[Nicolas06]

300 + TC, damn soft , despite the very nice light. I sometimes get better results, but this is the average IQ I get.
1/3200s f/7.1 ISO800 420mm
You also download a few other samples here : http://timphoto.free.fr/__autres/Pentax/TC_1.4/300_vs_420.zip

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.

On tripod, disable SR! And maybe also consider a K3

[jpzk]

I am getting similar results.
Yes indeed I should post some samples ....

---------- Post added 04-17-15 at 03:44 PM ----------

Several people have suggested that you post examples to show what you're seeing. Formal tests would be better. It's not hard. Get out your tripod and a target, shoot with and without the TC, post the images.

My bad ... I shall get on with this when I get the computer in order at home.

[Shanti]

Yes, I will give it another try. And I will also try again the 300 alone without SR.
This is sad though, it would mean that the 150-450 isn't stabilized either...

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

[Weevil]

after looking at the pics in the zip file, I did not noticed much differences in sharpness fot 300mm vs 420mm, both are not full sharp... I first thought of AF front or back focusing issues, but now that I know you had SR activated on a tripod, I also think it would be the cause... SR on on a monopod is okay, but no good on tripod...

[normhead]

With the DA*60-250.... @250mm... one keeper from the sequence before I changed to the 1.4 TC.



With the TC....




And with the F-70-210, no TC... but creeping in a little closer....


I don't know what's wrong with what you are seeing, but your results are nothing like mine. I'd almost say, the longer the focal length, and the closer you are to the subject, the better the image, at least in terms of the subject's detail.

A-400, even more detail..... not an A* but the rule still holds. The distance from which you are shooting affects IQ more than the glass. Inferior glass close up still gives a better image than longer glass further away, no matter how good it is.


I wish I had a DA*300...I'd run a few tests.

[jaad75]

So oversharpened that it's hard to judge anything...

[monochrome]

So oversharpened that it's hard to judge anything...

Popcorn.

[Black_Wizards]

So oversharpened that it's hard to judge anything...

I think the same.
All those picts are not natural looking. But it's a style many people like nowadays...

[normhead]

So oversharpened that it's hard to judge anything...

With more experience you'll get it.

I think the same.
All those picts are not natural looking. But it's a style many people like nowadays...

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).

[Winder]

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).

No body said sharpening a photo was a bad thing. What they said was your photos are over sharpened. You can see sharpening halos starting to form in a couple and the bokeh is being affected.

[reh321]

complet

With more experience you'll get it.

You really like that better than this?

There is some serious post processing differences between the two pictures that has nothing to do with sharpening.
* White balance change
* Cropping.
* (anything else I missed?)

Sharpening is a matter of taste.
I'm not sure there is a reason to argue about it.

Added:
I sometimes use the term "needle sharp" because I believe that there is an unneeded race to higher and higher MPs fed by what is almost an addiction to sharpness.
I made my original comment because I would be very pleased if my pictures had that level of sharpness, but I'm not willing to spend the $$$$ on lenses to get there.
If you feel a need for sharpness driven by person need or demands of the marketplace, then that is great for you.

[normhead]

No body said sharpening a photo was a bad thing. What they said was your photos are over sharpened. You can see sharpening halos starting to form in a couple and the bokeh is being affected.

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.

[D1N0]

well that certainly sharpened to mood......

[Winder]

Did i ask for a critique? I guess you felt you just had to point these things out to people who don't know.

You are the only one I pointed it out to. Everyone else already noticed they were over sharpened.

And whining "I can't see what's sharp because the images are over sharpened." Please, do you actually stand behind that nonsense?

I never said anything like that. I think your quoting the wrong person.

I don't run my life for your pleasure.

You're pretty entertaining when you have a meltdown and go on a rant.

[normhead]

You are the only one I pointed it out to. Everyone else already noticed they were over sharpened.




I never said anything like that. I think your quoting the wrong person.



You're pretty entertaining when you have a meltdown and go on a rant.

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.