Are Teleconverters A Modern Day Scam?
HTML-код
- Опубликовано: 28 авг 2024
- Are teleconverters worth the hassle? 1.4x or 2x teleconverters give extra reach, but you lose 1 or 2 stops of light, and the image quality goes down. Is it better to just zoom in later in post? Let's test out Fuji 2x tele on the Fujifilm xt4 and 100-400mm for wildlife photography and videography.
If you buy today's gear through my affiliate links, I'll zoom in post 3x and charge myself $800.
Fuji XT4 amzn.to/31wORkb or bhpho.to/3mXJUs0
Fuji 100-400mm amzn.to/3J7Y0jO or USED amzn.to/3HZgsJO or bhpho.to/3fXB6OQ or USED bhpho.to/3tV3VDN
Fuji 2x teleconverter amzn.to/3KpXkWP or bhpho.to/3OFdXku
Fuji 1.4x teleconverter amzn.to/3y3JIxI or USED amzn.to/3vSg77R or bhpho.to/3KtBHES
All my gear and recommended products can be found in my affiliate shop, thanks for shopping around! www.amazon.com...
Patreon for Monthly Q&A Videos / vegetablepolice
T-shirts and merch! vegetablepolic...
My Monkey Strength ebook payhip.com/b/VyEG
My Music from videos! Entire Discography 15% off vegetablepolic...
Instagram / vegetablepolice
Random ass donations to paypal.me/vegetablepolice Thank you!
Q-Link Products changed my life! share.shopqlin...
My Health Channel Vegetable Police / canadianwargod
My Music Channel Stern Beats / @sternbeatsmusic
If you buy today's gear through my affiliate links, I'll zoom in post 3x and charge myself $800.
Fuji XT4 amzn.to/31wORkb or bhpho.to/3mXJUs0
Fuji 100-400mm amzn.to/3J7Y0jO or USED amzn.to/3HZgsJO or bhpho.to/3fXB6OQ or USED bhpho.to/3tV3VDN
Fuji 2x teleconverter amzn.to/3KpXkWP or bhpho.to/3OFdXku
Fuji 1.4x teleconverter amzn.to/3y3JIxI or USED amzn.to/3vSg77R or bhpho.to/3KtBHES
All my gear and recommended products can be found in my affiliate shop, thanks for shopping around! www.amazon.com/shop/vegetablepolice
@alex K what do you mean “without color”, it’s all shot in color. Do you mean why do you always shoot in such horrible flat lighting conditions?
@alex K link or it didn’t happen!
@alex K Great, thanks!
What happened to my other comment?
@alex K yea thats some nice work in those links! The guy who runs this channel though is neither a very good filmmaker nor photographer (as in his “photography” in his filmmaking), I know he’s not a photographer as such. But he’s funny and snarky and I think thats the main reason people come here, it’s definitely not for his poor quality work! But he admits as much so its all gravy…
For a channel called camera conspiracies... It's about time we've finally covered a real camera conspiracy 😂😂😅
BE NICE WITH SONY, if it sucks just wink, we need them to send you stuff
Some of the best slow mo turtle video I've seen today
Would have to agree yes... The best teleconverter is an APS-C camera on a long full frame lens. Prove me wrong!
Taking this idea 1 step further: m43 = 2x crop! The Olympus Pro 300mm f/4 IS is like 600mm of reach with 7-8 stops of stabilization in Sync IS, depending on body.
@@michaelatlas8072 600mm is not enough, especially with only 20 megapixels
I'll prove you wrong. What If you want to use the lens at its standard focal length and at 1.5 of 2x. With a crop sensor you're limited to the longer focal length.
@@OttoLP Two camera bodies :)
@@jamesm8935 :) , true but that's more expensive than a tele converter. Unless you already have both cameras, than it's the better option
1. TC are never meant for zoom lenses. Zooms already have too many glass elements.
2. Only dedicated/built-in TCs give useable images.
1. Tell that to Sony. Their TCs are made to fit only their zoom lenses due to protruding optical elements of in the TC that require spacing distances that cannot be achieved with their non-zoom lenses. At least not with the lenses I tried to use them on.
Teleconverters are only as the glass they are made from. The Olympus glass is amazing. I have never had an issue.
I agree. I have Olympus 1.4x and 2x teleconverters and they are superb. I also have Canon and Nikon telecoverters and have always been happy with the results. I do use them for tele, but mostly I use them for macro work. you cannot use digital cropping in post to get macro, so T/C's are a great investment.
As with all things, it depends. I own the Fuji 1.4X and love it with the 70-300. I usually stop down to F9-10 for optimum results. High iso, yes, but expose to the right and you’ll generally get pleasing results.
It really depends on what subject matter you are shooting too. I wouldn’t bother using the 1.4X for fast moving action shots.
Post-processing is also a factor for me. I typically download JPEG shots straight to my phone and perform only minor post-processing, so the extra reach vs. sharpness penalty works in my favour. Cropping tiny JPEGs on my phone is a disaster. If I want full size images for print, I can cherry pick the RAWs and crop without a huge loss in image quality still using the 1.4X.
You are absolutely right: It depends on your individual use case. I use a Canon R7 with the RF100-500 F4.5-7.1, primarily for birding.This is an L-series zoom, with exceptional image quality, particularly when coupled with the R7's 32 MP crop sensor. I recently purchased the 1.4x RF teleconverter (TC), which yields F10 wide open at full zoom. But it really depends on the alternative, which for me was the RF 800 mm F11 prime, with similar reach (800 mm vs 700 mm) and maximum aperture (F11 vs F10). I was pleasantly surprised to find image quality to be similar, though the TC is considerably more versatile, if only because it fits into my pocket! For those who fret over AF performance with the TC, focus acquisition does not appear to suffer appreciably, presumably because newer mirrorless cameras are able to go well beyond the "F8 limit" common to most DSLR's; in fact, I think the bird's eye tracking actually has an easier time "locking on" when the subject is larger in the viewfinder. And noise is really not an issue with modern sensors and de-noising software.
And while I might dream of a 600mm F4 prime, paying 20x more for a professional prime puts it far beyond my budget and the budget of most enthusiasts, I would think. While I don't know if performance would be as good without my L-series lens or the R7's 32 MP sensor resolution, I would easily recommend this set-up to others.
Hey KC, first thing, welcome to wildlife photography. It’s fun to see you take the challenge head on.
I’ve used both the 100-400GM and the 200-600 with a 2x and find the quality is tolerable, but as is to be expected, quality and performance does suffer. The only zoom that has ZERO optical compromises is both free and effective, it’s called the TWO-FOOT Zoom. Don’t ask me where to get it.
You also lose the phase detect autofocus on the Fuji 2x with the 100-400, and only have contrast detect auto focus. with the 1.4X you keep the faster autofocus (still lose a stop of light)
You know you're big-time when Sony sends you test gear! I look forward to your footage with the 200-600. As for teleconverters: I could have saved you the trouble. 1.4x is the usable maximum for any camera system. 2x is unusable. The image quality loss isn't worth it.
You have some interesting birds up there. Golden-crowned Kinglet; Brown Creeper; I hardly ever see them in the NYC area. I've got to shoot birds in Canada some day.
Your "black duck-looking thing" is a male Double-crested Cormorant in breeding plumage.
Quality commenting
1.4x yes indeed
I use the Canon EF 2x III extender on my Canon 70-200 2.8 III sometimes and there is hardly any drop in quality.
@@jimdabomb each to his own. If it works for you, great! 👍🏿
Not from my own experience, but 2x converters seem to work well with the ultra-expensive tele-primes (400mm f2.8, 600mm f4)...
I have an ef 300mm f4 prime lens I'm adapting to my R6 and my Sony A7iv. I have the Canon 1.4x lll teleconverter. I'm getting shots with that set up that are easily as sharp or sharper than my Sony 200-600mm lens at lower isos. I can even crop in the cameras or magnify in as far as I can look and it only softens when it reaches almost a pixel level lol. I think getting the best results from a teleconverter is from using a quality prime lens.
Loved the turtles @ 240p with no motion blur.
From personal experience, 2x Teleconverters are great for film photography. Pair any good quality 2x TC with a Tair 300mm and you'll not be dissapointed. This is mostly because Tair 3S is razor sharp for film, and film's own resolution is the limiting factor. On a DSLR with high MP sensor, optical resolving power of lens will be almost always less than sensor resolution. Even if you put the perfect teleconverter, you are effectively using the middle part of your primary lens. If optical resolution is your primary limitation, you've just scaled up that low res area to a larger footprint and gained exactly nothing. Add additional quality degradation from TC and it suddenly becomes worse than just digital zooming.
Sounds like a case for Theoria Apophasis!! I'm certain he'll be able to find an answer in the aether... :-) Ha, that focus mode switch is definitely done with photographers in mind. I have to check my X-T3 and see if it's possible to program another button to change focus modes. If so, that would be a nice option. Have a great week....
Just get closer by walking !!! A whole family of geese passed me by yesterday at arms lenght. That gear is overkill.
I used a 1.5 I bought used for canon and popped it onto a 135mm to get to 200 for cheap and it did amazing for the solar eclipse. Quality was amazing. All Canon OEM.
As a voigty fan, I think the GM looks better simply because you're not stiff and obviously terrified of moving out of the plane of focus.
My theory on TCs is it all depends on the lens and the sensor. If you have a highly resolving lens, and a lower MP sensor a good TC won't signficantly affect the image quality. Conversely if you have a lens that's close to it's limits to resolve sufficient detail for the MP of the sensor, and a slap even a good TC on it, you'll exceed what the lens is able to deliver, and get a shitty image.
On an A1/200-600 setup, it's better to crop in post or set APSC mode in camera (saves on card/disk space too) than to use a TC1.4. But used with a 24mp A9 the 200-600 is perfectly able to handle the 1.4 TC.
My only lens I'm interested in trying a TC with is the voigty 110 macro. That thing resolves way more than the 50mp A1 sensor needs. Not worth the cost of the TC to try it thou imo.
Great insights.
TC’s on variable aperture lenses (or zooms) doesn’t seem like the best mix… they’re pretty much made for prime lenses.
Olympus 2x TC on the 300mm F4 is more than sharp enough. Video is my primary use for that setup, personally, and I’ll even throw in the digital 2x teleconverter on top for 2400mm equivalent FOV. Throw in digital stabilization for some added crop and there’s just a ton of magnification to work with.
I think that new technologies may force us to reassess some of our cherished beliefs e.g. about using teleconverters (TC) with zoom lenses or in low light. As I noted in an earlier comment, I use a Canon R7 with the RF100-500 F4.5-7.1, mostly for birding.This is an L-series zoom, with exceptional image quality, particularly when coupled with the R7's 32 MP sensor. And I recently purchased the 1.4x RF TC, which yields F10 wide open at full zoom. While I admit to being anxious about low-light performance, I think low-light/high-ISO noise is no longer a serious limitation with modern sensors and de-noising software. Moreover, the autofocus algorithms on newer mirrorless cameras work well beyond the "F8 limit" common to older DSLR's, and I have no issues even at F16 or F22; in fact, I think the bird's eye tracking actually has an easier time "locking on" when the subject is larger in the viewfinder.
As for image quality, I find it quite comparable to the 800 mm F11 primes, which I see as the only realistic alternative for amateurs like me, as much as I might dream of the 600 mm F4 prime for only $18,000 Canadian :). While I don't know if performance would be as good without my L-series lens or the R7's 32 MP sensor resolution, I would easily recommend this set-up to others.
Thanks for highlighting your experience with the 2x TC on the Olympus. I've never used a 2x TC, as I worried about losing two stops from the RF100-500, but it's tempting.
The footage is so grainy in its abilities that I almost thought my monitor was broken
Before 2:22 I didn’t even know who or where I was. Then I realized I was on RUclips consuming top notch youtuber content.
I’ll have none of that bottom totem pole suckin goldfish eatin guppy stuff, post your background LED in advance next time thx
The 15 foot long black duck looking thing is a cormorant, we get lots here on the east coast, pretty neat bird imo.
Was literally on ebay shopping vintage 2x teleconverters for an upcoming video idea I have when you posted this! I think for youtube 2x might be acceptable, but not for hundreds of dollars.
TC are viable if you need the extra reach and want to save on size/weight/cost of a larger high performance super tele. Keep in mind TCs are made for specific lenses, not all lenses will fit a TC. Some high end super teles have the TC mechanicaly built in the lens. They are viable for photo, but there are other punch in (crop) options for Motion Picture.
For me I use the camera's digital ExTcConv, and 2X digital Zoom. Pixel density is so tight and so much, that it allows for the huge crop, on an already cropped sensor (MFT). And the best part of digital TC or Zoom/crop is no light reduction penalty. Especially shooting wide open at f/4 to f/6.3 (100mm-400mm). Nevertheless, everyone should experience a real TC with a supertele before they decide to get one or not.
The stabilization too is better without the teleconverter.
that shot at 10:29 is a masterpiece!
Just waiting for the sun to rise...With my TC 301 +12mm tube+ Tc14 B on my Nikkor 800 5.6 IF-ED AI-s for a focal length of 2240 mm f16. If I want to fill the frame with the sun this is the only way to go with with the gear I have. Historically using converters on zooms is never a good thing. Invest in some legacy Nikkor glass and a good tripod and gimble and leave all the slow zooms at home.
I confirm that Kasey, I have the 2x teleconverter from Olympus that i use on the 40-150 f2.8 pro, and the IQ is pretty darn good! Thanks to it, i sold the 75-300 II and kept the 40-150 f2.8 which now doubled it's versatility. With only one lens, i get 80-600mm equiv. I love it!
the 2x for Fuji isn't meant to be used on the 100-400 and disables part of the autofocus system. he'd have seen better results with the 50-140
Yeah that's a bitter pill to swallow for sure. So more pixels more better and just crop in post. Funny, cause that's what I was sayin back in 1995 when digital cameras were really taking off. But every review from every magazine (or site) kept regurgitating the same bullshit how Megapixels don't matter..... Yeah well, those clowns obviously never tried to crop in on a 2mp pic. Yes Megapixels matter! However, it's the bit rate that mostly determines the output quality. Pixels just determine the size of the image. Thanks for reaffirming what I thought I always knew 😁. Cheers 🍻
2x converters can work "OK", but they need very sharp glass -- the faster the better. Expectations need to be realistic. That said, for video, the 2x doesn't come off my Sony 200-600, though for best results I'm stopping down to f16 when light allows. Shooting @8k on my A1 in good conditions, results are remarkably good.
If you are experimenting with magnification and atmospheric distortion then I think the 2x magnification will also magnify the distortion effects and it won’t be better than just cropping depending on output format and normal viewing constraints. You would need ideal atmospheric stability to make the 2x perform to your expectations. My opinion. Yes the Olympus MC20 2x Teleconverter is very good but there could still be issues with it on a slow zoom like the 100-400/5-6.3 as not only is it struggling with light but diffraction as well at the long end in the small sensor. I use the 2x on the 300/4 and 40-150/2.8 with good results but I feel it’s a challenge on the 100-400 requiring very very good conditions to be worthwhile. It can work. Sometimes.
With the 2x teleconverter, you get 4x the pixel resolution, far better compression in terms of PSNR, and 2x higher noise frequencies, but at a lower MTF due to the optics. A good unshatp mask cascade boosts the MTF to flat and makes it equally sharp to the lens without the teleconverter, but you need to use a chart to get it right and monitor the edges,
@@aristotle_4532 I would assume the two stops of light loss as well as impact on IBIS might make the window of acceptable conditions to give good performance narrower due to the effects of higher iso and dynamic range, stress on the AF accuracy, etc., and so my experience tells me that under good conditions with proper handling I am happy to use a TC when I cannot get close enough. And I am forgiving of the system when either it’s limitations and/or my lack of proper handling makes for problems in some conditions.
I don't go beyond 1.4x myself when I'm shooting photography like a loser, and even then only when an animal is relatively close to the camera to begin with. They're good for making something that's already fairly large in the frame bigger. Far away shit? They just accentuate the lens' limitations. With the 100-400 I'm usually shooting the a7RIV so usually I just forgo the teleconverter and crop in post anyway. I didn't care for the 200-600, despite the extra reach. I took it to Oregon with me last year and came back wishing I took the 100-400 instead. Your mileage (and copy-variation) may vary though.
It’s pretty well known the fuji 100-400 pairs better with the 1.4 than the 2x. There’s always a trade off
Turtle in slow mo. Nice!
I have had the same experience with the Nikon 2x converter. But the 1.4x converter on Olympus is as much better as I expected it to be.
Can't wait for your Video about the Sony 200-600mm
I got rid of my fuji 2x TC long ago; no benefit to it. [other than - perhaps - moon photos! for some reason]
As for the 1.4x TC... I don't think the fuji 100-400mm lens (at 400mm focal length, i.e. where you would want it) is sharp enough for even that teleconverter.
Any lens, just look at how closely you can crop a standard non-TC image before losing IQ, and if its not at least somewhat approaching the limits sensor resolution, then don't bother with a TC. {for refererence, I'd say the 100-400 at 400mm f7.1 you can crop in about 25-33% before losing IQ}.
The only fuji lenses I own that are worth using even the 1.4x TC with are the 50-140mm and the 80mm macro. I.e. both extremely sharp lenses. And you'd just bring the TC along in case you needed a semi-long shot when you're not hauling the 100-400 with you. {and even with those, you're probably only seeing a ~20% closer image, when comparing between highest IQ crop-zoom - i.e. not the 40%}
"There's not enough resolution left for moire."
Modern problems call for modern solutions.
----
You need to review tele adapters for the phone.
Just because.
That voigty did have much creamier bokeh than the GMaster.
Wonderful! I have no idea or clue what it was all about, but who cares with such a virtuosic presentation.
The "black duck" is a cormorant
i heard the Shimadzu Hyper Vision HPV-X2 does good slowmo. sure it's 250 000 british pounds and no stab either, but 10 million frames per second could get you excellent pigeon flight glory
Please make a documentary about Toneh-Turtle!!
I've found that focus peaking is always just in front of where it should be. I scraped it before, great shots, went back... Garbage, scraped again... Hard.
I did a similar test with the F mount Nikon 1.4 and found similar results. Crop in post produced better images than the TC. Less weight, more light, faster focus without the TC. I guess if you did not have the time or opportunity to post process, the TC may have value. I also tried two different TC's on a couple different lenses, same result.
The turtle is so fast, you 240fps to catch its moves! 😂
"I saw some new shit....
A huge black duck 15ft long!" I'm dying laughing.
I have tried Fuji 100-400 + 1.4X TC, Canon EF 100-400 + 1.4 TC, didn't like the result, they reduced IQ quit a bit. Then when I try Canon Rf 100-500 + 1.4X, wow, that meets my expectation.
Teleconverters are not a scam. there are pro's and cons to everything. you have to balance the cons against the pro's.
When you flicked the light on the bg is showing a moderate amount of Toneh!
Hard to belive the olympus 2x hype after all the mess with the "2-stop improvement" on the om1 :D
nice, a realization. I despise the tele converter argument, it's cheaper & better to get the best lens for the job.
Your samples of the two 35's displays why my brief walk into the Sony world is over. Is the G-Master sharper than the Voigtlander? Yes. But I prefer the look of the Voigtlander. Is Sony an amazing system? Yes. Does it provide the look I personally prefer? No.
But autofocus thought...
From my real life experience: Some tele converters are really good such as the Olympus Zuiko 1.4X, which when paired with lenses it was designed for like the Olympus 40-150mm f2.8 the image is great, clearly better than a post zoomed-in to the same subject size. I heard the 2X was poorer which again is likely due to the more complex optical construction and more light loss but I never tried it. Last but not least, that "black duck" of yours is a cormorant which is a species of waterfowl bird like the herons, not a duck.
I am using all the TC's for Nikon F-mount; TC 14e III, TC 17e II and TC 20e III. You can get great results with all of them, BUT, you need to calibrate each lens and TC combo first. I do this with something in similar size to a bird a puts it in my garden at the distance I want to shoot a bird, and calibrates it thereafter.
Trust me, it makes a huge difference.
Secondly, a TC is a tool meant to be used so you can fill the frame with your subject. Not to get closer and then crop extra. For a long time I also thought that TC's was just a hoax. Until I decided to really test it out under controlled circumstances. i.e in your garden, with no branches in the way >_
Thanks for pointing out the difference between the tele-converter and post crop. I wonder how the sony tele-converters compare to the clear image zoom + digital zoom .
I’ve tried all zoom methods, optical with TC and synthesized (Clear Zoom and crops) and they’re all about the same, maybe a small quality advantage to the TC. And if I recall, aren’t some features/modes disabled during Clear Image and Crop mode capture?
@@aerofart yes I know the eye 👁 AF is disabled during clear image zoom . Good info thanks
Well a 2xconverter allows you to crop 2 times 😜 like you did with no converter with the 100-400. But the 1.4 is better. Or may be you can try the specific 2x converter used for the 200 F2 or better wait for the Fujinon 150-600 😜
There's even better digital teleconverter. It's called Topaz Video Enhance AI xd. You can get x4 closer!
Maybe if you use a monopod it would have been sharper .
🤣
Thanks... Was close to talking myself in to buying the 2x tela... I'm over the idea now 😉
2x teleconverters have always stunk. 1.4x telelconverters are the most you want to go with.
I bought 10 teleconverters because of this video.
All Panasonic.
Soybean 1.4 is more contrasty but it double the lines if your bookshelf in the background for a worse toneh compared to the mighty Voidy lander
The teleconverter makes your image looks like it's 720p at best (it sucks)
Just leave your camera in manual focus and then use backbutton focusing, pro-tip
Lets get the 1.4x cracking, oh how about some red wing blackbird frosty breath videos?
You the star mate - many thanks for saving me from spending lots of cash on it and on H2s 😅🙌✨👍💪🔥
I had a 1.4 on order about 6 weeks back.. luckily it was back ordered giving me time to cancel my order. A decision I made on pure instinct. Glad to see I was validated here on my feeling that a 24+ mp camera can likely just zoom in during post production.
Thanks for the laughs. I’ll look to make a donation to you here in the near future.
imo the 1.4 TC's are really great, I use it pretty much every time, and I'll never go back to not use it.
I must admit that I use and "anti" teleconverter. It's a focal reducer, so that i can use Full Frame Lenses on a camera which focuses the image to a smaller sensor that is closer to the camera lens flange. Point your finger at me, but nobody can tell the difference,
Voigtlander more toneh, but GM af win.
And finally you got it, teleconverters are waste of money.
funny vid buddy, thankyou, love the facials.
I never used a tel-converter, I always thought it was never going to be as good as real glass. Toneh Turtle! Perhaps a mascot in the making? Think of the merchandising possibilities. Plushies, t-shirts, stickers and more! CC is where I go for my nature videography tips and tricks! Keep up the awesome work!
4:50 Digital zoom loses color info. The converter image is much smoother, although it loses resolution by enlarging the image from the lens. I think it's better to mount the converter as an extender on the lens adapter to save the sharpness. But it must be huge then. Rather an excellent solution for a compact fixed lens EDC camera, adding extra x1.4 - x2 extension.
Everything I hear is Greek, yet I’ve maintained my subscription to this channel, thumb up every video with hardness and proudly wear my CC (no your) shirt once a week. Is this ok?
2x on my 70-200 GMii and I get great results 👌
I believe you don't understand how teleconverters work properly . An aps sensor is a cropped sensor, and if you add a teleconverter, you crop the image further. Now you are using a 2x teleconverter, which means you are losing two stops of life, so how which results in a blurred image. So the question is, how do you correct this, and is your assignment . The issue here is a lack of skill and not equipment.
I've wondered about 2x teleconverters and if they're worth it, it's great to see some real world footage.
I have heard the quality drop is noticeable compared to the 1.4 one
@@davidfcamargo8200 That's what I suspect too.
your are very very right if lens work good with teleconverter they put in to buld so l have xt5 l was a lot of time test teleconverter not sharp l rec 6.2k video and make crop its much much better
Kudos to Sony for sending gear to CC for roasting.
"It just puffed right up -- and shrink back down... I like it!" Is that really what *SHE* said?
Great humour, makes me smile every time, thank you.
Have the 2x on the 50-140 and it seems ok
2x converters are,imho, always “pushing it” if one is going to go pixel peeping and 2stop loss coupled with general need to stop down at least a stop is a big loss of effective aperture.
Another great video. Congrats on the Sony recognition. Looking forward to seeing your reviews of those lenses.
Works great on my 50 140
Honestly I can't unsee the focus breathing on the 35mm GM. Every time your subject moves in the shot it's like it's zooming in and out. If you go from infinity to minimum focus it looks like it goes from 35 to 50mm true focal length. Because of this and the awful manual focus experience I sent it back. I know it can make beautiful images but it was such a pain composing at different distances because if I wanted to focus on a different subject the actual composition would change. It was so frustrating and always took me out of the experience. The manual focus is way too sensitive too, you just barely tap it and it goes through half the focusing range. So that combined with the focus breathing made manual focus pretty unusable for me.
I really was tempted to buy a teleconverter at one point, but the more reviews I saw I could see that the quality was just not acceptable, even for occasional use
What about using the converter to get closer and then cropping in post - how sharp is it this way?
You seem to be imitating the narrator of "Three Blind Men and An Elephant Productions." A little over acting on a lens accessory. TCs are great addons, if the right one. In any case, adding more glass on top of original glass to extend focal length can have different results when pixel-peeking. My wisdom is, if the steak is too chewy, then send it back!. Haha
AHAHAHAHA.....Huge black duck.... you crack me up.....your huge black duck is a Cormorant, they've become quite prolific here on Long Island...keep the vids coming.....: )
I did pixel level tests and on Canon m6ii with 100-400L and 1.4 TC iii I get much more details, specifically wild life shots.
Like your ironic style!😜🤩🤩🤩
I had the same problem with my L series canon lens with canon teleconverter. Bad.
2X Teleconverters is crap! Thanks for your good review.
You never get shots of pileated woodpeckers. Branch out a bit.
2x teleconverter works OK with my Canon L series 70-200 f2.8. On cheap lenses - not so much.
Teleconverters can work great when used properly in combination with certain lenses, i.e. fast primes such as 300mm f/2.8, 400mm f/2.8, 600mm f/4 etc. I would never recommend using teleconverters on a zoom/variable aperture lenses as optical quality is just not there. This is my personal experience as a wildlife photographer and I shoot Canon so I can't speak for other systems.
Agree, the key thing to note when using teleconverters is to know when to use it when you should not. Not just slap it on once, fiddle around with your camera and call it a day.
@@johnnyb4011 Agreed, they definitely have they place and use cases
Teleconverters have never lived up to the hype since I started in photography in the mid-80s. They are especially bad on zoom lenses. It gets worse with the 2x. I would only use them on a professional-level prime lens, and even then, know that I may be better off just cropping in post.
I’d agree with my Nikon converters on a zoom lens not great results but my husband with a 1.4 x on the 300pf for wild life get good results. Similarly on the Sony A7R4 with the 2x I struggled to get it to focus in the grey poor UK light on the 200-600. However the Sony wildlife group had loads of excellent captures with this lens body combo but many of them living in parts of the world with better light. But having recently purchased the A74 with improved bird eye autofocus the 1.4x on the 200-600 makes a big difference as the subject is close enough for bird eye autofocus to lock on and I get more keepers than the 200-600 on the R4 even in crop mode. Am impressed by your tree creeper footage, rarely see one of those as they move so fast and their camouflage is so good :) You should be able to get good heron and cormorant ( large black duck not!) with that lens. Watch Mark Smith and Steve Perry for wildlife shooting tips they are both excellent 😀
I love how you don't know the names of the birds and just describe exactly what you see. "This greckal looking thing puffed right up."
It's so honest; being there for the right reasons. "It's so majestic!". -Yes! Like how it was a, "blurry background" and not "hookah" or whatever it's called for years. Exactly. The background was blurry. I wanted to know what the deal was with that also.
-Don't get me wrong; I don't think it's good to glamorize ignorance, but too many people are into faking smart rather than being honest. Knowledge comes with genuine exploration.
Whatever. Just my two cents.
Cheers!
why didnt you upscaled the 2x too, so we can see how much better/worse is than digital zoom in post ?
Wow. I miss a few of your videos a d now Sony is sending you stuff!?! You're going places man!
If your into talking heads teleconverters suck. Always too zoomed in. I have the speed booster and a plain adapter for [cough cough ah-humm] My Canon M50 Out doors they are usefull especially the Speed booster. Dreaded Canon crap-sensor cameras are naukphobic [afraid of the dark] so it helps. But forget wide angle, not happening. Nothing like full frame 20-25 mm for street videos at night.