Sony FE 2.0x teleconverter

jonpais said:

pizdets17 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Before you accuse anyone of being on drugs buddy, I was clearly referring to the fuzzy pictures posted by the OP where you cannot even see the birds’ feathers; his failure to disclose that he returned his first TC because, according to him, it was of poor optical quality; and his suggestion that others here were incompetent.. Blanket statements means generalizations, and I was specifically talking about the OP’s previous review, the one here at DPReview, and the photos the OP shared. Quite obviously his technique leaves much to be desired. And for what it’s worth, I do have micro 4/3 videos that have more real detail than the OP’s bird shots.

Click to expand...

pizdets17 said:

Are those videos at 1200mm lol?

Click to expand...

pizdets17 said:

jonpais said:

pizdets17 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Before you accuse anyone of being on drugs buddy, I was clearly referring to the fuzzy pictures posted by the OP where you cannot even see the birds’ feathers; his failure to disclose that he returned his first TC because, according to him, it was of poor optical quality; and his suggestion that others here were incompetent.. Blanket statements means generalizations, and I was specifically talking about the OP’s previous review, the one here at DPReview, and the photos the OP shared. Quite obviously his technique leaves much to be desired. And for what it’s worth, I do have micro 4/3 videos that have more real detail than the OP’s bird shots.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

jonpais said:

pizdets17 said:

Are those videos at 1200mm lol?

Click to expand...

makes no difference to you. My criticism was not of Sony’s TC but the OP’s methodology.

jonpais said:

jonpais said:

pizdets17 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Before you accuse anyone of being on drugs buddy, I was clearly referring to the fuzzy pictures posted by the OP where you cannot even see the birds’ feathers; his failure to disclose that he returned his first TC because, according to him, it was of poor optical quality; and his suggestion that others here were incompetent.. Blanket statements means generalizations, and I was specifically talking about the OP’s previous review, the one here at DPReview, and the photos the OP shared. Quite obviously his technique leaves much to be desired. And for what it’s worth, I do have micro 4/3 videos that have more real detail than the OP’s bird shots.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

pizdets17 said:

well since the 100-400 with 2x in crop mode gives you 1200mm, I would love to know which magic 4/3 setup gives you this for $200. I'll wait.

jonpais said:

pizdets17 said:

Are those videos at 1200mm lol?

Click to expand...

makes no difference to you. My criticism was not of Sony’s TC but the OP’s methodology.

pizdets17 said:

jonpais said:

pizdets17 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Before you accuse anyone of being on drugs buddy, I was clearly referring to the fuzzy pictures posted by the OP where you cannot even see the birds’ feathers; his failure to disclose that he returned his first TC because, according to him, it was of poor optical quality; and his suggestion that others here were incompetent.. Blanket statements means generalizations, and I was specifically talking about the OP’s previous review, the one here at DPReview, and the photos the OP shared. Quite obviously his technique leaves much to be desired. And for what it’s worth, I do have micro 4/3 videos that have more real detail than the OP’s bird shots.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

dcstep said:

Momocimac said:

jonpais said:

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.

Click to expand...

Why so salty?

The photos look soft maybe because the way they're compressed.

dcstep said:

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:

Click to expand...

OP - knowing you're just sharing your experience with the teleconverter, posting full-size images is not obligated. But it'd be really helpful to see them in full size and other users can use them as a reference.

Click to expand...

Okay, here they are:





Hope that helps.

BTW, when I hover over the images with my cursor, it shows the EXIF.

Click to expand...

Home

Giuseppe Gessa. Nature and Wildlife photography. Fotografia naturalistica, Wildlife photography in Sardinia

www.giuseppegessa.com

nzmacro said:

The wall exists in exactly the same place for every format and lens. It happens over water, sand, earth and thin air. Lenses are fine until it hits that wall with atmospherics, haze, lack of details, etc.

Click to expand...

dcstep said:

jonpais said:

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.

Click to expand...

LOL Post your samples...

Click to expand...

nzmacro said:

I'll keep away from some of the obvious hot comments in here ;-) but would like to add something.

First off I use 300 F/2.8, 500 F/4.5 and 800 F/5.6 on FF, APS-C and m4/3. Each format offers something the others don't. That's out of the way. Don't give me one format is better than the other, they are not. They are just different.

Next is .... THE WALL

The wall exists in exactly the same place for every format and lens. It happens over water, sand, earth and thin air. Lenses are fine until it hits that wall with atmospherics, haze, lack of details, etc. Doesn't matter what you use, it's there and it does show with a lack of details and especially in feathering details.

If we shoot beyond that wall and still need to crop (who doesn't) then it gets even worse, now add in a TC to multiply that effect and bang, you basically have a very un-detailed shot. People do this all the time and push the boundaries of what they should be doing with tele lenses IMO.

So keep long tele lenses close, that's where the details are, that's where they shine. With 500mm on any format I won't push the shutter button at over 40-50 meters, with the 800mm at a push I will stretch that to around 75-80 meters. Over that and it's a waste of a shot trying to get details out of it and also considering we still need to crop further in PP.

Use tele lenses to fill the frame more with the bird rather than trying for just reaching to where that damn wall is.

All the best and just IMO.

Danny.

Click to expand...

dcstep said:

My initial samples really were good test shots. They were taken in field conditions, one in low light and high ISO and the other was a bird flying obliquely to the camera at 30-mph.

Here are two pictures, taken with the a7RIII, the FE 400mm f/2.8 GM OSS, bare and with the FE 2.0x converter. I cropped the bare lens picture 50% to equal the coverage of the 800mm set-up. Unfortunately, I inadvertently shot the 400mm image at f/5.0 instead of f/5.6, so I brought its EV down in RAW conversion.

I'd uploaded the previous sample from Flickr. When I compared my files off my computer to those on Flickr, the Flickr images were lacking detail, perhaps due to compression. So, I uploaded these straight from my computer:

Bare lens cropped 50%


FE 400mm f/2.8 GM OSS cropped 50%

400mm plus FE 2.0x teleconverter, uncropped, except to make square.


FE 400mm f/2.8 GM OSS plus FE 2.0x teleconverter, uncropped

See what you think, given this much better controlled comparison.

Click to expand...

dcstep said:

dcstep said:

My initial samples really were good test shots. They were taken in field conditions, one in low light and high ISO and the other was a bird flying obliquely to the camera at 30-mph.

Here are two pictures, taken with the a7RIII, the FE 400mm f/2.8 GM OSS, bare and with the FE 2.0x converter. I cropped the bare lens picture 50% to equal the coverage of the 800mm set-up. Unfortunately, I inadvertently shot the 400mm image at f/5.0 instead of f/5.6, so I brought its EV down in RAW conversion.

I'd uploaded the previous sample from Flickr. When I compared my files off my computer to those on Flickr, the Flickr images were lacking detail, perhaps due to compression. So, I uploaded these straight from my computer:

Bare lens cropped 50%


FE 400mm f/2.8 GM OSS cropped 50%

400mm plus FE 2.0x teleconverter, uncropped, except to make square.


FE 400mm f/2.8 GM OSS plus FE 2.0x teleconverter, uncropped

See what you think, given this much better controlled comparison.

Click to expand...

The battle rages, meantime, I've posted an update, with more controlled pix, but no one seems to have noticed it. I'm not sure how to reposition it in the thread. Maybe this bump will cause some combatants to notice it.

Click to expand...

nzmacro said:

dcstep said:

dcstep said:

My initial samples really were good test shots. They were taken in field conditions, one in low light and high ISO and the other was a bird flying obliquely to the camera at 30-mph.

Here are two pictures, taken with the a7RIII, the FE 400mm f/2.8 GM OSS, bare and with the FE 2.0x converter. I cropped the bare lens picture 50% to equal the coverage of the 800mm set-up. Unfortunately, I inadvertently shot the 400mm image at f/5.0 instead of f/5.6, so I brought its EV down in RAW conversion.

I'd uploaded the previous sample from Flickr. When I compared my files off my computer to those on Flickr, the Flickr images were lacking detail, perhaps due to compression. So, I uploaded these straight from my computer:

Bare lens cropped 50%


FE 400mm f/2.8 GM OSS cropped 50%

400mm plus FE 2.0x teleconverter, uncropped, except to make square.


FE 400mm f/2.8 GM OSS plus FE 2.0x teleconverter, uncropped

See what you think, given this much better controlled comparison.

Click to expand...

The battle rages, meantime, I've posted an update, with more controlled pix, but no one seems to have noticed it. I'm not sure how to reposition it in the thread. Maybe this bump will cause some combatants to notice it.

Click to expand...

I wouldn't combat the IQ of those shots above there Dave or the TC, although it does have slight CA, but not a lot compared to other 2x TC's.

They are also taken with the A7R III and the not the A9 24mp sensor.

What I haven't seen and it's an important one, is with the BIF in original post, how much cropping is going on. Looking at the shot I would say a fair bit and if that's the case, you are doing the TC no favours. The Pelican shot ..... IMO, is just too far out to get maximum details out of it.

You don't have to of course, but seeing that BIF un-cropped would be helpful. The thing is, you can't crop too much without the shot falling to bits in details and that's not a fair comparison for the TC. Close and like any other bare tele lens, it will be sharp as you've shown.

All the best Dave.

Danny.

Click to expand...

nzmacro said:

I'll keep away from some of the obvious hot comments in here ;-) but would like to add something.

First off I use 300 F/2.8, 500 F/4.5 and 800 F/5.6 on FF, APS-C and m4/3. Each format offers something the others don't. That's out of the way. Don't give me one format is better than the other, they are not. They are just different.

Next is .... THE WALL

The wall exists in exactly the same place for every format and lens. It happens over water, sand, earth and thin air. Lenses are fine until it hits that wall with atmospherics, haze, lack of details, etc. Doesn't matter what you use, it's there and it does show with a lack of details and especially in feathering details.

If we shoot beyond that wall and still need to crop (who doesn't) then it gets even worse, now add in a TC to multiply that effect and bang, you basically have a very un-detailed shot. People do this all the time and push the boundaries of what they should be doing with tele lenses IMO.

So keep long tele lenses close, that's where the details are, that's where they shine. With 500mm on any format I won't push the shutter button at over 40-50 meters, with the 800mm at a push I will stretch that to around 75-80 meters. Over that and it's a waste of a shot trying to get details out of it and also considering we still need to crop further in PP.

Use tele lenses to fill the frame more with the bird rather than trying for just reaching to where that damn wall is.

All the best and just IMO.

Danny.

Click to expand...

jonpais said:

pizdets17 said:

well since the 100-400 with 2x in crop mode gives you 1200mm, I would love to know which magic 4/3 setup gives you this for $200. I'll wait.

jonpais said:

pizdets17 said:

Are those videos at 1200mm lol?

Click to expand...

makes no difference to you. My criticism was not of Sony’s TC but the OP’s methodology.

jonpais said:

jonpais said:

pizdets17 said:

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.

Click to expand...

Before you accuse anyone of being on drugs buddy, I was clearly referring to the fuzzy pictures posted by the OP where you cannot even see the birds’ feathers; his failure to disclose that he returned his first TC because, according to him, it was of poor optical quality; and his suggestion that others here were incompetent.. Blanket statements means generalizations, and I was specifically talking about the OP’s previous review, the one here at DPReview, and the photos the OP shared. Quite obviously his technique leaves much to be desired. And for what it’s worth, I do have micro 4/3 videos that have more real detail than the OP’s bird shots.

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

You will wait a long time buddy. Because you just don’t get it. I never uttered a word about the TC being inferior, so why don’t you pack it up?

Click to expand...

Rachael P said:

nzmacro said:

I'll keep away from some of the obvious hot comments in here ;-) but would like to add something.

First off I use 300 F/2.8, 500 F/4.5 and 800 F/5.6 on FF, APS-C and m4/3. Each format offers something the others don't. That's out of the way. Don't give me one format is better than the other, they are not. They are just different.

Next is .... THE WALL

The wall exists in exactly the same place for every format and lens. It happens over water, sand, earth and thin air. Lenses are fine until it hits that wall with atmospherics, haze, lack of details, etc. Doesn't matter what you use, it's there and it does show with a lack of details and especially in feathering details.

If we shoot beyond that wall and still need to crop (who doesn't) then it gets even worse, now add in a TC to multiply that effect and bang, you basically have a very un-detailed shot. People do this all the time and push the boundaries of what they should be doing with tele lenses IMO.

So keep long tele lenses close, that's where the details are, that's where they shine. With 500mm on any format I won't push the shutter button at over 40-50 meters, with the 800mm at a push I will stretch that to around 75-80 meters. Over that and it's a waste of a shot trying to get details out of it and also considering we still need to crop further in PP.

Use tele lenses to fill the frame more with the bird rather than trying for just reaching to where that damn wall is.

All the best and just IMO.

Danny.

Click to expand...

This is eerie timing! I was out this morning with an A7Riii and Sigma 150-600, and although I could get nice shots close up of sitting birds, I couldn't get any reasonable shots at all of BIF (which were mostly buzzards and marsh harriers). This was a surprise because I've done much better at the same site over the last few months. Spent some time going through them, and then a light came on, and I went "Aaah!". Atmospherics. Today was positively warm, and it's clear (or perhaps muddy) that it was the atmosphere that was wrong, and not the kit. Phew, that's a relief. Anyway, good to see my diagnosis confirmed here. A lesson learnt.

Click to expand...

dcstep said:

jonpais said:

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.

Click to expand...

LOL Post your samples...

Click to expand...

dcstep said:

Thanks Danny.

The pelican shot was actually quite close, at high ISO and with NR applied. Hence, it's not great for pixel-peeping. The kestrel in flight was around a 50% crop and the bird was moving, oblique to the camera, at around 25-mph., so not really the best for pixel-peeping IQ. This is why I took the more "controlled" shots, with no correction applied.

I think that the images that I took yesterday and added last night, tell the story of the sharpness of the IQ. There's no correction, so that CA would likely disappear in a finished image, with a competent RAW converter. I wanted to give as clear a comparison as possible. Generally, with feathers and fur, I don't find CA, after correction in RAW conversion, to be much of a distraction.

After all the bickering in the middle of this thread, I hope that people really considering this purchase will make it down to these sample images.

Best regards,

Click to expand...

pizdets17 said:

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.

jonpais said:

Paul Barnard said:

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

Click to expand...

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

Click to expand...

Click to expand...

nzmacro said:

I'll keep away from some of the obvious hot comments in here ;-) but would like to add something.

First off I use 300 F/2.8, 500 F/4.5 and 800 F/5.6 on FF, APS-C and m4/3. Each format offers something the others don't. That's out of the way. Don't give me one format is better than the other, they are not. They are just different.

Next is .... THE WALL

The wall exists in exactly the same place for every format and lens. It happens over water, sand, earth and thin air. Lenses are fine until it hits that wall with atmospherics, haze, lack of details, etc. Doesn't matter what you use, it's there and it does show with a lack of details and especially in feathering details.

If we shoot beyond that wall and still need to crop (who doesn't) then it gets even worse, now add in a TC to multiply that effect and bang, you basically have a very un-detailed shot. People do this all the time and push the boundaries of what they should be doing with tele lenses IMO.

So keep long tele lenses close, that's where the details are, that's where they shine. With 500mm on any format I won't push the shutter button at over 40-50 meters, with the 800mm at a push I will stretch that to around 75-80 meters. Over that and it's a waste of a shot trying to get details out of it and also considering we still need to crop further in PP.

Use tele lenses to fill the frame more with the bird rather than trying for just reaching to where that damn wall is.

All the best and just IMO.

Danny.

Click to expand...