If you buy today's gear through my affiliate links, you can gain 3% sharpness for the low cost of hundreds of dollars, extra weight, worse autofocus, higher ISO, and knowing that Jared Polin is your Guru. Jared Polin's video on teleconverters th-cam.com/video/jAOPEBpJ78s/w-d-xo.html 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
Trust me, Jared Polin will never, ever be my Guru. That said, I have been having obviously demonic suggestions that I should get the MC-14 Teleconverter for my Olympus 100-400mm -- however, after much prayer and thought I have decided against it. Your inspired video helped to confirm that my decision is the right one. Truth is, I am one of those oddballs who shoots almost 100% Jpeg (Gasp!), and have found that my handy dandy DTC (Digital Teleconverter) function works every bit as well as cropping in post. Thus I have it programmed on my E-M1X to the Video button since I am strictly a stills photographer. If I need a tighter crop than my lens @ 400mm, I simply press the magic button and 'Wallah!', I'm at 800mm with no change in exposure speed, and that crop is to the sharpest part of the image. The only reason I have considered the 1.4X tele is due to good old fashion Greed -- I thought, if I can get 1600mm equivalent with the DTC, then the 1.4X will give me 2240mm! There is no end to the depravity.
My first photography teacher had a great saying about teleconverters , "double your focal length , halve your image quality " . 40 year on not much has changed .
It's not a halving of image quality, closer to about a 30% loss in sharpness and contrast but you do get more detail since you are physically zooming into the subject and today with High resolution cameras and Upscaling tech the downsides can be easily mitigated
It has, glass is better now, most mugs here couldn't tell the difference if a pic had used a TC as they rely on others ignorance....But got to get those Affiliate links in by making shit up, want to learn about Photography, STAY OFF YT and buy a book.
Can also stop watching all of youtube as Bob Ross is the holy final word on all matters photography. Just add a new book to the bible titled "Bob Ross", right after the 4 apostles fairytale stories.
After seeing some of the questions you get, I am not so sure I’d trust any of the comment section as to what is sharper or not. Go with what it’s your heart and wallet that brings you joy. On a side note, the new song, well done. You can trust that opinion.
I did no lab tests, but my most exciting moment with cameras was using the digital teleconverter at an Airshow with my Olympus. I was blown away at the details captured. I didn’t realise it was digital zoom till later, but the difference was not distinguishable from my eyes.
EPIC video - and new soundtrack :) I have the 70-300mm and was thinking of getting the 1.4, but now think I will just put the money towards a 100-400, or wait until Fuji announce their longer range lens. I will still keep the 70-300mm for all round portability / convenience while travelling. It is still a brilliant lens and mine does not suffer from the stiff zoom ring yours seemed to have. Your videos keep getting more informative and useful, and you wildlife shots are becoming better and better - keep going down this road :)
2:31looking trough you tube compression, it looks to me that the problem is not "sharpness" but rather chromatic aberration. You can see how the green fringing around the white letters give the impression of fuzziness. Another problem to me, with the 2.0TC is that Toneh N. Is too busy doing stuff all at once in the background: "busy" is an understatemen.
"you skip this section, I will hunt your mom" 🤣 Who would have ever thought it could be so awesomely funny to watch a video about Fuji teleconverters? Never stop.
The trick is to hold the ISO, chose the best aperture, and have longer exposure times. You might miss some shots, but you are not suppossed to get all goodies all the time. It´s about stretching the thing for "eventually" better outcome if you know what you do, and you are patient. My two cents after having 1,4x and 2x. The 1,4X is obviously better than no TC, but....
When I bought my 200-500 Nikkor lens, it cam with a 1.4TC. I use it a lot without any problems. The only issues that might arise is if you zoom in too far when processing. I also use a 2xtTC with my Z mount 70-200. That works extremely well too. I wouldn't be without them.
the toneh is typically more with the teleconverter if you have to punch in to achieve equivalent framing without it...this usually applies for wildlife photography.
Interesting tests! I got a Sony 1.4x teleconverter for my 200-600mm and no joke it was a game changer for me. As a bird photographer trying to pick up fine feather details with large crops, it allows me to pick up those finer details by having more pixels on the bird, yes it is softer but once sharpened in post i have a higher quality image using the converter. As soon as i zoom my lens out it completely defeats the purpose of having the teleconverter though, so I have to make sure its always pinned at 600mm The fact that me and other photographers keep using the teleconverters (on zoom lenses) is enough evidence that they work even with the loss of light /sharpness, added weight, increased shutter speed needed, its still somehow worth it just to get those extra pixels on the bird, otherwise if the results were bad I naturally wouldn't choose to attach it...
Yeah, you can pry my teleconverters and Panasonic-Leica 200mm f/2.8 from my cold, dead hands. It loses next to no resolution and gives me the reach I need for tiny ass birds.
@@ryankwan1934 With my Sony tele I do have problems wide open at f9, but I think its a depth of field problem rather than a sharpness problem, when im close to my subject there is so little in focus, but once I stop down to f11 things appear much sharper but its just because more of the bird is in focus.
@@KurtisPape Depending on the MP of your Sony, at F9 you might be above the diffraction limit for the density of your sensor. A 50mp FF for example would exceed the DLA at around f6.
@@KurtisPape Diffraction Limited Aperture. The aperture above which images become less sharp. For that camera, due to the pixel density, anything above f6 is going to be less sharp. That's why your images are softer at f9.
Just to point something out. TCs do NOT stop your lens down. Aperture is measured relative to the focal length. A TC changes the focal length of your lens, but the entrance pupil stays the same. Hence a pupil of diameter 50mm gives you an aperture of f/4 at 200mm focal length and when you add a 2xTC it gives you f/8 at 400mm. And since Tóneh comes from the size of the pupil there should be little to no difference between using a TC and cropping.
Thank you, missed this comment Also when cropping digitally in Post you also lose the same "iso" because the same noise is related to a lower area. Literally the same difference between a big and a small sensor, it is a crop and you have less total light than before
@romanpul TC changes your light density, which is what we primarily think of when 'stopping a lens down'. Yes it doesn't change the depth of field, assuming distance from the subject is exactly the same, which is the 2nd factor (not just entrance pupil size) to depth of field. All TC does is it magnifies the light and projects it into a smaller image circle and you lose light density in the process. The exact opposite happens with a speedbooster, where you gain f-stops.
Enjoyed the video and your unique delivery. In every example, the 1.4 TC seems better (than cropping to equivalent angle). You proved Jared wrong. I've done deep testing with my rig and in every way it is better to add TC glass than crop away pixels.
I defied all the warnings (even Jared's) and spent the big $ on the Sony 1.4 x TC for my 200-600. The images Ive captured with it are killer. No regrets.
A tele converter is basically an optical crop. It brings additional glass in the way, which is bad, but with cropping in post you loose pixels, which may be bad if you haven't enough
The 1.4x was a must have at Starbase, conveniently it's super bright most days so speed isn't a problem, since getting closer isn't a option zooming and cropping is needed to figure out what they are doing, I really liked having the 1.4 on the 100-400 and take the art pics with the 50-140
I find they have a purpose...sometimes. A more unusual use was on a pelagic birding trip where most of the birds were waaayyy out to sea and sometimes rather tiny. A 1.4x on a Sony A1 with 200-600 made many of the birds just large enough that cropped in 100% we could positively ID some sketchy ones after the fact (most people on the trip were strictly birders). And if I didn't have it on I wouldn't even have a "prove I finally saw it" shot of my favourite bird's behind as it flew away from the boat. In the right conditions, from an image quality perspective, you can't tell one was used. In the wrong conditions... "dammit why didn't I remember to take it off!" Just gotta know your gear and have realistic expectations.
I think probably what's going on with the 5.5x zoom on the 1.4 GM lens, with the lines that you can see with the teleconverter, but not the in post crop, is the difference between the resolving power of the lens vs the resolving power of the sensor. The overall image without the teleconverter is sharper, *but* those lines get lost between pixels on the sensor... maybe.
Like the new music! And the birdies…had a shoot (stills) on Saturday shooting surfing. I used my 1.4x on a 4/3 50-200mm Oly set-up. So,it’s about 560mm extended out. Excellent results,I daresay…
I own the Sigma 1.4 TC. At the beginning i used it, but now i just crop my pictures. The Sigma TC somehow it seems to me like it washes out the colours. Since i don't like to do alot of colourgrading, i prefer to not use it...
I just bought a 2x TC to put on the end of my Sigma 150-600mm. Why ? - 1. Money : less expensive than another even bigger lens - 2. Weight / volume : same, less annoying than another even bigger lens to carry around. - 3. One thing I noticed nobody is ever mentioning: the optical crop makes it easier for the camera to focus on small subjects at very long distances. So sure, the image quality may be similar, but when I got a bird (even a big one) so far out that my camera has trouble focusing on it (say, a bird flying in the sky, far away, and I want to shoot it with the background in a sort of "environment" shot), I think the TC will give me the optical reach the camera needs to actually make the focus work better. At least that's my hope.
all of these points are valid, but I would especially call out the 3rd point. I use teleconverters constantly for birds and if I'm not close enough, I just don't get the focus where I want it to be. I will add, though, that using professional level prime lenses makes the teleconverter a viable option. My favorites - Nikkor 300mm f/2.8 Ai-s, 400mm f/3.5
Great footage, that Female Blackbird perched in the Bullrushes was fantastic. I think the teleconverter definitely serves a purpose you just have to understand the difference between using all the sensor with a converter and a portion of the lenses visible field of view, or cropping the sensor. With the right lens at the right appeture the teleconverter might be a better image, especially in video where the resolution is already much lower than with stills. Cropping in on 4k isn't so bad but cropping in on 1080 does get a little grainy sometimes, but not always. I would say keep the converters it gives you options. You don't have to shoot with it. I enjoyed the music as well!
@@ItsWhatIDo I never suggest not using it only that you don't always have to, I think I made the point that it definitely had a time and place, his footage clearly displays it's value!
I might be missing something here, but the teleconverter gives you more resolution per magnification. You are imagining a larger (magnified) image on your sensor. So you will have more 'room' in post to crop etc.
SHARING TO LET PEOPLE KNOW MY EXPERIENCE: The Canon EF 1.4x II on the EOS R with the Tamron 70-200 G2 (at 200mm, applicable to all areas of the frame) displays *very* slight increase in detail (due to not having to crop) but that is cancelled out in my opinion by a very slight drop in contrast as well as a doubling in chromatic aberration.
Interesting test. I couldn’t see much of a difference, and often thought the non-converter images looked better. I’d like to borrow one for my Panasonic 200 2.8. That lens outresolves the sensor on my g95, so may accept a teleconverter better. That said, with a lot of the resolution enhancement software, I find it’s pretty easy to crop photos digitally and get a lot closer.
Hey, just discovering your channel. I love the way you show and say stuff! Even if it's not always easy to notice your seamless transitions from very serious to extremely goofy haha. The only time I use a teleconverter is when I do macro, to get more magnification. The rest of the time, yeah just native glass is better!
2:04 What is the (razor thin) white line along the bottom left of the screen? Seems visible below the 1.4 mark on the left image and it bounces around until 2:14. Seems to reappear later. Am I hallucinating from a lack of toneh?
I initially also thought that the teleconverter is less sharp, but looking at the crazy punch ins it seems like the teleconverter gives a softer image with MORE detail, which seems counterintuitive. So like yes it's giving more detail, but if you can't see it without cropping in like crazy, what's the point? Unless you plan to sharpen in post and then maybe the teleconverter just wins.
one thing he forgot to add..when shooting birds, you do crop your images quite a bit in some cases. With the TC, you have more room to crop, without, less room to crop. with todays cameras and post editing software, teleconverters will be more prominent.
Years ago I had the opportunity to test the latest version of the Canon 1.4x teleconverter before buying it. I used a tripod and optimal lens/ISO settings to shoot dozens of pics with my Canon full frame. In the end, I could get sharper results by cropping the photos without the converter to equalize the image size with the converter. Didn't buy the converter. Empirical confirmation of Jared's genius?
Congratulations on your discovery of Brick Works' majestic and natural waterfall! Also, screw you for spotting TWO kingfishers when I only spotted one and couldn't get a single photo of it.
I Love TONAY POINT 8. Don't leave home without him. I'm finally understanding that song from the 70s. "Love the one your with". Just lovin the lens I'm with and pretending it's a different lens every time I touch its zoom ring. It's not really cheating on the lens if you pretend.
Great tests, dude! I think the benefits are mainly if you shoot photography. I definitely don't see a big enough benefit to use a TC for video. With photos you you get the advantage of using the sensors full potential and full resolution. With video (even when downsampled) there's lots of compression happening. But I'm no professional so I could be just talking out of my butt.
I'm generally not a fan of TCs, but with one exception. When I use my Canon EF 300 f2.8 IS II with the 1.4x it still retains superb IQ and AF performance. Can't tell a TC is attached. But that was a $6k lens.
Yeah it looks like the tele convertor is giving more detail but is introducing a little glare (bloom). Nice tune, I havent heard this one from you before.
The difference in the fine lines of the aluminum brushing on the 35 might be a slight difference in focus: in some zones of the frame the no teleconverter shots look better and in others worse, most of the time no difference worth the price.
I wonder if physics becomes an issue with a TC do you start to get refraction artifacts that would amplify as the lens stops down. The place this might be an issue is macro if you wanted more reach and have more dof
For video this makes complete sense, because you already have enough information when cropped (so long as the main lens is high-resolution enough to land the light on that sensor making use of every pixel. You simply can't beat pixel perfect sharpness. The TC might help with photos on some lenses on some sensors and with some settings - but not always. Especially not with video which is relatively low-res. I had the same issue with my FF Nikon setup. My FF 300mm prime + TC1.4 had the same reach but a less clear image compared to using the 300mm on a crop-body WITHOUT the TC. I wasted $450. This is because that particular lens was so sharp the FF sensor was not even high resolution enough to get the most "potential" out of that lens. Simply increasing the density of the sensor (with a crop sensor) managed to utilize that extra sharpness that was just "hiding" in waiting. No TC necessary. I think this is mostly a "problem" when your lens is super sharp already though. It's always best to increase the sensor density up until the lens is no longer over-powered. Much better to do that if possible than use a TC. Your sensor even while cropped in post, was still 4k, and the lens (without TC) was more than sharp enough to provide pixel level sharpness for that cropped zone.
I have the exact opposite take, re: photo vs video TC performance, because cropping in on a compressed video in post also crops in on lossy compression and artifacts. With a photo you can just shoot RAW so the compression artifacts are not really baked into your shot when cropping.
@@officialtiimo i'm not sure that would be the case though... because the compression comes after the light is captured by the sensor. All my points are relating to that prior process so any compression would happen the same with or without TC
@@officialtiimo Same here. For video there's only so much you can crop in because the image (usually) is already low resolution compared for photo. Unless you're going 8k to 4k or 4k to 2k output it just ends up looking blocky and pixelated if you crop to far. Slight softening from a teleconverter is a better trade off if light allows.
The tests were pretty good as it's typically dark (ish) outside. but the teleconverter image would look better if it wasn't running at such a high ISO. That said, everyone (you, Toneh, Jared), doesn't seem to know that real wildlife photography occurs in the earliest hours before the sun is really up. Need that fast super tele
I ran similar tests with a rented Sony 100-400 GM and a 1.4x but only with photos. I rarely do video. On a bright sunny day all things being equal the 1.4x vs cropped were about the same, similar to your results. But a Sony 100-400 with 1.4x vs the same focal length on a 200-600 (both at 560) the 200-600 was clearly sharper. On cloudy day with not the best light, the 1.4 was basically useless at at 560 MM for photography. The ISO’s were so high or I had to lower the shutter speed too much for taking bird photos. So I agree there is a place for Tele’s under the right conditions but if you’re on a budget, crop. I also compared shooting my A1 in crop mode vs using the 1.4 x, at the same focal length and Fstop , I found crop mode to be slightly better.
Nice job sir I’m a rookie here and would like to know if there is a zoom for the cannon M50 and what you would recommend or if I’m wasting my and your time with the question Thanks PS I use it when I’m spotting storms .
is the zoom not doing artificial scale? our computers and browsers are doing automatic text anti-analyzing, image software is doing it any time you zoom.
So, would the conclusion also be, get a GH6 and use the Leica 50-200 (rather than the 100-400) and crop in post where needed? Or even use Digital zoom in the camera?
4:32 Can you talk to us about the barcode on the Sony lens? Is that for your personal inventory system? Asking because I am currently using QR codes for lens inventory but always considering new options.
I do mostly stills not video. I've used TC's over the years both 3rd party and camera brand. My experience with stills is similar to yours, cropping in is about the same image quality is so close as to not warrant giving up the extra stop plus of light.
I think I've mentioned before. But if you have high pixel sensor then a teleconverter would only diminish your quality. Because of the extra glass but also the extra stops of light you lose
The 1.4x is definitely sharper than the 2x. When you use a 1.4x teleconverter on say a 2.8 lens and you open up the aperture all the way and it says f4. It is just displaying the 1 stop light loss you are still technically at f2.8 but you lose a stop so it will display f4. You aren't suddenly at f4 depth of field. If that makes sense.
No, you're not at f/2.8, you're literally at f/4 with both the depth of field and light loss implications. The f/number of a lens is the ratio of the focal length to the size of the aperture of the lens (hence f/number--the focal length, f, divided by that number, gives you the size of the aperture). Adding a teleconverter changes that focal length, but it doesn't change the size of the entrance pupil, so the aperture ratio is literally and technically different. If you have a 100mm f/4 and a 50mm f/2 with 2x converter on it, those will give you the same depth of field at the same apertures.
@@allankcrain sorry but you are fundamentally wrong about teleconverters. They do not change the focal length of the lens. They simply increase the image circle projecting onto the sensor enlarging them. This factor of enlargement is based on the power of the converter, 1.4x or 2x. The light loss is based on the amount of light hitting the sensor being reduced via enlargement. 1 stop less for 1.4x and 2 stops less for 2x. Therefore you see a reduction in light but not a change in f-stop or depth of field.
No, I understand that what a teleconverter is doing is enlarging the image from the main lens system by increasing the image circle. What I’m saying is that that’s is literally changing the focal length, and so that literally changes the aperture ratio, and so that literally changes your depth of field. And if you’re now thinking “But that’s effectively just cropping, and cropping can’t change the depth of field!” well, guess what, that’s exactly what I’m saying, and it does. Consider crop-sensor cameras. You get more depth of field with a camera with a smaller sensor. Why? Because either you’re using the same focal length and moving back a little bit to compensate for the crop (and moving back a little bit means you’re not focusing as closely, and that means you have more DoF) or you’re using an equivalent focal length, meaning a smaller focal length relative to the full frame camera, and staying in the same spot (and the wider focal length means you have more DoF). All that’s actually happening is the same image is getting projected onto a smaller sensor-a crop-but in practice, that affects your depth of field in exactly the same way as using a smaller aperture on a larger sensor would. Using a teleconverter is exactly the same, but in reverse. I.e., imagine you now take your teleconverted lens system and put it on a larger-format camera, like a medium-format system with a 0.7x crop factor relative to 35mm (exactly canceling out a 1.4x teleconverter). By the same logic above that shows how smaller formats have deeper depth of field at a given aperture and field of view, the larger format should have shallower depth of field at a given aperture and field of view. So when you put this hypothetical lens+tc system on the larger sensor, you’ll get the exact same depth of field and field of view as the lens alone would give you on 35mm, which means that the lens+tc system must have a smaller aperture than just the lens alone. You see the same thing again with “speed booster” adapters for mirrorless crop sensor cameras-they’re effectively just wide-converters, and the “speed boost” comes from the extra brightness you get by shining the same amount of light on a smaller surface area, but you also get the same depth of field that you would get with the unconverted lens on a 35mm camera, which is the same as the wider aperture on the smaller-format camera. If you really need me to, I can dig out my teleconverter and take some example shots.
@@allankcrain sorry but you are still wrong. You can throw down as many words as you want to make your point but you are arguing for the sake of arguing and throwing out miss information. I can see that I can't change your mind through logic and it's your way or the highway so maybe just take a step back cool off and move on to things that matter. Because arguing over the internet is a waste of time and I myself have a life to live.
@@CollectiveMindz If you can actually lay out a logical argument and show me that I'm wrong, I can totally accept that I'm wrong. I'm not just "arguing for the sake of arguing" here, though, because in addition to my logical argument, I tested it in the real world with an actual teleconverter to make sure I was right. So since apparently you had trouble following my argument in one big chunk, I'll try explaining it to you in smaller sections. So: You understand that you get shallower depth of field with larger format sizes (e.g., full frame or medium format) than with smaller format sizes (APS-C, 4/3, cellphones, etc) all else being equal. Correct?
From my experience : a TC 2X will bring a significat plus in 15-20% of the situations, while in 80-85% will make it worst than lens alone. And of course the 2X TC has to be mounted on a fix lens (F/2.8 or F/4.0) which has a good resolution and use it in good light only. In this way the impact of the TC is minimum. When the TC it's mounted on a zoom which eventually is soft wide open, the result is easy to be predicted.
Pix awesome. Music awesomer ! Is that a word, don't know maybe I should look it up. Did you really create that? I don't know but maybe I'm getting addicted to your videos, I'm not sure... don't hold me to it.
I'm not a tele user, but I was actually surprised how well it worked. What I did notice is that your comparison was cropping the non-tele to match the tele. What I presumed you were looking for was a tele so you could crop the tele to get even closer. Perhaps you did this already or I missed it in your examples (don't come after my mom, I watched your footage... nice song), but what I would be interested to see is 400mm + 1.4 tele (600mm) cropped another 1.4 vs. 400mm no tele cropped 1.4 x 2. That test, to me, would show better if a tele is worth it. To me, your tests simply showed that the difference between a non-cropped tele shot and a cropped non-tele shot are basically the same.
Tony Northrup did a video about telecknverters. He says in higher resolution cameras a teleconverters can actually be worst than just cropping the image in post
and that's without upping the resolution your video with an AI based software. sounds like a sponsor video opportunity to me.... I am actually surprized how sharp your teleconverter shots are.
Great video and comparisons. I believe focus accuracy/performance decreases on mirrorless when using a TC due to less light hitting the sensor. Nikon Z lenses have less compromise with their TC's. If you can get even your hands on a TC.
If you buy today's gear through my affiliate links, you can gain 3% sharpness for the low cost of hundreds of dollars, extra weight, worse autofocus, higher ISO, and knowing that Jared Polin is your Guru.
Jared Polin's video on teleconverters th-cam.com/video/jAOPEBpJ78s/w-d-xo.html
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
Trust me, Jared Polin will never, ever be my Guru. That said, I have been having obviously demonic suggestions that I should get the MC-14 Teleconverter for my Olympus 100-400mm -- however, after much prayer and thought I have decided against it. Your inspired video helped to confirm that my decision is the right one.
Truth is, I am one of those oddballs who shoots almost 100% Jpeg (Gasp!), and have found that my handy dandy DTC (Digital Teleconverter) function works every bit as well as cropping in post. Thus I have it programmed on my E-M1X to the Video button since I am strictly a stills photographer. If I need a tighter crop than my lens @ 400mm, I simply press the magic button and 'Wallah!', I'm at 800mm with no change in exposure speed, and that crop is to the sharpest part of the image.
The only reason I have considered the 1.4X tele is due to good old fashion Greed -- I thought, if I can get 1600mm equivalent with the DTC, then the 1.4X will give me 2240mm! There is no end to the depravity.
My first photography teacher had a great saying about teleconverters , "double your focal length , halve your image quality " . 40 year on not much has changed .
Otherwise lens maker will market it as physics defying technology
It's not a halving of image quality, closer to about a 30% loss in sharpness and contrast but you do get more detail since you are physically zooming into the subject and today with High resolution cameras and Upscaling tech the downsides can be easily mitigated
@@CallMeRabbitzUSVI I agree and confirm. I bought Canon RF 1.4x teleconverter and it's really great.
@@CallMeRabbitzUSVI Hires cameras and upscaling mitigate the upside of the tc not the downside.
It has, glass is better now, most mugs here couldn't tell the difference if a pic had used a TC as they rely on others ignorance....But got to get those Affiliate links in by making shit up, want to learn about Photography, STAY OFF YT and buy a book.
One big reason I rely on the 2xTC with my 200-600 is to ensure the subject is large enough in the frame to allow AF to function properly.
Yes, focus, that is the untold story.
Autofocus and composition. It is far easier to visualize the final image when it is close to the final size in the viewfinder.
Very true
This channel is great. Homemade techno, wildlife photography, satire and history (FUBU) all in one.
yeah this guy rocks, he's a gem.
The Bob Ross test said it all. No need to test any more. From this day forward when testing your gear all you need is Bob Ross.
Can also stop watching all of youtube as Bob Ross is the holy final word on all matters photography. Just add a new book to the bible titled "Bob Ross", right after the 4 apostles fairytale stories.
After seeing some of the questions you get, I am not so sure I’d trust any of the comment section as to what is sharper or not. Go with what it’s your heart and wallet that brings you joy.
On a side note, the new song, well done. You can trust that opinion.
I did no lab tests, but my most exciting moment with cameras was using the digital teleconverter at an Airshow with my Olympus. I was blown away at the details captured. I didn’t realise it was digital zoom till later, but the difference was not distinguishable from my eyes.
EPIC video - and new soundtrack :) I have the 70-300mm and was thinking of getting the 1.4, but now think I will just put the money towards a 100-400, or wait until Fuji announce their longer range lens. I will still keep the 70-300mm for all round portability / convenience while travelling. It is still a brilliant lens and mine does not suffer from the stiff zoom ring yours seemed to have. Your videos keep getting more informative and useful, and you wildlife shots are becoming better and better - keep going down this road :)
2:31looking trough you tube compression, it looks to me that the problem is not "sharpness" but rather chromatic aberration.
You can see how the green fringing around the white letters give the impression of fuzziness.
Another problem to me, with the 2.0TC is that Toneh N. Is too busy doing stuff all at once in the background: "busy" is an understatemen.
I was gonna skip the song section, but I feared for my mom’s life.
"you skip this section, I will hunt your mom" 🤣 Who would have ever thought it could be so awesomely funny to watch a video about Fuji teleconverters? Never stop.
I skipped it.
Watches for the teleconverter/crop comparisons insanity... Stays for the magical animal footage. Nice work as usual! The song is a banger too 🤙🏻
The trick is to hold the ISO, chose the best aperture, and have longer exposure times. You might miss some shots, but you are not suppossed to get all goodies all the time. It´s about stretching the thing for "eventually" better outcome if you know what you do, and you are patient. My two cents after having 1,4x and 2x. The 1,4X is obviously better than no TC, but....
When I bought my 200-500 Nikkor lens, it cam with a 1.4TC. I use it a lot without any problems.
The only issues that might arise is if you zoom in too far when processing.
I also use a 2xtTC with my Z mount 70-200. That works extremely well too. I wouldn't be without them.
the toneh is typically more with the teleconverter if you have to punch in to achieve equivalent framing without it...this usually applies for wildlife photography.
Interesting tests! I got a Sony 1.4x teleconverter for my 200-600mm and no joke it was a game changer for me. As a bird photographer trying to pick up fine feather details with large crops, it allows me to pick up those finer details by having more pixels on the bird, yes it is softer but once sharpened in post i have a higher quality image using the converter. As soon as i zoom my lens out it completely defeats the purpose of having the teleconverter though, so I have to make sure its always pinned at 600mm
The fact that me and other photographers keep using the teleconverters (on zoom lenses) is enough evidence that they work even with the loss of light /sharpness, added weight, increased shutter speed needed, its still somehow worth it just to get those extra pixels on the bird, otherwise if the results were bad I naturally wouldn't choose to attach it...
Yeah, you can pry my teleconverters and Panasonic-Leica 200mm f/2.8 from my cold, dead hands. It loses next to no resolution and gives me the reach I need for tiny ass birds.
@@ryankwan1934 With my Sony tele I do have problems wide open at f9, but I think its a depth of field problem rather than a sharpness problem, when im close to my subject there is so little in focus, but once I stop down to f11 things appear much sharper but its just because more of the bird is in focus.
@@KurtisPape Depending on the MP of your Sony, at F9 you might be above the diffraction limit for the density of your sensor. A 50mp FF for example would exceed the DLA at around f6.
@@luisa9628 I don't really understand that whats the DLA? Anyway I use the A7R IV at 61megapixels
@@KurtisPape Diffraction Limited Aperture. The aperture above which images become less sharp. For that camera, due to the pixel density, anything above f6 is going to be less sharp. That's why your images are softer at f9.
Just to point something out. TCs do NOT stop your lens down. Aperture is measured relative to the focal length. A TC changes the focal length of your lens, but the entrance pupil stays the same. Hence a pupil of diameter 50mm gives you an aperture of f/4 at 200mm focal length and when you add a 2xTC it gives you f/8 at 400mm. And since Tóneh comes from the size of the pupil there should be little to no difference between using a TC and cropping.
Thank you, missed this comment
Also when cropping digitally in Post you also lose the same "iso" because the same noise is related to a lower area. Literally the same difference between a big and a small sensor, it is a crop and you have less total light than before
@@daweil94 Less total light is irrelevant, it's light density that matters. And that's exactly what f-stop tries to measure.
@romanpul TC changes your light density, which is what we primarily think of when 'stopping a lens down'. Yes it doesn't change the depth of field, assuming distance from the subject is exactly the same, which is the 2nd factor (not just entrance pupil size) to depth of field. All TC does is it magnifies the light and projects it into a smaller image circle and you lose light density in the process. The exact opposite happens with a speedbooster, where you gain f-stops.
@@anonymousl5150you are talking nonsense.
Enjoyed the video and your unique delivery. In every example, the 1.4 TC seems better (than cropping to equivalent angle). You proved Jared wrong.
I've done deep testing with my rig and in every way it is better to add TC glass than crop away pixels.
Any loss of quality is imperceptible to anyone watching a nature video. I’m impressed with the quality of the teleconverters actually.
I defied all the warnings (even Jared's) and spent the big $ on the Sony 1.4 x TC for my 200-600. The images Ive captured with it are killer. No regrets.
A tele converter is basically an optical crop. It brings additional glass in the way, which is bad, but with cropping in post you loose pixels, which may be bad if you haven't enough
I follow everybody but you quickly become my favorite
I didn't skip your song, and I must say, it slaps harder than Will Smith
🤭
😂😂😂😂
The footage looked great! Well done 👍🏼.
The 1.4x was a must have at Starbase, conveniently it's super bright most days so speed isn't a problem, since getting closer isn't a option zooming and cropping is needed to figure out what they are doing, I really liked having the 1.4 on the 100-400 and take the art pics with the 50-140
yeah but what if i want to use the 1.4x tele then crop 1.4x again.
I heart the slow, mystic cross dissolves. Sweet bird on turtle rave action.
Yes! Leica 50-200 plus 1.4 tele is magic. The 50-200 is my fav lens now
on the "35" the focus plane was a little different. :) thus on one lines were visible and on the other focus was n the "grain" of the paint.
I find they have a purpose...sometimes. A more unusual use was on a pelagic birding trip where most of the birds were waaayyy out to sea and sometimes rather tiny. A 1.4x on a Sony A1 with 200-600 made many of the birds just large enough that cropped in 100% we could positively ID some sketchy ones after the fact (most people on the trip were strictly birders). And if I didn't have it on I wouldn't even have a "prove I finally saw it" shot of my favourite bird's behind as it flew away from the boat.
In the right conditions, from an image quality perspective, you can't tell one was used. In the wrong conditions... "dammit why didn't I remember to take it off!" Just gotta know your gear and have realistic expectations.
I think probably what's going on with the 5.5x zoom on the 1.4 GM lens, with the lines that you can see with the teleconverter, but not the in post crop, is the difference between the resolving power of the lens vs the resolving power of the sensor.
The overall image without the teleconverter is sharper, *but* those lines get lost between pixels on the sensor... maybe.
Like the new music! And the birdies…had a shoot (stills) on Saturday shooting surfing. I used my 1.4x on a 4/3 50-200mm Oly set-up. So,it’s about 560mm extended out. Excellent results,I daresay…
You and Kenny Vs Spenny are best thing that Canada gave to the world
You know what? I've just ordered a t-shirt, because it looks freaking cool on you brah! ✌
I own the Sigma 1.4 TC. At the beginning i used it, but now i just crop my pictures. The Sigma TC somehow it seems to me like it washes out the colours.
Since i don't like to do alot of colourgrading, i prefer to not use it...
I just bought a 2x TC to put on the end of my Sigma 150-600mm.
Why ?
- 1. Money : less expensive than another even bigger lens
- 2. Weight / volume : same, less annoying than another even bigger lens to carry around.
- 3. One thing I noticed nobody is ever mentioning: the optical crop makes it easier for the camera to focus on small subjects at very long distances. So sure, the image quality may be similar, but when I got a bird (even a big one) so far out that my camera has trouble focusing on it (say, a bird flying in the sky, far away, and I want to shoot it with the background in a sort of "environment" shot), I think the TC will give me the optical reach the camera needs to actually make the focus work better. At least that's my hope.
all of these points are valid, but I would especially call out the 3rd point. I use teleconverters constantly for birds and if I'm not close enough, I just don't get the focus where I want it to be. I will add, though, that using professional level prime lenses makes the teleconverter a viable option. My favorites - Nikkor 300mm f/2.8 Ai-s, 400mm f/3.5
Great footage, that Female Blackbird perched in the Bullrushes was fantastic. I think the teleconverter definitely serves a purpose you just have to understand the difference between using all the sensor with a converter and a portion of the lenses visible field of view, or cropping the sensor. With the right lens at the right appeture the teleconverter might be a better image, especially in video where the resolution is already much lower than with stills. Cropping in on 4k isn't so bad but cropping in on 1080 does get a little grainy sometimes, but not always. I would say keep the converters it gives you options. You don't have to shoot with it. I enjoyed the music as well!
'You don't have to shoot with it'..... it would make a really expensive paper weight. But stylish of course.
@@ItsWhatIDo I never suggest not using it only that you don't always have to, I think I made the point that it definitely had a time and place, his footage clearly displays it's value!
New song made me feel unease at the beginning, LOL. Images ... I think they look amazing! Colors, look of the footage, goof framing ... Nice job!
My mother remains safe another day. That turtle had “it” factor.
I might be missing something here, but the teleconverter gives you more resolution per magnification. You are imagining a larger (magnified) image on your sensor. So you will have more 'room' in post to crop etc.
why not get a a7r4 ? then you have the extra resolution to crop into ?
So excited for the new song :D that clip was hard
SHARING TO LET PEOPLE KNOW MY EXPERIENCE: The Canon EF 1.4x II on the EOS R with the Tamron 70-200 G2 (at 200mm, applicable to all areas of the frame) displays *very* slight increase in detail (due to not having to crop) but that is cancelled out in my opinion by a very slight drop in contrast as well as a doubling in chromatic aberration.
1.4 is ok. cropped sensor better and 2x is a glass jar on a mount. teleconverters give you grain advantages
Aren't you losing resolution with a crop but you get full sensor readout for 1.4
Ok so punching in is the same. What if you punch in further on the teleconverter image ?
Interesting tests for sure. And I'm liking the new song! Can we download it from your Stern Beats page?
Interesting test. I couldn’t see much of a difference, and often thought the non-converter images looked better. I’d like to borrow one for my Panasonic 200 2.8. That lens outresolves the sensor on my g95, so may accept a teleconverter better. That said, with a lot of the resolution enhancement software, I find it’s pretty easy to crop photos digitally and get a lot closer.
Mom's safe. I watched the whole Damn thing.
The advantage of the TC for me is seeing my subject better (birds) a little better while I’m photographing them even the there’s little gain in post.
Hey, just discovering your channel. I love the way you show and say stuff! Even if it's not always easy to notice your seamless transitions from very serious to extremely goofy haha.
The only time I use a teleconverter is when I do macro, to get more magnification. The rest of the time, yeah just native glass is better!
2:04 What is the (razor thin) white line along the bottom left of the screen? Seems visible below the 1.4 mark on the left image and it bounces around until 2:14. Seems to reappear later. Am I hallucinating from a lack of toneh?
I initially also thought that the teleconverter is less sharp, but looking at the crazy punch ins it seems like the teleconverter gives a softer image with MORE detail, which seems counterintuitive. So like yes it's giving more detail, but if you can't see it without cropping in like crazy, what's the point? Unless you plan to sharpen in post and then maybe the teleconverter just wins.
one thing he forgot to add..when shooting birds, you do crop your images quite a bit in some cases. With the TC, you have more room to crop, without, less room to crop. with todays cameras and post editing software, teleconverters will be more prominent.
Years ago I had the opportunity to test the latest version of the Canon 1.4x teleconverter before buying it. I used a tripod and optimal lens/ISO settings to shoot dozens of pics with my Canon full frame. In the end, I could get sharper results by cropping the photos without the converter to equalize the image size with the converter. Didn't buy the converter. Empirical confirmation of Jared's genius?
Congratulations on your discovery of Brick Works' majestic and natural waterfall! Also, screw you for spotting TWO kingfishers when I only spotted one and couldn't get a single photo of it.
I Love TONAY POINT 8. Don't leave home without him. I'm finally understanding that song from the 70s. "Love the one your with". Just lovin the lens I'm with and pretending it's a different lens every time I touch its zoom ring. It's not really cheating on the lens if you pretend.
can't deal with your lights man)) great work
Still debating on a tele for my R6 since I'm starting low in resolution...
Great tests, dude! I think the benefits are mainly if you shoot photography. I definitely don't see a big enough benefit to use a TC for video. With photos you you get the advantage of using the sensors full potential and full resolution. With video (even when downsampled) there's lots of compression happening. But I'm no professional so I could be just talking out of my butt.
I'm generally not a fan of TCs, but with one exception. When I use my Canon EF 300 f2.8 IS II with the 1.4x it still retains superb IQ and AF performance. Can't tell a TC is attached. But that was a $6k lens.
Yeah it looks like the tele convertor is giving more detail but is introducing a little glare (bloom). Nice tune, I havent heard this one from you before.
I actually stopped using my teleconverter, but think I will bring it back out the cupboard after seeing that it still does have slight benefits
The difference in the fine lines of the aluminum brushing on the 35 might be a slight difference in focus: in some zones of the frame the no teleconverter shots look better and in others worse, most of the time no difference worth the price.
I wonder if physics becomes an issue with a TC do you start to get refraction artifacts that would amplify as the lens stops down. The place this might be an issue is macro if you wanted more reach and have more dof
But one for Olympus 40-150 - the 1.4 and the 2x work well.
I stayed for the song. Did not skip. I dig it.
They work great on the Sony Gm prime lenses with no quality loss with the 1.4 and barely any with the 2x.
For video this makes complete sense, because you already have enough information when cropped (so long as the main lens is high-resolution enough to land the light on that sensor making use of every pixel. You simply can't beat pixel perfect sharpness. The TC might help with photos on some lenses on some sensors and with some settings - but not always. Especially not with video which is relatively low-res.
I had the same issue with my FF Nikon setup. My FF 300mm prime + TC1.4 had the same reach but a less clear image compared to using the 300mm on a crop-body WITHOUT the TC. I wasted $450. This is because that particular lens was so sharp the FF sensor was not even high resolution enough to get the most "potential" out of that lens. Simply increasing the density of the sensor (with a crop sensor) managed to utilize that extra sharpness that was just "hiding" in waiting. No TC necessary. I think this is mostly a "problem" when your lens is super sharp already though. It's always best to increase the sensor density up until the lens is no longer over-powered. Much better to do that if possible than use a TC.
Your sensor even while cropped in post, was still 4k, and the lens (without TC) was more than sharp enough to provide pixel level sharpness for that cropped zone.
I have the exact opposite take, re: photo vs video TC performance, because cropping in on a compressed video in post also crops in on lossy compression and artifacts. With a photo you can just shoot RAW so the compression artifacts are not really baked into your shot when cropping.
@@officialtiimo i'm not sure that would be the case though... because the compression comes after the light is captured by the sensor. All my points are relating to that prior process so any compression would happen the same with or without TC
@@officialtiimo Same here. For video there's only so much you can crop in because the image (usually) is already low resolution compared for photo. Unless you're going 8k to 4k or 4k to 2k output it just ends up looking blocky and pixelated if you crop to far. Slight softening from a teleconverter is a better trade off if light allows.
If your ISO is “worse”, that means the camera gain is higher because you aren’t getting as many photons. It’s the photons that makes the image.
The tests were pretty good as it's typically dark (ish) outside. but the teleconverter image would look better if it wasn't running at such a high ISO.
That said, everyone (you, Toneh, Jared), doesn't seem to know that real wildlife photography occurs in the earliest hours before the sun is really up. Need that fast super tele
New song is pretty frickin' alright! I expect a full Stern Beats montage music video to microdose to on a Wednesday afternoon!!
Look at you now you're a scientist ;p lol and a new song !!! I want the lyrics and a music video about it ! :)
I ran similar tests with a rented Sony 100-400 GM and a 1.4x but only with photos. I rarely do video. On a bright sunny day all things being equal the 1.4x vs cropped were about the same, similar to your results. But a Sony 100-400 with 1.4x vs the same focal length on a 200-600 (both at 560) the 200-600 was clearly sharper. On cloudy day with not the best light, the 1.4 was basically useless at at 560 MM for photography. The ISO’s were so high or I had to lower the shutter speed too much for taking bird photos. So I agree there is a place for Tele’s under the right conditions but if you’re on a budget, crop. I also compared shooting my A1 in crop mode vs using the 1.4 x, at the same focal length and Fstop , I found crop mode to be slightly better.
Nice footage of the Belted Kingfishers
Nice job sir I’m a rookie here and would like to know if there is a zoom for the cannon M50 and what you would recommend or if I’m wasting my and your time with the question Thanks PS I use it when I’m spotting storms .
is the zoom not doing artificial scale? our computers and browsers are doing automatic text anti-analyzing, image software is doing it any time you zoom.
So, would the conclusion also be, get a GH6 and use the Leica 50-200 (rather than the 100-400) and crop in post where needed? Or even use Digital zoom in the camera?
4:32 Can you talk to us about the barcode on the Sony lens? Is that for your personal inventory system? Asking because I am currently using QR codes for lens inventory but always considering new options.
I do mostly stills not video. I've used TC's over the years both 3rd party and camera brand. My experience with stills is similar to yours, cropping in is about the same image quality is so close as to not warrant giving up the extra stop plus of light.
The new song is epic!
I think I've mentioned before. But if you have high pixel sensor then a teleconverter would only diminish your quality. Because of the extra glass but also the extra stops of light you lose
Those beats are funky as hell dude... 😎
The 1.4x is definitely sharper than the 2x.
When you use a 1.4x teleconverter on say a 2.8 lens and you open up the aperture all the way and it says f4. It is just displaying the 1 stop light loss you are still technically at f2.8 but you lose a stop so it will display f4. You aren't suddenly at f4 depth of field. If that makes sense.
No, you're not at f/2.8, you're literally at f/4 with both the depth of field and light loss implications.
The f/number of a lens is the ratio of the focal length to the size of the aperture of the lens (hence f/number--the focal length, f, divided by that number, gives you the size of the aperture). Adding a teleconverter changes that focal length, but it doesn't change the size of the entrance pupil, so the aperture ratio is literally and technically different.
If you have a 100mm f/4 and a 50mm f/2 with 2x converter on it, those will give you the same depth of field at the same apertures.
@@allankcrain sorry but you are fundamentally wrong about teleconverters. They do not change the focal length of the lens. They simply increase the image circle projecting onto the sensor enlarging them. This factor of enlargement is based on the power of the converter, 1.4x or 2x. The light loss is based on the amount of light hitting the sensor being reduced via enlargement. 1 stop less for 1.4x and 2 stops less for 2x. Therefore you see a reduction in light but not a change in f-stop or depth of field.
No, I understand that what a teleconverter is doing is enlarging the image from the main lens system by increasing the image circle. What I’m saying is that that’s is literally changing the focal length, and so that literally changes the aperture ratio, and so that literally changes your depth of field.
And if you’re now thinking “But that’s effectively just cropping, and cropping can’t change the depth of field!” well, guess what, that’s exactly what I’m saying, and it does.
Consider crop-sensor cameras. You get more depth of field with a camera with a smaller sensor. Why? Because either you’re using the same focal length and moving back a little bit to compensate for the crop (and moving back a little bit means you’re not focusing as closely, and that means you have more DoF) or you’re using an equivalent focal length, meaning a smaller focal length relative to the full frame camera, and staying in the same spot (and the wider focal length means you have more DoF). All that’s actually happening is the same image is getting projected onto a smaller sensor-a crop-but in practice, that affects your depth of field in exactly the same way as using a smaller aperture on a larger sensor would.
Using a teleconverter is exactly the same, but in reverse. I.e., imagine you now take your teleconverted lens system and put it on a larger-format camera, like a medium-format system with a 0.7x crop factor relative to 35mm (exactly canceling out a 1.4x teleconverter). By the same logic above that shows how smaller formats have deeper depth of field at a given aperture and field of view, the larger format should have shallower depth of field at a given aperture and field of view. So when you put this hypothetical lens+tc system on the larger sensor, you’ll get the exact same depth of field and field of view as the lens alone would give you on 35mm, which means that the lens+tc system must have a smaller aperture than just the lens alone.
You see the same thing again with “speed booster” adapters for mirrorless crop sensor cameras-they’re effectively just wide-converters, and the “speed boost” comes from the extra brightness you get by shining the same amount of light on a smaller surface area, but you also get the same depth of field that you would get with the unconverted lens on a 35mm camera, which is the same as the wider aperture on the smaller-format camera.
If you really need me to, I can dig out my teleconverter and take some example shots.
@@allankcrain sorry but you are still wrong. You can throw down as many words as you want to make your point but you are arguing for the sake of arguing and throwing out miss information. I can see that I can't change your mind through logic and it's your way or the highway so maybe just take a step back cool off and move on to things that matter. Because arguing over the internet is a waste of time and I myself have a life to live.
@@CollectiveMindz If you can actually lay out a logical argument and show me that I'm wrong, I can totally accept that I'm wrong. I'm not just "arguing for the sake of arguing" here, though, because in addition to my logical argument, I tested it in the real world with an actual teleconverter to make sure I was right. So since apparently you had trouble following my argument in one big chunk, I'll try explaining it to you in smaller sections.
So: You understand that you get shallower depth of field with larger format sizes (e.g., full frame or medium format) than with smaller format sizes (APS-C, 4/3, cellphones, etc) all else being equal. Correct?
Bought a Sigma 100-400mm and a Panasonic 2x convertor for use on an S5.
Now I wish I'd just got a P1000.
I don't know, I love both my teleconverters for my Olympus.
Agreed. I used to have the Olympus 300 f4 PRO and the Olympus 1.4 teleconverter. My still and video images were VERY sharp!
with the teleconverter.. there's more background compression.. only real gain and diference I could notice..
From my experience : a TC 2X will bring a significat plus in 15-20% of the situations, while in 80-85% will make it worst than lens alone.
And of course the 2X TC has to be mounted on a fix lens (F/2.8 or F/4.0) which has a good resolution and use it in good light only. In this way the impact of the TC is minimum.
When the TC it's mounted on a zoom which eventually is soft wide open, the result is easy to be predicted.
Pix awesome.
Music awesomer ! Is that a word, don't know maybe I should look it up. Did you really create that?
I don't know but maybe I'm getting addicted to your videos, I'm not sure... don't hold me to it.
Hi bro are you hand held or talk about tripod heads masterful in all ways. Whens your movie coming out?
You are a hoot thanks for sharing
Try to take a picture of fine text with a teleconverter at distance where bare lens cannot resolve it.
I'm not a tele user, but I was actually surprised how well it worked. What I did notice is that your comparison was cropping the non-tele to match the tele. What I presumed you were looking for was a tele so you could crop the tele to get even closer. Perhaps you did this already or I missed it in your examples (don't come after my mom, I watched your footage... nice song), but what I would be interested to see is 400mm + 1.4 tele (600mm) cropped another 1.4 vs. 400mm no tele cropped 1.4 x 2. That test, to me, would show better if a tele is worth it. To me, your tests simply showed that the difference between a non-cropped tele shot and a cropped non-tele shot are basically the same.
Opps... You did do this.... my bad. sorry.
Tony Northrup did a video about telecknverters. He says in higher resolution cameras a teleconverters can actually be worst than just cropping the image in post
Loved the breakbeaty music section
All good again with music terrific. You've turned your back on walking backwards pigeons. Where's the love
Pretty much why camera brands put in camera cropping into the bodies. I think Leica made the best use of cropping with the Q2.
In my woods in charlwood Surrey we just can’t spot the woodpeckers 😩
got a fax from Mum today that read: "...I feel like I'm being hunted"
and that's without upping the resolution your video with an AI based software. sounds like a sponsor video opportunity to me....
I am actually surprized how sharp your teleconverter shots are.
Great video and comparisons. I believe focus accuracy/performance decreases on mirrorless when using a TC due to less light hitting the sensor. Nikon Z lenses have less compromise with their TC's. If you can get even your hands on a TC.