Am I expecting too much from the TC @ 840 Nikon 600TC?

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

Member's gallery
Marcelo_R said:
I agree with JWest above, something's odd with your pictures.
Are you using Flickr by chance? If so, you could simply put the link to your picture at full size (just as I do), then, by simply clicking on the link under the picture posted, it'd go straight to the Flickr site and there it can be seen at all sizes uploaded.
Click to expand...
Did this. Here is another variation of the photo I uploaded. 45 minutes to sunset, no harsh light. No crop, bird-eye AF. monopod. SPT IBIS. I see something weird about the tail but maybe that's just me :)

https://flic.kr/p/2qZiioP

Added another FF for your reference. No edit whatsoever.

https://flic.kr/p/2qZi43F
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
This is quite different Adi. I suspect now that whatever you're seeing odd is mostly due to processing/editing. That's something you'll have to deal with in my humble opinion.

Beware of the noise reduction AI, those are sometimes doing more harm than good... need to be applied with care...
Krgds, Marcelo
 
Member's gallery
JWest said:
But that flicker link doesn't seem like a full size image. When clicked upon, it barely fills my screen.
Click to expand...
The original is there if you click the Download button and then View All Sizes button or you can download the original.

Not sure why it isn't showing all the intermediate sizes like 6K but it may be due to using a free Flickr account instead of a paid one.
 
Member's gallery
Marcelo_R said:
This is quite different Adi. I suspect now that whatever you're seeing odd is mostly due to processing/editing. That's something you'll have to deal with in my humble opinion.

Beware of the noise reduction AI, those are sometimes doing more harm than good... need to be applied with care...
Krgds, Marcelo
Click to expand...
Here is the same one without NR.

https://flic.kr/p/2qZi9DA

Also added cropped versions of the 600 and 840 to about the same size.

https://flic.kr/p/2qZcZSW
https://flic.kr/p/2qZiEer
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
Not on my desk now, but on the cellphonr screen seems a tad better. However, I guess some blown whites there, using spot measuring perhaps?

Again (with the precautions of looking at these on an iPhone screen) I think you can dig deeper with editing (check the focus point as well, seems to be on the bench more than in the eye?).
 
Member's gallery
Marcelo_R said:
Not on my desk now, but on the cellphonr screen seems a tad better. However, I guess some blown whites there, using spot measuring perhaps?

Again (with the precautions of looking at these on an iPhone screen) I think you can dig deeper with editing (check the focus point as well, seems to be on the bench more than in the eye?).
Click to expand...
Indeed Spot metering, definitely blown whites (didn't edit - just wanted to showcase). Both are locked precisely on the eye. To my eye (also when viewing straight from the camera) from the hundreds of photos I took this evening, the 600 seem to give more detail.
 
Member's gallery
Too bad Adi, once blown, it's irreversible to me...
I'm only using "highlight*" metering for everything, and I'm happy with it, no more blown whites, even with +1EV compensation!
 
Member's gallery
JWest said:
Something is going on here. Whether it's your method of processing or sizing for this website, but that is surprising me now. Just look at the post above of the black and white bird. Yours ought to be as sharp/focused/detailed and it's not the f5.6 causing it.

Do you have a way to share a raw file of that you just posted? I'd love to see what it is like as the actual image file. I have dropbox & I could set up a folder for you to use if you did want to try that route.
Click to expand...
Actually, I think the problem is motion blur. I believe the picture was taken just as the bird was quickly turning its head and a 1600 SS is not quick enough to stop that.
 
Member's gallery
DRwyoming said:
I think you're just dealing with issues from shooting across too much distance and atmospheric distortions in most of these images. In the case of the canine there's clearly out of focus foreground grasses which don't help sharpness but for several of these, especially the Kingfisher this looks like classic atmospheric distortion.

Going to a longer lens such as 840mm vs 600mm doesn't actually make atmospheric issues worse but when we reach for that extra glass because subjects are so far away as opposed to using the TC for very small subjects at moderate distances then we're more likely to run into atmospheric issues just due to the distances involved.

So yeah, based on these I'd say you're expecting too much in terms of slapping the TC on for distant subjects especially when shooting in the heat of the day.
Click to expand...
I have used the converter with a 600 on an SLR. You absolutely lose quality immediately. The further the bird is from the lens the more difficult it is to get pinsharp-ness. Losing stops with the converter means you are shooting at slower shutter speeds. At 840mm you will require a minimum shutter speed of about 1/850m (inversre rule). Most of the time you are much better off switching to DX and cropping accordingly rather than using the converter. You probably know this, anyway!
 
Member's gallery
I believe I had managed to pinpoint the issue. I went to a local hide near my place, a controlled environment, no harsh light, mounted on a tripod and ran some tests. The hooded crow was right in front of me for a while. I hope it can be seen through the Flickr images, the first image was with VR set to Sport. (Edited a bit of shadows and exposure, no NR, of course should have lowered the shutter speed, took the shots for the sake of the test).

https://flic.kr/p/2r1ERiJ


I then went on and set the internal VR to Off. I got satisfactory result.

https://flic.kr/p/2r1FEKZ

The difference in sharpness is very noticeable on my screen. (this one had the same edit as the previous)


Went on and experimented some more and was happy with the results and AF.

https://flic.kr/p/2r1nkfj
https://flic.kr/p/2r1GwMW
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
I sometimes have issues with atmospheric degradation but this image was taken with the 600 f4 with TC engaged. It's a fair-sized crop too. I think the sharpness is impressive all things considered. Photo was taken early morning with the sun behind a thin layer of clouds. It looks sharper still on Flikr:
https://flic.kr/p/2r1fui9
54480438498_5478c97d3a_o.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Member's gallery
If you're anything like me, subject distance is the culprit.

When I owned my 600TC, I rarely used the TC unless I was trying to bridge a significant gap in distance. This is the wrong way to use that lens (or any 800mm lens for that matter).

Your goal with the TC should be to enlarge an already reasonably sized-in-frame subject. Not to try and defeat the laws of physics and atmospherics.

From what I can tell, your first two images look as I would expect, while the latter 3 look very soft. I'd try examining the EXIF to see if you can determine subject distance, or recall how far away you were when you took the image.

You may also consider how much cropping is involved as well. If you're using the TC AND cropping, you should expect significant loss of sharpness.
 
Member's gallery
nmerc_photos said:
If you're anything like me, subject distance is the culprit.

When I owned my 600TC, I rarely used the TC unless I was trying to bridge a significant gap in distance. This is the wrong way to use that lens (or any 800mm lens for that matter).

Your goal with the TC should be to enlarge an already reasonably sized-in-frame subject. Not to try and defeat the laws of physics and atmospherics.

From what I can tell, your first two images look as I would expect, while the latter 3 look very soft. I'd try examining the EXIF to see if you can determine subject distance, or recall how far away you were when you took the image.

You may also consider how much cropping is involved as well. If you're using the TC AND cropping, you should expect significant loss of sharpness.
Click to expand...
Hi, to which images are you referring to?

There wasn't much cropping in any of the photos published in this thread. (except one message to bring the 600 to the 840 size for sharpness comparison)
 
Member's gallery
Both shots below taken from the exact same spot, seconds apart, TC engaged vs. bare. Default sharpening in LR, cropped to get the Robin similar size, which may not be the best way to compare since the 840mm image will have more pixels on target, but it's also valuable to see for the "do I use a TC or just crop" crowd. To my eye, the images look nearly the same IQ-wise.
NIKON Z 8untitled_20250325_164-2.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.

NIKON Z 8untitled_20250325_189-2.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top