Originally posted by littledrawe Sounds like you've been listening to Reggie Watts!
When I get invited to do a TED talk, I'll be sure and post the video.
Can I assume then that most people think TCs add any value would be correlated to the small number of people who can actually understand the above explanation? Maybe some things are just to complex for the modern mind.
There's an awful lot of math and physics I feel that way about. If god wanted me to know that stuff he'd have given me a bigger brain.
Let's just write it off as I didn't explain it very good, that's probably kinder.
The problem is, there are at least 40 different learning stiyles, different ways fo making sense of the world. If someone with your learning style explained it to you, it would make more sense than my explanation. IN cases like this the odds are exactly 1 in 40 that anyone will comprehend what I wrote and understand it as I meant when I wrote it. My favourite example. I explain defence to my basketball team and run some drills to reinforce the concepts, ending with a drill where I demonstrate that 5 on four is not an advantage if the defence rotates and helps correctly.. Afterwards, one of my players comes up to me and says, "I understand what we're doing now , but you didn't explain it very good" and the whole teams nods. My only concern as a coach is that every one gets it and is working together on the same page. Evaluations of my teaching methods, from my perspective, if you get it, it works. If you don't, it didn't, and I have to try another way. But what everyone thinks of my teaching methods, I don't care.
I only care about the results of my teaching methods. In basketball, I always ran drills so everyone understood exactly what we were doing. In other words, I made people do things. Here, I can't make anyone do anything. I have to rely on their own curiosity to do the drill that goes with the theory.
So if everyone goes out and buys a few
great primes and augments their focal lengths with TCs my work is done. If not, I'll have to try another way,
In my experience a
great lens like my DA*200 2.8, my DA*60-250, or my Tamron SP AF 300) with a TC is much better than an average lens like my A-400 ƒ5.6, or a poor lens, (my Sigma 70-300) without.
The only question left to be investigated is if a
great lens like my DA*200 with the 1.4 TC (giving me 280 ƒ4) is as good or better than the DA*300 ƒ4 optically. It's already much more flexible, with 2 TCs that I can stack it is 4 focal lengths instead of one and four minimum ƒ-stops as well. But I'm not asking for opinions, I'm asking for visual proofs.
Last edited by normhead; 02-26-2018 at 07:39 AM.