Hi,
After starting to discuss on the Pentax HD TC 1.4 loss in IQ on
the new 70-200 2.8 thread, I start this new topic to stop spamming the guys who don't care about the TC on the other thread ^^.
So the subject was, as a few other folks, I'm, as a general rule, not satisfied with my K5 - DA* 300 - TC combo (while I totally am with the 300 alone), and a lot of people are saying that it is a killer combo (often, with a K3 instead of my "old" K5).
So we were trying to figure out what may be the cause(s) :
- I got a bad TC copy
- post-processing
- shake-reduction
- the combo with the K5 isn't that much a killer one
So here are 4 full size pictures of the same bird. Nearly no post-processing done (especially, no sharpening at all & nearly no resizing). Taken with the camera mounted on a (low-cost) tripod.
1. 1/1600s f/5.6 ISO400 300mm - SR on
2. 1/3200s f/7.1 ISO800 420mm - SR on
3. 1/400s f/7.1 ISO800 420mm - SR off
4. 1/1000s f/7.1 ISO400 420mm - SR off (disabled by the camera as I was using a remote control)
And here are their 100% crops :
1 cropped. 1/1600s f/5.6 ISO400 300mm - SR on
2 cropped. 1/3200s f/7.1 ISO800 420mm - SR on
3 cropped. 1/400s f/7.1 ISO800 420mm - SR off
4 cropped. 1/1000s f/7.1 ISO400 420mm - SR off (disabled by the camera as I was using a remote control)
Here is my opinion on each shot :
- 1 : nothing to complain about, very sharp
- 2 : this is the average quality I get with the TC. Does not worth it IMHO
- 3 : one of my sharpest shots with the TC. SR off, it probably helped. If this were the average quality I'd be happy, the loss is visible but its OK
- 4 : average quality, with SR off this time
Now I'm answering the posts from the initial thread :
Quote: Why do you want a stabilized lens on a tripod ? No SR system (IBSR or ILSR) is precise enough to be usefull on a (locked) tripod as far as I know, few lenses have tripod detection but only to stop SR automatically when on tripod.
Yes, yes, I just forgot to put it off.
Quote: You should be using delayed shutter release or a remote when on tripod, both of which disable SR.
Please see picture 4 on this thread, taken with a remote control
Quote: On the manual they say to desactivate SR when on tripod.
When you put a DSLR on tripod with SR activated and continuous AF, the SR gets crazy (the K-x / k-r at least) and shakes in every direction even though there is no mouvement
Yep, I have to think about it every time. I never had that crazy SR problem on the K5.
Quote: Regardless of the lens or AF performance, these are GREAT pics!
Thanks
Quote: While the TC look worse none are that sharp in fact. The 300mm look better because the bird take more space on the picture and so you can see more detail.
Mmh, if the n°1 isn't sharp for you, well we don't have the same level of expectations
. Maybe you didn't noticed that the picture was a full-size picture which needed to viewed full-screen and not on the webpage ? On the 100% crop, do you still think that the 300-alone shot isn't sharp ??
Quote: On tripod, disable SR! And maybe also consider a K3
Well, I'm already considering the 150-450, and am starting to consider the FF, sooooo ^^. Moreover the K3 II seems to be on the road.
Quote: I am getting similar results.
Glad to see that I'm not alone !
Quote: good shots of the birds!! are these raw processed or just straight jpegs? 300 is better without TC, I have similar results (K5II), but the K5II is better at ISO 800 than K5 it seems
Thanks
. They are RAW processed, but very lightly (nearly no cropping, no sharpening. A few brightness adjustments on some of them). Coming from the K10d I'm pretty happy with the K5's ISO, but I didn't tried a K5 II, neither a K3.
Quote: Hmmmm, pictures that look "natural", here's natural for you.... personally I can see though the sharpening to understand how the original image stacks up, so it's not really an issue for me. And I find that often an image that looks good sharpened for print size, has artifacts when reduced in size. So I would argue that any image that's been reduced in size is artificially sharpened. So it's not a choice between sharpening and no sharpening. And it's not just sharpening it's also definition (micro-contrast) and contrast and saturation that give it the look.
But anyway, here ya go.... only levels and cropping from the F-70-210. I'm just curious do you really think you know more now? No sharpening, no contrast or micro-contrast, saturation or colour balance... yet I can look at that or the sharpened version and tell how sharp the image is.... really, what's the problem?
The interesting thing about that, is raw is usually pretty flat, my guess is the second version is a more accurate representation of the bird. What you'd see if he was lying dead on a table and you were looking at him with good light and a magnifying glass.
And I think sometimes people look at the sharpened version, and dream that it's some how an inferior image and if they applied lots of sharpening, they'd be just as good. It's like, "mine would be better than that but I don't believe in that kind of PP." Unfortunately everyone I know who actually does the work, usually have photos that look like mine, or have photos that are so soft, they can't be made to look like mine. I'm never sure where to put this type of comment.... one has to decide, what is advice worth, from people who haven't worked on the file?
Hint: A sharpened "soft photo" still looks soft. Applying sharpening doesn't create anything that isn't there. If you're image isn't sharp enough, applying sharpening doesn't help.
I guess some people just like flat washed out images un-augmented straight off the camera raw images. It must be style, popular among shooters critiquing their own work, (but generally shunned by the buying public).
Quote: With more experience you'll get it.
Hmmmm, pictures that look "natural", here's natural for you.... personally I can see though the sharpening to understand how the original image stacks up, so it's not really an issue for me. And I find that often an image that looks good sharpened for print size, has artifacts when reduced in size. So I would argue that any image that's been reduced in size is artificially sharpened. So it's not a choice between sharpening and no sharpening. And it's not just sharpening it's also definition (micro-contrast) and contrast and saturation that give it the look.
But anyway, here ya go.... only levels and cropping from the F-70-210. I'm just curious do you really think you know more now? No sharpening, no contrast or micro-contrast, saturation or colour balance... yet I can look at that or the sharpened version and tell how sharp the image is.... really, what's the problem?
You really like that better than this?
The interesting thing about that, is raw is usually pretty flat, my guess is the second version is a more accurate representation of the bird. What you'd see if he was lying dead on a table and you were looking at him with good light and a magnifying glass.
And I think sometimes people look at the sharpened version, and dream that it's some how an inferior image and if they applied lots of sharpening, they'd be just as good. It's like, "mine would be better than that but I don't believe in that kind of PP." Unfortunately everyone I know who actually does the work, usually have photos that look like mine, or have photos that are so soft, they can't be made to look like mine. I'm never sure where to put this type of comment.... one has to decide, what is advice worth, from people who haven't worked on the file?
Hint: A sharpened "soft photo" still looks soft. Applying sharpening doesn't create anything that isn't there. If you're image isn't sharp enough, applying sharpening doesn't help.
I guess some people just like flat washed out images un-augmented straight off the camera raw images. It must be style, popular among shooters critiquing their own work, (but generally shunned by the buying public).
Quote: Did i ask for a critique? I guess you felt you just had to point these things out to people who don't know.
My point still stands. I can tell how sharp an lens is with sharpening or not. I don't need folks dumbing it down to see what's there. I had no intention of turning this into a discussion of sharpening. As I have explained many times, I owe you clowns nothing. I'm posting a few imagers for you relevant to the topic. If you can't take them for what they were offered for, I don't care. I am not going to do perfect PP on every image just to make your life easier. I don't get every image I use perfect for display on the net. My philosophy is share your work. I get really annoyed at those who snipe from the wings, without offering anything of relevance.
And whining "I can't see what's sharp because the images are over sharpened." Please, do you actually stand behind that nonsense?
My advice, go to the 300mm plus club, and comment on everyone's sharpening, maybe one of them will care. I'm telling you, whether you think, or even if an image is over sharpened doesn't matter to me one iota. Its a web forum, you get what you pay for. I will not lift one teeny tiny little finger to change my import presets, unless I'm so inclined. You have absolutely no right to ask for better. It what I post isn't useful to you. Too friggin bad. I don't care. I don't run my life for your pleasure.
Now I posted some images showing my experience with the 60-250 and TC. If you have something to add to the topic... but oh no, lets comment on someone's post processing. I don't come here for you clowns. Please put me on ignore. Its not like you're posting stuff that interests me in the slightest.
We were trying to understand why two folks are having trouble with their 1.4 TC on a DA*300. Post processing was not the topic,until some one claimed they were so incompetent that my post processing interfered with their evaluation of the images.
Quote: Ya, I really enjoy myself... I hope everyone else thinks I'm as funny as i do. Some people think I'm dead serious when I take off.
Quote: Your absolutely full of yourself. I can't even be bothered to respond. And i wasn't trying to sell the lens. the issue was, is it as good with the TC. I picked a couple of images where based on my viewing on a monitor 2700 pixels wide at pixel peeping mode, the TC image was sharper than the cropped image with no TC. Now if you all want to complain about the sharpening fine... have at her. Hope you don' mind if I don't care.
I'm not going to get into all this doctrinaire BS everyone is posting. It would be a full time job.
If you aren't lazy full of yourself morons post a few images to illustrate the points you're making. I could have done the same lazy ass things you guys do. . I could have not checked out my images looking for a few that showed what I was talking about, put them up on line for all to see. I could have just shot my mouth off like everyone else.
I can sit back and snipe as good as the next guy. Ya'll are just way too funny.
My take on this, if you don't want to believe that it might possible to get more subject resolution with a TC than with an enlarged crop, challenge the sample images sharpening. Don't say anything where you might actually have to post some images that prove your point. Argue about sharpening. Great tack. But, don't be thinking I can't see what's going on here.
Have a nice day.
Well, that's a lot to answer at the same time ^^. Thanks for posting your pictures, they are relevant, even though I also find them over sharpened. This is a matter of taste, if you find that you can reach the same result by sharpening a little bit more when you use the TC, good for you. Some other people (including me) don't like this "sharpened effect" and so, when we use the TC and see the IQ loss, we do not want to correct it by sharpening the image, because we won't like the resulting pictures. I saw nobody criticizing you, only guys giving their opinion. You said "I owe you clowns nothing", well in my opinion anybody owe anybody at least some respect... The ambiance on the forum seems usually very nice (I'm new here), but speaking the way you did really doesn't help... So, I'd be glad to have your opinion even if it is different than mine and if you have different tastes, but if you can't tell it without being that agressive, please just don't
.
Now, if we want to compare shots' sharpness taken with different gear & by different guys, I think the only way is to it on non-sharpened shots (or equally sharpened, but that would be way to complicated).
Quote: Absolutely. Nobody was arguing about personal taste. When you sharpen an image to the point of introducing sharpening artifact, then you have by definition over sharpened the image. You can still like the look of the over sharpened image. That isn't what we were talking about. Often there is a difference between what might be esthetically pleasing and what is technically correct. The topic was dealing with the sharpness of a lens. If you have to sharpen to the point of introducing artifacts and screwing up the background bokeh, then something is wrong.... Technically. Esthetically you can smear oil on you lens and take pictures if that is the look that you like.
Agreed with that
Last edited by timautin; 04-18-2015 at 05:23 PM.