100-300 vs. 50-200+1.4TC: surprised!

luisflorit wrote:

micksh6 wrote:

I was skeptical because people showed surprisingly good results with 50-200mm and 1.4x TC. For example, there was one thread about a week ago with full resolution pictures of small birds taken with 50-200mm + 1.4x TC at 200mm wide open. These were very sharp. According to your comparison it should be impossible.

How can you conclude such an "impossibility" from my test??

Because your images are way softer than what I saw before, full-res pictures with the same 50-200mm SWD lens and 1.4x converter. Now I can't find that thread althought I commented in it. It probably was deleted for some reasons.

Not sure why you keep arguing since you were presented with an example of how sharp your photos should be. This image in this post.

Did you read the follow ups?? The user pic is an OOC JPG, heavily processed by Oly, so completely different processing.

The image was not a OOC JPG, it was a RAW image converted by Olympus Viewer to tiff, but not processed in Olympus Viewer.  I think that the company that created the RAW file is in a better position to know what is needed to process that file, so I do not use LR or CS6 to convert the file to tiff.  However, I do prefer the flexibility of processing in LR and CS6 to Olympus Viewer, so I do any processing of the tiff file in one of those.  The tiff image was processed in LR 5.4 with sharpening 35 - radius .7, not what I would consider it heavily processed.  CS6 was used to simply save the jpg file and to crop to the equivalent size for comparison to the original image.  Since it is a RAW file, it can be processed any way that one chooses and no more heavily processed than using RawTherapee curves to modify the basic image. If I had the original image RAW file, I could easily process both in the same way for easy comparison.  I think the difference is in focus and that the EC14+50-200 in the original image needs Focus Adjustment.