That wouldn't surprise me based on my experience with the 40-150 Pro and the 1.4x TC. From what I've seen the TC is basically worthless, I get similar or sharper results cropping and upsizing the bare lens than by attaching the TC.
VERY interesting! I guess the better the lens, the least necessary is the TC.That wouldn't surprise me based on my experience with the 40-150 Pro and the 1.4x TC. From what I've seen the TC is basically worthless, I get similar or sharper results cropping and upsizing the bare lens than by attaching the TC.
I haven't done any direct comparisons between the 300mm with and without the MC14, but I did take thousands of hummingbird photos this summer and based on the images, I generally preferred the 300mm images with the MC14 as long as I was within 10 feet of the bird. There was excellent detail and the lower ISO from being able to use f4 helped greatly. However, as the distance increased, I preferred the 420mm images . I think this was caused by lack of detail for the small hummingbird with the 16MP sensor at the longer distances. I don't know if the new E-M1 with the 20MP sensor would change my preferences.VERY interesting! I guess the better the lens, the least necessary is the TC.That wouldn't surprise me based on my experience with the 40-150 Pro and the 1.4x TC. From what I've seen the TC is basically worthless, I get similar or sharper results cropping and upsizing the bare lens than by attaching the TC.
I owe you $350. Thanks!
L.
--
My gallery: http://luis.impa.br/photo
I've done quite a few tests. From what I've seen the TC does it's job as expected. You may also have to be careful that apparent sharpening from upsizing images doesn't skew your results. That image shown will display that sort of effect.That wouldn't surprise me based on my experience with the 40-150 Pro and the 1.4x TC. From what I've seen the TC is basically worthless, I get similar or sharper results cropping and upsizing the bare lens than by attaching the TC.
Definitely not a sharpening issue as both are similarly upscaled with identical settings. I think it's more likely that it's either a sample variation issue or a subject distance issue. If you look at the numbers though, both Lenstip and Photozone see a similar behavior to what I'm seeing. In addition, if I look at the corners then it looks even worse for the TC. Also, since I didn't mention it before these are all taken with electronic shutter with a 5 second delay on a systematic tripod/markins ballhead using a Pen-F with the camera attached using an arca plate on the tripod ring.I've done quite a few tests. From what I've seen the TC does it's job as expected. You may also have to be careful that apparent sharpening from upsizing images doesn't skew your results. That image shown will display that sort of effect.That wouldn't surprise me based on my experience with the 40-150 Pro and the 1.4x TC. From what I've seen the TC is basically worthless, I get similar or sharper results cropping and upsizing the bare lens than by attaching the TC.
https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3952684
It would be great if you can post two images in a controlled test, with and without the tc upsized to compare.I haven't done any direct comparisons between the 300mm with and without the MC14, but I did take thousands of hummingbird photos this summer and based on the images, I generally preferred the 300mm images with the MC14 as long as I was within 10 feet of the bird. There was excellent detail and the lower ISO from being able to use f4 helped greatly. However, as the distance increased, I preferred the 420mm images . I think this was caused by lack of detail for the small hummingbird with the 16MP sensor at the longer distances. I don't know if the new E-M1 with the 20MP sensor would change my preferences.VERY interesting! I guess the better the lens, the least necessary is the TC.That wouldn't surprise me based on my experience with the 40-150 Pro and the 1.4x TC. From what I've seen the TC is basically worthless, I get similar or sharper results cropping and upsizing the bare lens than by attaching the TC.
I owe you $350. Thanks!
L.
--
My gallery: http://luis.impa.br/photo
Are you just looking for the full images rather than crops or are you looking for the images before and after upscaling?
I do not have the 40-150 f2.8, but I have used the EC14+50-200 SWD (I did comparison tests) and I did not find any images that were poorer with that TC/lens, than images upsized without the TC when the ISO and aperture were the same. In some cases the TC did not produce a better image, but never a poorer one.
EDIT: Woops, forgot to add that these particular samples are done using Hi-Res mode on the Pen-F. Regular shots tell the same story but Hi-Res mode really makes the differences easier to see.
It could be both original images. After that, I will crop one to match the view of the other, and then upsize it to match sizes, as I did above.
The Zuiko EC14 was a stellar TC, not so much the EC20.I do not have the 40-150 f2.8, but I have used the EC14+50-200 SWD (I did comparison tests) and I did not find any images that were poorer with that TC/lens, than images upsized without the TC when the ISO and aperture were the same. In some cases the TC did not produce a better image, but never a poorer one.
EDIT: Woops, forgot to add that these particular samples are done using Hi-Res mode on the Pen-F. Regular shots tell the same story but Hi-Res mode really makes the differences easier to see.
The point is which is the sharpest...
Interesting, I hadn't noticed any artifacts. Are you seeing them in the RAW or JPGs? I'm not quite seeing it but I can redo the test to make sure.
Jpgs.
It is strange. The upsized image looks sharper, but the TC one shows details that are not in the other one. It seems to me that HiRes is not a good way to measure lens sharpness. Too much digital manipulation maybe...
I compared your F4 images, with and without the TC at 150mm and 210mm. They look extremely noisy for ISO200 shots, and your upscaled image shows horrendous CA, moiree, sharpening halos and other sharpening artifacts compared to the unscaled image. No doubt the image was heavily processed (either by you, or by your software without your "permission", or the software used a very bad algorithm when upsizing), so it is hard to judge from your tests:
