Sony FE 2.0x teleconverter

[dcstep]

I don't understand why everyone isn't giving this teleconverter 4 or 5-stars. I'm using it on my FE 100-400mm f/4.5-5.6 GM OSS and FE 400mm f/2.8 GM OSS, with an a9 body, an a7RIII and a 6400. The image quality is excellent. Here's a shot with the 400mm on the a9:

Not only is the IQ great, but the AF speed is fast enough for bird-in-flight at 30-mph, as below:

Is suspect user error from those giving this incredible piece of equipment a low review.

--
Dave

 

[jonpais]

maybe because a micro four thirds sensor with a $200 lens could do better. Those shots are incredibly soft. Thanks, I know now I'll never get that teleconverter.

LOL Post your samples...

Here you go...

Heavily cropped but you get the idea... was from a Jpeg so sharpening a bit strong.

That's more like it. And your Robert Capa quote couldn't be more apropos.

--

The Daejeon Chronicles

The number one resource for information about HDR technology, workflows, tutorials, news and opinion.

jonpais.wordpress.com

 

[Paul Barnard]

Really nice images that certainly demonstrate the benefits of being closer but not demonstrating equivalency to an FF 800mm shot. It's like posting a macro image to compare detail with a standard portrait.

 

[jonpais]

Really nice images that certainly demonstrate the benefits of being closer but not demonstrating equivalency to an FF 800mm shot. It's like posting a macro image to compare detail with a standard portrait.

1) he also demonstrates that he knows how to shoot.

2) his pictures show what real detail looks like.

3) the other shots don't have true detail.

4) another good place to look is Mark Smith's blog and videos. His images all have amazing detail, stunning color, and the birds actually engage our interest.

Lumix GH5, Veydra 85mm T2.2 Mini Prime, in-camera sharpening dialed down as far as it would go, no sharpening added in post, screen grab from 4K video.

ditto.





--
http://jonpais.wordpress.com

 

[tommiejeep]

Danny , I agree and well said however, people shoot for different reasons. I started shooting birds because I liked being out in nature and not many wild animals about in my area. Due to loss of habitat I shoot mostly in paddy fields and backwaters where distances are great. I really like shooting behaviour so with Raptors in particular, much happens at distance.

I know I often overshoot the gear. I can get close to Herons, Egrets and some small birds including Kingfishers, With film I was very concerned about wasting shoots but I will shoot eagles fighting at 1000 ft. I am not worried about clicks or stunning images.

Shooting a7iii with 70-200 means looking for different shots and what I call birdscapes.

Fieldcraft, and picking, locations is often worth a large amount of Lens mms . I often see the atmospherics in the VF . Dust and pollution often and heavy air I can feel . I would really like more days with diffused light and some great texture.

I said at least twice, if people like the TC 2 and the trade offs, then good for them.

Not a great image but one I like on a Monsoon day with very changing conditions

Only bird hunting and well over 50 mtrs . He was grabbing big Grasshoppers



--
Anticipate the Light and wing it when you get it wrong but always have fun
Tom

Message | Nikonians

Showcase your images. Share with family, friends and colleagues. Improve your skills by asking for image advice.

images.nikonians.org

 

[Foto4x4]

Really nice images that certainly demonstrate the benefits of being closer but not demonstrating equivalency to an FF 800mm shot. It's like posting a macro image to compare detail with a standard portrait.

I was simply responding to dcstep's "post your photos" to jonpais's suggestion the a M4/3 with a cheap lens could take good images of a BIF and feather detail. As for 800mm comparisons, maybe you missed that this image in a later post was taken at 400mm, 800mm FoV in FF. I think it shows pretty clearly that M4/3 should not be sneezed at. That camera and lens is much lighter and less costly than an A7Riii + 100-400GM + TC. It also has much better IS whether using the lenses OIS or EM1.2's IBIS (which doesn't matter for BIF but still true). It's the reason I keep this combo despite being predominantly a FF shooter now. I'm not entering into the 2xTC debate. I don't have one nor likely to get one as the 100-400 isn't on my horizon. I'm simply showing some examples that show that most gear handled well can provide rewarding images.

As for being closer, I don't push that fact with my signature for no reason. If your lens doesn't have the reach or there's too much atmosphere to get a clear shot, I make no apology for getting as close as possible ahead of simply using zoom power to get a shot.

Full size this time...

Clearly though there are times when reach is needed, but so is technique. Good image quality is as much if not more of the latter as is the gear and I think my images demonstrate that yet I don't profess to be anywhere good enough... yet.

This is taken at 200mm and cropped on my A7RII + 70-200/f4G.

Let's keep it fun...

--
Quote: “If your pictures aren’t good enough, you’re not close enough.”, Robert Capa

 

[Foto4x4]

Danny , I agree and well said however, people shoot for different reasons. I started shooting birds because I liked being out in nature and not many wild animals about in my area. Due to loss of habitat I shoot mostly in paddy fields and backwaters where distances are great. I really like shooting behaviour so with Raptors in particular, much happens at distance.

I know I often overshoot the gear. I can get close to Herons, Egrets and some small birds including Kingfishers, With film I was very concerned about wasting shoots but I will shoot eagles fighting at 1000 ft. I am not worried about clicks or stunning images.

Shooting a7iii with 70-200 means looking for different shots and what I call birdscapes.

Fieldcraft, and picking, locations is often worth a large amount of Lens mms . I often see the atmospherics in the VF . Dust and pollution often and heavy air I can feel . I would really like more days with diffused light and some great texture.

I said at least twice, if people like the TC 2 and the trade offs, then good for them.

Not a great image but one I like on a Monsoon day with very changing conditions

Only bird hunting and well over 50 mtrs . He was grabbing big Grasshoppers

Super capture Tommie... and I understand your points. Like I just said late in my post, sometimes you just got to have reach!

--
Quote: “If your pictures aren’t good enough, you’re not close enough.”, Robert Capa

 

[Paul Barnard]

Really nice images that certainly demonstrate the benefits of being closer but not demonstrating equivalency to an FF 800mm shot. It's like posting a macro image to compare detail with a standard portrait.

I was simply responding to dcstep's "post your photos" to jonpais's suggestion the a M4/3 with a cheap lens could take good images of a BIF and feather detail. As for 800mm comparisons, maybe you missed that this image in a later post was taken at 400mm, 800mm FoV in FF. I think it shows pretty clearly that M4/3 should not be sneezed at. That camera and lens is much lighter and less costly than an A7Riii + 100-400GM + TC. It also has much better IS whether using the lenses OIS or EM1.2's IBIS (which doesn't matter for BIF but still true). It's the reason I keep this combo despite being predominantly a FF shooter now. I'm not entering into the 2xTC debate. I don't have one nor likely to get one as the 100-400 isn't on my horizon. I'm simply showing some examples that show that most gear handled well can provide rewarding images.

As for being closer, I don't push that fact with my signature for no reason. If your lens doesn't have the reach or there's too much atmosphere to get a clear shot, I make no apology for getting as close as possible ahead of simply using zoom power to get a shot.

Full size this time...

Clearly though there are times when reach is needed, but so is technique. Good image quality is as much if not more of the latter as is the gear and I think my images demonstrate that yet I don't profess to be anywhere good enough... yet.

This is taken at 200mm and cropped on my A7RII + 70-200/f4G.

Let's keep it fun...

--
Quote: “If your pictures aren’t good enough, you’re not close enough.”, Robert Capa

Completely agree about keeping it fun but do find it a bit disingenuous when criticism of apples leads to oranges presented as good examples. The thread is about TC2 on 100-400 with examples at the long end provided. Of course they are going to lack detail compared to 200mm. I don’t think anyone ever doubted that. This wasn’t about what constitutes a good Bird images, I understood it to be someone’s review of the TC2.

 

[nzmacro]

Danny , I agree and well said however, people shoot for different reasons. I started shooting birds because I liked being out in nature and not many wild animals about in my area. Due to loss of habitat I shoot mostly in paddy fields and backwaters where distances are great. I really like shooting behaviour so with Raptors in particular, much happens at distance.

I know I often overshoot the gear. I can get close to Herons, Egrets and some small birds including Kingfishers, With film I was very concerned about wasting shoots but I will shoot eagles fighting at 1000 ft. I am not worried about clicks or stunning images.

Shooting a7iii with 70-200 means looking for different shots and what I call birdscapes.

Fieldcraft, and picking, locations is often worth a large amount of Lens mms . I often see the atmospherics in the VF . Dust and pollution often and heavy air I can feel . I would really like more days with diffused light and some great texture.

I said at least twice, if people like the TC 2 and the trade offs, then good for them.

Not a great image but one I like on a Monsoon day with very changing conditions

Only bird hunting and well over 50 mtrs . He was grabbing big Grasshoppers

Nice shot Tom. Beautiful diving angle on that one and nice wing spread.

I quite often take shots that are far out as well. The difference is I don't expect to see fine feathering details at a long distance and also when cropped after. A lot of people do and that's the issue. If they want to see fine details, then keep it close. They post up a shot and wonder why they get a hard time with a lack of details while saying how good something is.

I like the 3 formats for the differing crop factors Tom. M4/3 for when I can't get too close to a subject (not the same as shooting a long distance) and it has darn good IQ for the crop factor. FF and that's used when I go where I know the birds just fly by far too close for m4/3. APS-C is bang in the middle and an excellent format all round IMO. A nice balance Tom.

Film was totally difference for sure mate. The cost of K25 or K64 was a killer at the time and we were stuck with cameras that had a top shutter speed of 1/500 - 1/1000. My how things have changed. Frame rate of 1 shot every 1-2 seconds in the early days of SLR's

All the best Tom and yep, I still take far off shots, but I know what will happen and expect it ;-)

Danny.

--
------------
Birds and BIF's https://www.flickr.com/photos/124733969@N06/sets/
Need for speed https://www.flickr.com/photos/130646821@N03/albums

 

[Foto4x4]

Really nice images that certainly demonstrate the benefits of being closer but not demonstrating equivalency to an FF 800mm shot. It's like posting a macro image to compare detail with a standard portrait.

1) he also demonstrates that he knows how to shoot.

2) his pictures show what real detail looks like.

That's very kind, thanks!

 

[jonpais]

I think it's important here to establish what exactly detail, texture and resolution are - and whether it's necessary to link to Mark Smith's images or rely on a forum member to volunteer to share their own bird images, that's a good starting point. TCs are used by wildlife photographers so should be able to deliver detail and texture.

https://www.marksmithgallery.com/Costa-Rica-Image-Gallery/Costa-Rica-Wildlife-Image-Gallery/i-RTsZCKV/A

--
http://jonpais.wordpress.com

 

[Foto4x4]

Completely agree about keeping it fun but do find it a bit disingenuous when criticism of apples leads to oranges presented as good examples. The thread is about TC2 on 100-400 with examples at the long end provided. Of course they are going to lack detail compared to 200mm. I don’t think anyone ever doubted that. This wasn’t about what constitutes a good Bird images, I understood it to be someone’s review of the TC2.

I understand your point Paul, but it was the OP who asked for examples of M4/3 images... I simply provided some. He should have expected to get responses. And so should you. Okay? If it helps David see what can be done and helps him improve his photography then it has achieved some good. Only reason I'm posting in the thread.

As for what constitutes good bird images, I'm afraid they weren't good ones dcsteps used in his opening post. But he seemed happy with them. Others disagreed and and offered opinions. If it wasn't the TC, then it was technique. Looking at other examples of the 2xTC, I think it is fair to say its not the best TC around. So it was probably both.

 

[tommiejeep]

" but I know what will happen and expect it " , yup, I took this just to see what it was catching and needed the big screen , old eyes

full ooc

and the crop

Edit: shooting in the paddy fields is interesting , I can often see the moisture rising from the Dew and on the dirt tracks, the shimmering heat up to about 5 feet above the track. By 09:30 it is often too hot which is why I bought the 300 f4D .

--
Anticipate the Light and wing it when you get it wrong but always have fun
Tom
http://images.nikonians.org/galleries/showgallery.php/cat/500/ppuser/165169

 

[nzmacro]

" but I know what will happen and expect it " , yup, I took this just to see what it was catching and needed the big screen , old eyes

full ooc

and the crop

Edit: shooting in the paddy fields is interesting , I can often see the moisture rising from the Dew and on the dirt tracks, the shimmering heat up to about 5 feet above the track. By 09:30 it is often too hot which is why I bought the 300 f4D .

Ha, darn good for a crop that size Tom. Yeah that heat can cause issues for sure, water, land, air, its still there and that's where it doesn't matter what you use camera or lens wise, it's a barrier for sure and at least we expect it. It's those that don't that are the problem and end up blaming the gear most of the time ;-)

All the best Tom and still excellent for a crop like that.

Danny.

--
------------
Birds and BIF's https://www.flickr.com/photos/124733969@N06/sets/
Need for speed https://www.flickr.com/photos/130646821@N03/albums

 

[Paul Barnard]

Completely agree about keeping it fun but do find it a bit disingenuous when criticism of apples leads to oranges presented as good examples. The thread is about TC2 on 100-400 with examples at the long end provided. Of course they are going to lack detail compared to 200mm. I don’t think anyone ever doubted that. This wasn’t about what constitutes a good Bird images, I understood it to be someone’s review of the TC2.

I understand your point Paul, but it was the OP who asked for examples of M4/3 images... I simply provided some. He should have expected to get responses. And so should you. Okay? If it helps David see what can be done and helps him improve his photography then it has achieved some good. Only reason I'm posting in the thread.

As for what constitutes good bird images, I'm afraid they weren't good ones dcsteps used in his opening post. But he seemed happy with them. Others disagreed and and offered opinions. If it wasn't the TC, then it was technique. Looking at other examples of the 2xTC, I think it is fair to say its not the best TC around. So it was probably both.

I have no problem with all you say except to me it looked like the OP was asking for equivalent images, i.e. BIF at FF 800 from M4/3 with $200 lens. That's what Jon seemed to be claiming after he had criticised the OP so strongly. Anyway it's all water under the bridge.

The OP acknowledge the short comings of his images and offered up better examples later in the thread.

The TC2 is not so bad when used in the right conditions. I had a personal battle with it and have got to grips with where it works and doesn't work. Unfortunately there were people chiming in with very disparaging comments and wild statements based on no experience beyond seeming to want to make personal attacks. I guess that's par for the course here but does get a bit tiring.

 

[Foto4x4]

All good...

 

[pizdets17]

75-300 shots were pretty terrible. Is the 100-400 m4/3 a $200 lens?

I must be high then... I already posted some on the cheap 75-300ii. Just wanted to show you what a 100-400 M4/3 lens can do which is already a 2x. These are resampled too. Let me know if you want the full-res ones.

I think you should reread your own statement and I quote you... “Each to their own but having not owned it you should probably just be quiet instead of making blanket statements.”

Nice shots of the eagle and owl by the way.

I would say the 2x works fine. A7r3 100-400gm w/2x. You are high if you think an $200 lens on a 4/3 camera can do this. By the way, these were shot in crop mode as well. Each to their own but having not owned it you should probably just be quiet instead of making blanket statements.

Pity there isn’t any exif data. There is a lot of grain in the background suggesting high iso.

That, along with humungous crop and perhaps even sharpening added in post. )

 

[pizdets17]

some sooc examples for those saying there is no exif data or sharpening applied. Distance from subject plays a big role. 5' away any lens will look good.

 

[Foto4x4]

75-300 shots were pretty terrible. Is the 100-400 m4/3 a $200 lens?

I never said it was. Your post is nothing more than a nark. Grow up.

I must be high then... I already posted some on the cheap 75-300ii. Just wanted to show you what a 100-400 M4/3 lens can do which is already a 2x. These are resampled too. Let me know if you want the full-res ones.

I think you should reread your own statement and I quote you... “Each to their own but having not owned it you should probably just be quiet instead of making blanket statements.”

Nice shots of the eagle and owl by the way.

You clearly missed my compliment... oh well...

 

[Foto4x4]

some sooc examples for those saying there is no exif data or sharpening applied. Distance from subject plays a big role. 5' away any lens will look good.

While we’re at it, exif says these were processed in Lightroom 8.2 Classic. But I’ll accept you probably cropped them there. And here’s the moon from the PanyLeica100-400. Looks pretty good to me...

Now, let’s cut the BS and stay polite...

--
Quote: “If your pictures aren’t good enough, you’re not close enough.”, Robert Capa

 

[pizdets17]

That image looks good. As it should for the lens price. My original response was to the guy who said that $200 4/3 lens will do the same (or better) job as the 100-400gm with a 2x.

some sooc examples for those saying there is no exif data or sharpening applied. Distance from subject plays a big role. 5' away any lens will look good.

While we’re at it, exif says these were processed in Lightroom 8.2 Classic. But I’ll accept you probably cropped them there. And here’s the moon from the PanyLeica100-400. Looks pretty good to me...

Now, let’s cut the BS and stay polite...