Sony and the perfect tele-converter?

Nikon33 · Apr 14, 2021

DigiPainter said:
Nikon33 said:

Olympus TC examples:

Click to expand...

Damn your pics just make me want to explore the em1ii much more. Those pics are making my eyes bleed they so sharp. Much PP on them or is that pretty much as is? The focus is perfect, are you using a wide focus there, you have the branches this bird is sitting on in focus, but the others beautifully drop off into quality bokeh.
I wish I could afford a FF mirrorless :-(,

Standard post-processing, Topaz Denoise to get rid of noise at 1600 ISO and some LR.

I did notice I was shooting wide open, probably could have done slightly better stopping down. I've learned a lot about photography since nearly a year ago when I took those shots. That Olympus 300mm f/4 Pro was a huge key, that lens and the 40-150mm f/2.8 Pro were sharp as nails. As mentioned, I didn't have great results for BIF when using the extenders though. All those subjects I photographed were stationery. Now, the Sony is much better at BIF and challenging subjects.

View attachment f878b95538364134b51fa0fb8ff0dccf.jpg

--
https://www.instagram.com/alphonsus.deodatus.photos/

SimpleUser · Apr 16, 2021

DigiPainter said:
SimpleUser said:

I did recently try and pull the x1.4 off the lens, just to try and test for sharpness. I quickly returned to it.

Click to expand...

Smart move I reckon. Unless using at minimum a monopod, the 2x at 1200mm is going to be hard work hand held.
Im giving up on the Sony APSC and looking elsewhere, Ive been curious about the OMD EM1ii for ages, but just have had a used one come on the market here. I think the improved hybrid focus along with the IBIS and IS lenses makes for a great system for Birds in general or wildlife.
But the one that has really got my attention is the Fuji XT4, APSC with IBIS and again, a much better hybrid AF than earlier models.
Combine that with some AMAZING pieces of glass, and 1.4x and 2x tcon, its seriously got me curious. The new XF70-300mm is about the same price as the new Sony E 70-350mm. But I get IBIS and access to TCONS. Ultimately the Fuji 100-400 would be the go to piece of glass but its seriously not cheap, for my budget. There is that dpreview article about which is the best new bit of kit the xt4 or the FF sony (I think the A7r2iii)

My point 4 thought:

With my A7Riv, I programed one of the buttons to switch from FF to APSC (FF = 60MP, APSC = 27MP), so I get "2" lens options in one...

Just a thought

Nikon33 · Apr 16, 2021

SimpleUser said:
DigiPainter said:

SimpleUser said:

I did recently try and pull the x1.4 off the lens, just to try and test for sharpness. I quickly returned to it.

Click to expand...

Smart move I reckon. Unless using at minimum a monopod, the 2x at 1200mm is going to be hard work hand held.
Im giving up on the Sony APSC and looking elsewhere, Ive been curious about the OMD EM1ii for ages, but just have had a used one come on the market here. I think the improved hybrid focus along with the IBIS and IS lenses makes for a great system for Birds in general or wildlife.
But the one that has really got my attention is the Fuji XT4, APSC with IBIS and again, a much better hybrid AF than earlier models.
Combine that with some AMAZING pieces of glass, and 1.4x and 2x tcon, its seriously got me curious. The new XF70-300mm is about the same price as the new Sony E 70-350mm. But I get IBIS and access to TCONS. Ultimately the Fuji 100-400 would be the go to piece of glass but its seriously not cheap, for my budget. There is that dpreview article about which is the best new bit of kit the xt4 or the FF sony (I think the A7r2iii)

Click to expand...

My point 4 thought:

With my A7Riv, I programed one of the buttons to switch from FF to APSC (FF = 60MP, APSC = 27MP), so I get "2" lens options in one...

Just a thought

I used to do that all the time with the Sony A7R IV! Only fault: When the files are writing to the card, you are stuck in whatever mode you are in. So if you have the crop on and suddenly need a shorter focal length, you are hung out to dry as the huge files write... :-|

SimpleUser · Apr 17, 2021

Nikon33 said:
SimpleUser said:

DigiPainter said:

SimpleUser said:

I did recently try and pull the x1.4 off the lens, just to try and test for sharpness. I quickly returned to it.

Click to expand...

Smart move I reckon. Unless using at minimum a monopod, the 2x at 1200mm is going to be hard work hand held.
Im giving up on the Sony APSC and looking elsewhere, Ive been curious about the OMD EM1ii for ages, but just have had a used one come on the market here. I think the improved hybrid focus along with the IBIS and IS lenses makes for a great system for Birds in general or wildlife.
But the one that has really got my attention is the Fuji XT4, APSC with IBIS and again, a much better hybrid AF than earlier models.
Combine that with some AMAZING pieces of glass, and 1.4x and 2x tcon, its seriously got me curious. The new XF70-300mm is about the same price as the new Sony E 70-350mm. But I get IBIS and access to TCONS. Ultimately the Fuji 100-400 would be the go to piece of glass but its seriously not cheap, for my budget. There is that dpreview article about which is the best new bit of kit the xt4 or the FF sony (I think the A7r2iii)

Click to expand...

My point 4 thought:

With my A7Riv, I programed one of the buttons to switch from FF to APSC (FF = 60MP, APSC = 27MP), so I get "2" lens options in one...

Just a thought

Click to expand...

I used to do that all the time with the Sony A7R IV! Only fault: When the files are writing to the card, you are stuck in whatever mode you are in. So if you have the crop on and suddenly need a shorter focal length, you are hung out to dry as the huge files write... :-|

So true. I still get stuck even with my A9 (using UHS-II ProGrade), when I try and switch to video, to try and get both stills and video of wildlife.

Even now, Sony opted for the CFXpress-A and not 'B' for some reason. Also, they did not provide a secondary channel/Buffer, that can perform writing when I'm still holding the focus button (I use back button, not half press). Very frustrating.

duncang · Apr 17, 2021

A few shots in sunlight - we haven't seen much of that recently!

dperez · Apr 17, 2021

Very impressive images everyone...

And you're right - I'd hate to lose months waiting for the mythical Z9 and find out it's still way behind the Sonys.

My problem is, I've been going through some images, and it's a little more than usual, but over the last 3 - 4 months I've done well over 300 focus stacks. Totalling several THOUSAND images.

For example, in February I did 6 days of frozen soap bubble photography - that'd be six days of as long as I was willing to stand outside in the -10 - -15 F temps. And almost 100% of what I shot was focus stacked.

Same for a whole bunch of abstract images - most of them close-ups and and almost ALL focus stacks.

Shortly, there should be some flowers showing up that'll be a whole bunch of additional close-up/macro images. And focus stacks.

And on and on. At a guess, I'd say at least 25% of my images are focus stacks.

And, of course, it gets used for landscapes and just situations where I want a LOT of DOF with soft backgrounds.

So, NOT having Sony support it is aggravating because I'd have to keep messing around with TWO camera systems.

It's proving difficult to get past the idea of dumping $12K or more for a system I KNOW can't do something I rely on regularly. And that the mfr is likely to HOLD IT BACK 'til the next version of the Alpha so they can make people upgrade to get it.

DigiPainter · Apr 19, 2021

SimpleUser said:
My point 4 thought:

With my A7Riv, I programed one of the buttons to switch from FF to APSC (FF = 60MP, APSC = 27MP), so I get "2" lens options in one...

Just a thought

Yes others have said similar. But the one thing I want to know is, doing so sharper than just cropping a FF image. hard one to answer without a really long shot of something contrasty, side by side

Tony Rogers · Apr 19, 2021

DigiPainter said:
SimpleUser said:

My point 4 thought:

With my A7Riv, I programed one of the buttons to switch from FF to APSC (FF = 60MP, APSC = 27MP), so I get "2" lens options in one...

Just a thought

Click to expand...

Yes others have said similar. But the one thing I want to know is, doing so sharper than just cropping a FF image. hard one to answer without a really long shot of something contrasty, side by side

No, it's just the same as cropping in post. The advantage is smaller files. But if you're trying to track something that is hard to follow, it's better to use the full frame and crop in post.

On the A1, I thought I would use crop mode in preference to putting a 1.4x teleconverter on but that has turned out not to be the case. I still prefer the 1.4x and can then crop further in post if required.

Also, as an aside, on the A1 you can switch between FF and APS-C mode while the buffer if clearing. Not that I've actually ever witnessed the buffer clearing because it is so fast!

BrentSchumer · Apr 19, 2021

Tony Rogers said:
By coincidence, I have just taken an image for someone on the m43 forum with the A1, 200-600 + 1.4x TC as he wanted to know about the resolution. I would say that the 1.4x is very good but of course, it muct have lower resolution than the bare lens even if using it gives more detail in the image.

Here's my test image and a 100% crop from it. I hope that helps. The guy on the m43 forum thought it was poor. I think it's good. Ho hum.

View attachment b10d527d2ed841f18f671bc44111b74d.jpg

That is sickeningly sharp.

BrentSchumer · Apr 19, 2021

DigiPainter said:
SimpleUser said:

My point 4 thought:

With my A7Riv, I programed one of the buttons to switch from FF to APSC (FF = 60MP, APSC = 27MP), so I get "2" lens options in one...

Just a thought

Click to expand...

Yes others have said similar. But the one thing I want to know is, doing so sharper than just cropping a FF image. hard one to answer without a really long shot of something contrasty, side by side

No it's the same data being cropped in a similar way. The benefit of APSC mode is that you can frame your shot with the crop and not save all that data that you're planning to discard. For example when I do macro with an APSC lens I know I'll never, ever want the area outside of the image circle.

Nikon33 · Apr 19, 2021

BrentSchumer said:
DigiPainter said:

SimpleUser said:

My point 4 thought:

With my A7Riv, I programed one of the buttons to switch from FF to APSC (FF = 60MP, APSC = 27MP), so I get "2" lens options in one...

Just a thought

Click to expand...

Yes others have said similar. But the one thing I want to know is, doing so sharper than just cropping a FF image. hard one to answer without a really long shot of something contrasty, side by side

Click to expand...

No it's the same data being cropped in a similar way. The benefit of APSC mode is that you can frame your shot with the crop and not save all that data that you're planning to discard. For example when I do macro with an APSC lens I know I'll never, ever want the area outside of the image circle.

Correct. Especially handy for non-moving subjects.

dcstep · Apr 22, 2021

dperez said:
I'm pretty sure this is going to be a dumb question, but I've gotta know...

I shoot Nikon - D850, D500, D7200, D300. And several Nikon lenses including a 500/f4.

And a Nikon 1.4X and 2.0X.

And a Sigma 150-600C with the Sigma 1.4X.

Like a lot of people, I'm starting to nibble at mirrorless cameras and considering moving to Sony.

Several weeks ago I made a statement that I don't dislike tele-converters but try not to use them unless necessary because of the perceptible loss of quality.

Yesterday, a colleague was displaying a series of images she'd captured with her Sony A III and Sony 100-400. They looked good on the screen and she stated categorically that every bird in the image, had eyes that were ABSOLUTELY sharp. I was surprised because the image was at 400mm, and the birds covered at least 15-20 feet in DOF.

After showing several images, she claimed that "Not ONLY were these shot with the 100-400, but EVERY ONE was shot with a 1.4X and there is ABSOLUTELY NO LOSS OF SHARPNESS. I questioned her accuracy and she became very adamant that every image was sharp, with great DOF, and absolutely sharp even WITH the Sony 1.4X on her lens.

I recently tested my 150-600 with my 1.4X on my D500 body. The lens has been micro-AF calibrated both with and without the tele-converter. It's a good lens, and it does a good job, but I would NEVER claim it's a sharp WITH the tele-converter as without.

I have done exactly the same thing with my Nikon 500/f4 and the matching Nikon tele-converter - micro AF calibration and tested with and without. Again, the 500/f4 on the D500 or D850 is a very good lens, but I was STILL never claim it's as sharp WITH the 1.4X as without...

If her claims are valid, or even extremely CLOSE to valid, that would certainly be another push toward Sony. An Alpha 1 with the Sony 200-600 and their 1.4X that could capture images with no loss of sharpness would be very nice in difficult situations...

In y'all's experience with your Sony mirrorless cameras and lenses like the 100-400 (not the $7000 150-400) and tele-converter(s), is their quality actually this perfect?

Her claims are close to accurate. I've done test shots with my FE 600/f4 and 400mm f/2.8 GM OSS, with both the FE 1.4x and 2.0 teleconverters and the results were excellent, but still with detectable differences at 100% and above.

See for yourself at:

Loading…

www.dpreview.com

Stick with native lenses and teleconverters if seeking ultimate IQ.

duncang · Apr 23, 2021

dperez said:
I'm pretty sure this is going to be a dumb question, but I've gotta know...

I shoot Nikon - D850, D500, D7200, D300. And several Nikon lenses including a 500/f4.

And a Nikon 1.4X and 2.0X.

And a Sigma 150-600C with the Sigma 1.4X.

Like a lot of people, I'm starting to nibble at mirrorless cameras and considering moving to Sony.

Several weeks ago I made a statement that I don't dislike tele-converters but try not to use them unless necessary because of the perceptible loss of quality.

Yesterday, a colleague was displaying a series of images she'd captured with her Sony A III and Sony 100-400. They looked good on the screen and she stated categorically that every bird in the image, had eyes that were ABSOLUTELY sharp. I was surprised because the image was at 400mm, and the birds covered at least 15-20 feet in DOF.

After showing several images, she claimed that "Not ONLY were these shot with the 100-400, but EVERY ONE was shot with a 1.4X and there is ABSOLUTELY NO LOSS OF SHARPNESS. I questioned her accuracy and she became very adamant that every image was sharp, with great DOF, and absolutely sharp even WITH the Sony 1.4X on her lens.

I recently tested my 150-600 with my 1.4X on my D500 body. The lens has been micro-AF calibrated both with and without the tele-converter. It's a good lens, and it does a good job, but I would NEVER claim it's a sharp WITH the tele-converter as without.

I have done exactly the same thing with my Nikon 500/f4 and the matching Nikon tele-converter - micro AF calibration and tested with and without. Again, the 500/f4 on the D500 or D850 is a very good lens, but I was STILL never claim it's as sharp WITH the 1.4X as without...

If her claims are valid, or even extremely CLOSE to valid, that would certainly be another push toward Sony. An Alpha 1 with the Sony 200-600 and their 1.4X that could capture images with no loss of sharpness would be very nice in difficult situations...

In y'all's experience with your Sony mirrorless cameras and lenses like the 100-400 (not the $7000 150-400) and tele-converter(s), is their quality actually this perfect?

I use the 200-600 with the TC1.4 all the time and it's sharp enough for me. I did test the 500PF + TC1.4 with the D850 and it is definitely quite a bit sharper but there are issues with focussing at f8 and the VR seems wonky so it never performed as well for me in the field.

Here are some test images - look for the one in particular where there is a comparison from the D850 + 200-600 +TC1.4 and the a7riii + 200-600 + TC1.4. The 500PF wins by a considerable margin in terms of sharpness. However that does not translate well to real world shooting for me, and particularly not for bif.

http://duncangroenewald.com/pages/tests/test-index.html

And here are some recent shots with the A1 + 200-600 + TC1.4. I would think you may get better fine detail with the prime lenses but these are plenty sharp for me.

http://duncangroenewald.com/pages/blogs/blog-2021-04-17.html

Look at the white Long-billed Corella in this collection which was shot at 200-600 @840mm with the a7riii.

http://duncangroenewald.com/pages/birds/birds.html

I rarely shoot without the TC1.4 now since focussing is not an issue at f9 with either the a9 or the a1 and the reach means I can fill the frame much more easily and there really doesn't appear to be any perceptible loss of sharpness. Shooting handheld at 840mm with a 'portable' lens makes a big difference. See the image below shot handheld at 1/40s in poor light.

The bigger issue for me is the loss of light and resulting higher iso noise in the images so if reach is not an issue I would remove the TC1.4 to bring down the iso. I find that cropped images don't turn out as well as higher pixel (filled frame) images - particularly when using Topaz Denoise or similar.

Handheld at approximately 120 meters

Tirpitz666 · Apr 23, 2021

Very interesting tests thank you, for me 200-600+1.4xTC is plenty sharp where it matters (central part of the frame) and I know that the limiting factor for ultra fine details is my A9 rather than the lens, and your tests confirm that.

Unfortunately my A7RIII loses PDAF at F9, so the A9 it's usually the only game in town for me for non-perched birds.

dcstep · Apr 23, 2021

duncang said:
..
The bigger issue for me is the loss of light and resulting higher iso noise in the images so if reach is not an issue I would remove the TC1.4 to bring down the iso. I find that cropped images don't turn out as well as higher pixel (filled frame) images - particularly when using Topaz Denoise or similar.

Handheld at approximately 120 meters

You're shooting at too low ISO. Base Native Dual ISOs are 100 AND ISO 500 on the a1. You have higher dynamic range at ISO 500 than at ISO 400. I'm not sure about ISO 250, where you shot these images. With my a1, for birds and wildlife, ISO 500 is my default. I go over to ISO 100 for landscapes and such

Also, what noise reduction settings are you using? DxO DeepPRIME and Topaz are the best, IME. The only issue with both is that the default luminescence setting is too high and it'll smear fur and feather details. It's easily fixed by pulling the level down. With DxO I pull it down to 15 or 20 and add Fine Contrast at the same time.

You're not shooting Nikon anymore. The a1 gives great files, even up at ISO 12800, after competent NR.

--
Dave

duncang · Aug 20, 2021

dcstep said:
duncang said:

..

The bigger issue for me is the loss of light and resulting higher iso noise in the images so if reach is not an issue I would remove the TC1.4 to bring down the iso. I find that cropped images don't turn out as well as higher pixel (filled frame) images - particularly when using Topaz Denoise or similar.

Handheld at approximately 120 meters

Click to expand...

You're shooting at too low ISO. Base Native Dual ISOs are 100 AND ISO 500 on the a1. You have higher dynamic range at ISO 500 than at ISO 400. I'm not sure about ISO 250, where you shot these images. With my a1, for birds and wildlife, ISO 500 is my default. I go over to ISO 100 for landscapes and such
Also, what noise reduction settings are you using? DxO DeepPRIME and Topaz are the best, IME. The only issue with both is that the default luminescence setting is too high and it'll smear fur and feather details. It's easily fixed by pulling the level down. With DxO I pull it down to 15 or 20 and add Fine Contrast at the same time.
You're not shooting Nikon anymore. The a1 gives great files, even up at ISO 12800, after competent NR.

Thanks, it sure does.

BillE999 · Aug 21, 2021

I think part of it is more accurate focus of mirrorless even with small aperture. I tried the z converters with z lenses on a Z7ii and they were much better than converters with F mount.

Search

Sony and the perfect tele-converter?

Nikon33

Veteran Member

Attachments

SimpleUser

Well-known member

Nikon33

Veteran Member

SimpleUser

Well-known member

duncang

Senior Member

dperez

Leading Member

DigiPainter

Forum Enthusiast

Tony Rogers

Senior Member

BrentSchumer

Veteran Member

BrentSchumer

Veteran Member

Nikon33

Veteran Member

dcstep

Veteran Member

Loading…

duncang

Senior Member

Tirpitz666

Leading Member

dcstep

Veteran Member

duncang

Senior Member

BillE999

Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts