, then put your cursor after the URL and click on the IMG button again, then hit submit.
 
Joined
Feb 1, 2005
Messages
354
Location
Northen NJ
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
 
Joined
Jan 31, 2005
Messages
1,196
Location
Brooklyn, NY USA
You're right

CraigH. said:
It somehow looks better to me in pbase. maybe some kind of compression going on here?
You're definitely right, its not an illusion. I put them up side by side and the pbase one has more detail and is brighter. don't know what the site is doing...probably is compressing them. Wonder if there's a way that setting can be changed??
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
15,253
Location
Marysville, WA
Re: You're right

jczinn said:
CraigH. said:
It somehow looks better to me in pbase. maybe some kind of compression going on here?
You're definitely right, its not an illusion. I put them up side by side and the pbase one has more detail and is brighter. don't know what the site is doing...probably is compressing them. Wonder if there's a way that setting can be changed??
I just did a right-click and copied the URL of the image into a new browser window. Looking at them side-by-side I don't see any detail difference, but to me the image here looks just a slight bit lighter. It would not surprise me that pBase does something "special" during image display that we don't see here as this is a direct link to the image.
 

PGB

Joined
Jan 25, 2005
Messages
7,986
CraigH. said:
It somehow looks better to me in pbase. maybe some kind of compression going on here?
There is nothing that I can find that phpbb is doing to degrade the images any. All that is occuring is when your open a thread that has an image it loads it from the link provided in your browser. No images are being stored here. Not sure why there would be a difference. Perhaps its the contrast of PBASE to Phpbb forum coloring.

Excellent capture by the way. I so want to get some Eagles.

Thanks,
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
1,011
Location
San Jose, CA
CraigH. said:
It somehow looks better to me in pbase. maybe some kind of compression going on here?
It's a well known idiosynchrasy of pBase, Craig. If the original size of your image is greater than 800 pixels in its longest direction, and you direct link without specifying otherwise, pbase will squish it and serve up an image that's resized to 800 pixels.

Your eagle picture is 872X594 pixels. Embedding it as "http://www.pbase.com/craigh/image/39065153.jpg" results in an 800X545 pixel presentation.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Embedding it as "http://www.pbase.com/craigh/image/39065153/original.jpg" results in the full sized (872X594 pixel) presentation.

View attachment 4788
 
Joined
Jan 25, 2005
Messages
994
Location
Alabama
Wow UF, thanks!!

I thought that Craig and others were imagining the problem, maybe because of different background colors or something, but they were right, and I was wrong (again :cry: ). There is a logical explanation, and you have found it.

Once you see the images side by side, the difference is obvious.

You folks are *so* smart. :wink:

Excellent shot BTW Craig. :)

Frank

UncleFrank said:
CraigH. said:
It somehow looks better to me in pbase. maybe some kind of compression going on here?
It's a well known idiosynchrasy of pBase, Craig. If the original size of your image is greater than 800 pixels in its longest direction, and you direct link without specifying otherwise, pbase will squish it and serve up an image that's resized to 800 pixels.

Your eagle picture is 872X594 pixels. Embedding it as "http://www.pbase.com/craigh/image/39065153.jpg" results in an 800X545 pixel presentation.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


Embedding it as "http://www.pbase.com/craigh/image/39065153/original.jpg" results in the full sized (872X594 pixel) presentation.

View attachment 4790
 
Joined
Jan 25, 2005
Messages
994
Location
Alabama
Craig, in my limited experience....

CraigH. said:
So what do you think Flew? would a 2x tc give better resolution than an up rez crop.
I don't have the experience of a Ron Reznick or of Yves or Harris, but I've found that more glass usually beats cropping, even if the optical quality is not as good (within reasonable limits of course).

If you were to attend the Merritt Island shoot in a couple of weeks, you could test the theory with my TC-20EII. :eek:

Having said that, your Eagle shot looks great to me, even at the high crop level.

Frank
 
Joined
Jan 26, 2005
Messages
15,253
Location
Marysville, WA
Here is a Cheap Mans 1400mm.....

I normally shoot with a 500mm plus a 1.4 TC, which yields this uncropped image:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


On this particular day I decided to see what would happen if I stacked my 1.4 and 2.0 TC's. I expected a very soft, fuzzy look and I could see lot's of "jiggle" in the viewfinder. So I locked down the tripod and head as best I could and then attempted to stabilize as much as possible. I did not use MLU and the self-timer, although I should have, and this is the result:

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)


I was rather amazed at the result after the comments I have heard regarding sharpness and the TC20E by itself. By the way, this second image was processed with Raw Magick and I have not yet got the hang of the curves down, so if you notice any strange color casts, it is my fault entirely :oops: . I have not done anything "special" to either of these images.

Just more food for thought on the use of TC's. What do you folks think regarding the sharpness issue? Would you consider this to be OK?
 
Links on this page may be to our affiliates. Sales through affiliate links may benefit this site.
Nikon Cafe is a fan site and not associated with Nikon Corporation.
Forum post reactions by Twemoji: https://github.com/twitter/twemoji
Copyright © 2005-2019 Amin Forums, LLC
Top Bottom