I'm just trying out the 400mm 4.5 with 2.0 TC. Do you think these are acceptably sharp?
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
Sharp enough?
- Thread starter BCcanuck
- Start date
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).
It depends on the intended use but the first image looks a bit softer to me though to my eyes it appears more as motion blur than a soft lens and TC combo. The EXIF data is a bit confusing but did you shoot that handheld at 1/250" (10/2500")? If so that might not be the best way to test 800mm of lens even with a good VR system.
They were both shot as part of a series from a tripod/gimble at various shutter speeds with auto iso. It could well be motion blur, suffering as I do from PD, tremors are a constant problem. The first was 1/500, the seccond 1/250. Go figure? I plan to use this combo at a small creek on private land that is alive with warblers and affords me easy access to a ground blind. I tried a range of shuttter speeds to see what works best. I don't anticipate any shots of printable quality but was hopeful that the 2.0 TC would perform in a similar manner to the 1.4 TC. Wishful thinking perhaps? I will try a few more, ever the optimist!
I wouldn't rule out the use of the 2x TC, I've been pretty impressed how much better the 1.7x and 2x TCs work on mirrorless cameras compared to DSLRs. I would think about faster shutter speeds even if ISO suffers a bit, especially for small birds. If you can get away with it I'd also try stopping down even a third or two thirds of a stop as when I have used higher power TCs that often helps quite a bit with sharpness.
Thank's Dave, yet more excusus to press the shutter button
The second one is definitely sharp. The first one has apparent softness because the depth-of-field is so shallow that only the hands are in focus. The hands show the combination is sharp, it is just that the shallow area of focus means that even by the time yo get to the eyes they are a bit soft. A smaller aperture or a shift of the focus past the hands to the eyes would give it more apparent sharpness.
They look OK. I agree with DRWyoming the first one missed focus a little. The squirrels hands look sharp enough the eyes and face is a little soft. Could have been moving its head or maybe the focus just grabbed the feet instead. It happens.
Thank's guys. Today, when the resident Whitetails turn up at the bird feeder for lunch it's faster shutter speeds and smaller apertures. Now if I could just do something about this Z9 induced stupid grin on my face
Now if I could just do something about this Z9 induced stupid grin on my face
The "old" rule of thumb was that the shutter speed should be 1 over the focal length at a minimum. In this case = 1/800. Now a days it is recommended to double that! LOL! So I suggest you try to keep the shutter speed at 1/1600 and even higher when you have the light and are shooting moving subjects. Birds? Go with an even faster shutter speed.
Even on a tripod or monopod (which I use a lot), I try to shoot 1/ focal length minimum. I pretty much ignore the ISO since it is set to auto. Topaz DeNoise (and now the improved Lightroom) can fix the noise issue if you get them, but pronounced motion blur is a tougher fix.
Some relevant info: https://backcountrygallery.com/shutter-speeds-for-tack-sharp-bird-in-fight-photos/
Some relevant info: https://backcountrygallery.com/shutter-speeds-for-tack-sharp-bird-in-fight-photos/
BAL Land
Well-known member
Hard to tell since we have to downsize the photos here. I agree with others.
I think it’s pretty sharp as is…but a smidgeon of sharpening in Topaz just on the subject would alleviate any concerns. I plan on using the 2.0 with my 400/4.5 for reach when needed and the 1.4 most of the time and the 560 is definitely better than my 500PF was, the 800 when on the 2.0TC seems pretty pretty equivalent to the 500 inside the DX box…and weight is the issue for me, not interested in hiking with a heavier lens because that cuts down on what else I have besides the big lens and I don’t go on an outing intending to shoot xxx and not anything else, and the 800 alone is awful limiting in usable in the woods, at least for me.
This is another from the same series. I think this is more indicative of the potential of this lens/TC combo.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
That's a great quote! And a great way of thinking about it! May I also use it?Thank's Dave, yet more excusus to press the shutter button
Be my guestThat's a great quote! And a great way of thinking about it! May I also use it?
Nanakamado
Member
I like those photos, especially one with the bird.
Those with the squirell are nice, but it feels like the DOF is a bit to small, and background blur looks strange for me it is distracting, almost made me feel motion sick. I don't know why though...
Those with the squirell are nice, but it feels like the DOF is a bit to small, and background blur looks strange for me it is distracting, almost made me feel motion sick. I don't know why though...