Forgot Password
Pentax Camera Forums Home
 

Reply
Show Printable Version Search this Thread
04-18-2015, 04:48 PM   #1
Pentaxian




Join Date: Feb 2015
Posts: 346
Pentax HD TC 1.4 + DA* 300 - IQ

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 :

QuoteQuote:
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.

QuoteQuote:
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

QuoteQuote:
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.

QuoteQuote:
Regardless of the lens or AF performance, these are GREAT pics!
Thanks

QuoteQuote:
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 ??

QuoteQuote:
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.

QuoteQuote:
I am getting similar results.
Glad to see that I'm not alone !

QuoteQuote:
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.

QuoteQuote:
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).
QuoteQuote:
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).
QuoteQuote:
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.
QuoteQuote:
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.
QuoteQuote:
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).

QuoteQuote:
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.
04-18-2015, 05:25 PM   #2
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
jatrax's Avatar

Join Date: May 2010
Location: Washington Cascades
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 12,991
Looking at #1 and #2 my feeling is that #2 is softer. However, since #2 was taken at a longer distance and then cropped so the bird is the same size as in #1 I'm not sure how that is a fair comparison. But maybe I don't understand this. I would think a fair comparison would be the same subject (focusing target maybe) at the same distance and then the 300mm one cropped so that the object was the same size. Does that make sense? Also your #1 and #2 are at different ISO figures so that will have an impact.

I am currently using the 300mm and 1.4x TC and trying to evaluate if the results are as good as some say so interested in good comparison test. I finally got a chance to use the combo in good light this week and the results were not as good as I had hoped. However, I'm not sure if it was the lens or my technique.

Here is a shot and a crop, exported from Lightroom, no processing except my standard import preset. Taken from about 400 feet, on a tripod. Now that I think about it, I'm not sure if SR was on or off. And I cannot figure out how to check that.
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-3  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-3  Photo 
04-18-2015, 05:36 PM   #3
Veteran Member
Shanti's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: Western Denmark
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 927
Ok I'll add a bit here
Handheld out of a car,bit of wind..Raw processed in lIghtroom--WB,levels,shadows,and some sharpening
single point AF-S,Hoya HD UV filter on

last one shadows pulled alot to see feathers(or what's left of them )
Attached Images
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-5 II  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-5 II  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-5 II  Photo 
View Picture EXIF
PENTAX K-5 II  Photo 
04-18-2015, 06:18 PM   #4
Veteran Member
RAART's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oakville, ON
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,095
To me looks like that on some pictures you are simply out of focus, tending to say that your lens is back focused slightly... Did you try to calibrate the lens to your body?

04-18-2015, 06:45 PM   #5
Pentaxian
Driline's Avatar

Join Date: Dec 2012
Location: IOWA Where the Tall Corn Grows
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 3,669
I'm seeing the same thing as others have said. The pictures look a bit out of focus. I'd look for a static subject and use manual focus. Re-test and try again.
04-18-2015, 07:15 PM   #6
Veteran Member
audiobomber's Avatar

Join Date: May 2008
Location: Sudbury, Ontario
Photos: Albums
Posts: 6,806
I suggest you do some auto-focus tests on tripod with a stationary target.

EDIT: I guess I was a bit slow typing.
04-18-2015, 07:19 PM   #7
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
jpzk's Avatar

Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Québec
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 8,251
Here is a series of pictures taken with the K5 + DA* 300 + Pentax HD 1.4X teleconverter posted in my Flickr account ...


https://www.flickr.com/photos/rdlphotos/sets/72157645777277486

While some pictures are quite decent at 420mm, some are still not quite as sharp as they should be.
There are 21 pictures there, a good sampling.
Note: a whole bunch of images were deleted (not posted) because of the said softness; i.e.: a good percentage of them were certainly not as good as the K5 + DA*300 alone.

My photostream is rather filled with bird pictures taken with the DA*300 (no TC) and you can browse at will:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/rdlphotos/with/16325838011/

So, I think the lens on its own performs better than when combined with the TC.
I have similar results using the Tamron 1.4X Pz-AF MC4 with that same very lens and camera.

My (non-scientific) opinion is that any TC will degrade the overall end result(s), no matter how small the effect is.

JP

---------- Post added 04-18-15 at 10:23 PM ----------

QuoteOriginally posted by RAART Quote
To me looks like that on some pictures you are simply out of focus, tending to say that your lens is back focused slightly... Did you try to calibrate the lens to your body?
Which pictures are you referring to ...

04-18-2015, 07:53 PM   #8
Site Supporter
Site Supporter
crewl1's Avatar

Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: Los Angeles, CA
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 9,807
QuoteOriginally posted by jpzk Quote
Here is a series of pictures taken with the K5 + DA* 300 + Pentax HD 1.4X teleconverter posted in my Flickr account ...


https://www.flickr.com/photos/rdlphotos/sets/72157645777277486

While some pictures are quite decent at 420mm, some are still not quite as sharp as they should be.
There are 21 pictures there, a good sampling.
Note: a whole bunch of images were deleted (not posted) because of the said softness; i.e.: a good percentage of them were certainly not as good as the K5 + DA*300 alone.

My photostream is rather filled with bird pictures taken with the DA*300 (no TC) and you can browse at will:

https://www.flickr.com/photos/rdlphotos/with/16325838011/

So, I think the lens on its own performs better than when combined with the TC.
I have similar results using the Tamron 1.4X Pz-AF MC4 with that same very lens and camera.

My (non-scientific) opinion is that any TC will degrade the overall end result(s), no matter how small the effect is.

JP

---------- Post added 04-18-15 at 10:23 PM ----------



Which pictures are you referring to ...

Are you running the firmware that was designed to accommodate the TC? I think it was 1.16
04-18-2015, 08:32 PM   #9
Site Supporter
Site Supporter




Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Prince George, BC
Photos: Gallery | Albums
Posts: 3,543
Pic #4 - undertail coverts are pin sharp but eye is out of focus. A focus problem here. The other bad images are mostly the result of using SR when you shouldn't be using it. I have taught myself to up the shutter speed and turn the SR off for most of my bird shots, either with or without the 1.4 TC HD. The TC will "spread" the image out across the frame which results in a tiny bit more CA, especially near the edges. Post-processing is pretty well a given for TC work.
04-18-2015, 08:41 PM   #10
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 714
QuoteOriginally posted by RAART Quote
To me looks like that on some pictures you are simply out of focus, tending to say that your lens is back focused slightly... Did you try to calibrate the lens to your body?
I agree with this. It looks like there is a small miss in focus on some of them, or simply not getting the eye 100% in focus.
04-18-2015, 08:41 PM   #11
Veteran Member
RAART's Avatar

Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: Oakville, ON
Photos: Gallery
Posts: 1,095
QuoteOriginally posted by jpzk Quote
Which pictures are you referring to ...
First, third and fourth. Look at the branches as well, where is sharp and where is not... start and end. There you will see DOF start.
04-18-2015, 08:52 PM   #12
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,854
QuoteOriginally posted by timautin Quote
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 ??
Not really but that's me accustomed to shorter focal length where prime are indeed sharper and also K3 that remove the low pass filter and make things sharper.

To give you another idea of sharpness from DxO:
HD DA 35 macro ltd is measured as 13MP on K3 and 8MP on K5...
DA 35 f/2.4 both measured as 11MP on K3 and 7MP on K5.

But DA*300 is measured as 9MP on K3 and 7MP on K5... and while shorter prime all show at least some little improvement from 16 => 24MP (K5-IIs vs K3) the DA*300 show none, it max out with K5-IIs.

So yes if you compare the DA35 macro on K3 with a DA*300 on K5 you'll think the DA*300 shoots are soft.

The longer the focal length, the bigger it is, the more you pay, the less quality you get. Or you need to pay much much more or to have the lenses much much bigger... Maybe the 150-450 being so expensive and huge would be a great improvement here. We will see.

I always trusted through that the TC added quality, I have seen crops (more at K5 times) where there details you could not get without a TC by cropping... But I also seen that it was also typically coming with more CA and things like that. Many also confirm that.

So for me it hold true but when I see normhead pointing his shoot before post processing I feel more you are not alone having "not so sharp" picture out of the DA*300 + TC.

In all honestly the whole set of picture on the 1.4 TC thread you can see many picture that are soso from a pure technical point of view... Because we cumulate TC+crops, because there many birding etc and that a very difficult discipline.

Feathers are not the easier thing for a lense too. Most lenses measurements in lp/lw are done on contrasty target in studios and typically accept 50% contrast drop off while the texture of feather are far less contrasty and can easily be lost in particular if the light is not good.

Last edited by Nicolas06; 04-18-2015 at 09:02 PM.
04-18-2015, 09:07 PM   #13
Veteran Member




Join Date: Nov 2013
Posts: 4,854
QuoteQuote:
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.

Beware that with an FF 450 will not offer more reach than 300mm on APSC. And the pixel density to march 16MP K5 is already 37MP. And finally the lense apperture (up to f/5.6) mean that the AF would struggle with the TC (f/8 wide open).

But if the lense is indeed better, that might be interresting to use the 150-450 without TC in place of DA*300... well if you like the price and weight
04-18-2015, 09:11 PM   #14
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 11,913
I always thought the basics of testing procedures for lenses (and TC) was:

(1) start with a static, flat test target (ISO 12233 test target or newpaper page, camera on a tripod, good daylight equivalent light, wide-open plus progressively other apertures, manual focus);

(2) move on to real world tests (inc SR on/off).

Then draw conclusions.

These TC tests have jumped straight to (2).
04-18-2015, 09:12 PM - 1 Like   #15
Veteran Member




Join Date: Jul 2014
Posts: 714
QuoteOriginally posted by Nicolas06 Quote

Beware that with an FF 450 will not offer more reach than 300mm on APSC. And the pixel density to march 16MP K5 is already 37MP. And finally the lense apperture (up to f/5.6) mean that the AF would struggle with the TC (f/8 wide open).

But if the lense is indeed better, that might be interresting to use the 150-450 without TC in place of DA*300... well if you like the price and weight
all valid points. my bet is on the DA*300 to perform better in terms of IQ than the 150-450.... especially wide open.


also if 1. cropped isn't good enough for you, then you just need to give up on long lenses. It really doesn't get any better. An excellent 400mm lens will struggle to match a mediocre 50mm lens. The DA300 alone is excellent. This is as good as it gets...
Reply

Bookmarks
  • Submit Thread to Facebook Facebook
  • Submit Thread to Twitter Twitter
  • Submit Thread to Digg Digg
Tags - Make this thread easier to find by adding keywords to it!
1.4x, 300mm, 300mm lens, blur, crop, da*300, display, hd tc 1.4 da* 300 k5, image, images, k-mount, k5, k5 da*, lens, pentax hd 1.4x, pentax lens, people, pictures, post, series, size, slr lens, sr, tc, tripod, version
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Part 2 - (K-3) Compare Sigma 50-500 OS to DA*300/HD-TC crewl1 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 41 04-20-2015 09:46 PM
For Sale - Sold: HD PENTAX-DA 1:4-5.8 55-300mm ED WR 55-300 (price reduced) transam879 Sold Items 6 07-15-2014 06:05 PM
For Sale - Sold: K-3, DA* 300mm f/4, HD 1.4x TC wtlwdwgn Sold Items 16 07-02-2014 07:30 PM
Comparing Sigma 50-500 OS to DA*300 w HD-TC crewl1 Pentax SLR Lens Discussion 19 06-23-2014 03:21 PM
Impact of TC 1.7x on IQ on DA*300 tcom Post Your Photos! 8 02-22-2009 06:07 AM



All times are GMT -7. The time now is 08:17 AM. | See also: NikonForums.com, CanonForums.com part of our network of photo forums!
  • Red (Default)
  • Green
  • Gray
  • Dark
  • Dark Yellow
  • Dark Blue
  • Old Red
  • Old Green
  • Old Gray
  • Dial-Up Style
Hello! It's great to see you back on the forum! Have you considered joining the community?
register
Creating a FREE ACCOUNT takes under a minute, removes ads, and lets you post! [Dismiss]
Top