Finch from today
clipper_from_oz Goldmember ![]() More info Post edited 11 months ago by clipper_from_oz. (2 edits in all) | Jun 14, 2021 04:50 | #4171 Clipper
LOG IN TO REPLY |
clipper_from_oz Goldmember ![]() More info Post edited 11 months ago by clipper_from_oz. | Jun 14, 2021 04:59 | #4172 Clipper
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Jun 14, 2021 06:24 | #4173 John Sheehy wrote in post #19247820 ![]() That's looks like a Red-eyed Vireo. Rob's bird looks like a female Yellow Warbler to me; I don't see anything that I associate with a Summer Tanager, like a larger, light-colored bill, square-ish hump at the back of the head, and warm colors in the wings. Summer Tanagers are only rare vagrants or migratory overshoots in Rhode Island, while Yellow Warblers are extremely common all over the northeast. The spring breeding season Summer Tanager overshoots that I occasionally see in the NYC area look more like dull brownish-gold than yellow. I think that they are more yellowish outside of breeding season. Thanks John. It does look like Red-eyed Vireo after comparing the images on the internet.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
John Sheehy Goldmember 4,048 posts Likes: 893 Joined Jan 2010 More info Post edited 11 months ago by John Sheehy. | Jun 14, 2021 07:10 | #4174 LJ3Jim wrote in post #19247756 ![]() This lab test shows that the 2x does have a significant hit: https://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=6&APIComp=4 ![]() This type of test has questionable relevance to most real-world TC use, as the target is twice as far from the camera in the 1000mm version as the 500mm version. These tests were definitely not set up to aid in assessing equipment for focal-length-limited photography. In the real world, you usually put a TC on because you can't get close enough, and would otherwise have to crop; you usually don't step twice as far away because someone forced the TC into your system. One should expect a slightly softer render at 1000mm, but not so much softer that any item in the center of the target wouldn't be recorded better overall if both focal lengths were shot at the same distance from the target, which is more representative of most real-world TC use. BTW, CA can be corrected better than what we see in these tests, and better-sampled versions of the same CA can be better corrected. Some of what looks like luminance blur in the repeating lines is actually CA that is mostly cancelling its colors out by adding fringes from both sides, re-combining the colors. IOW, correcting the CA in the 1000mm version would not only remove the color, but also improve the contrast in the repeating lines. The owls have very fine detail in their feathers, and the IQ is a bit "mushy" in my opinion. The lab test for the 1.4x is better: https://www.the-digital-picture.com …omp=0&FLIComp=5&APIComp=0 ![]() In my experience so far, the 2x might have a future on my R6 but probably not on the R5. More shooting to follow over the summer. ![]() The R5 with a 1.4x is similar to the R6 with a 2x, in pixels-on-subject, from the same distance (a slight advantage to the R5 of 1.125x pixels or 1.06x in each dimension). Same for no TC on the R5, and a 1.4x on the R6. So, the R5 helps with TC avoidance, by getting the pixels-on-subject in an optically better way.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
my name is always taken Senior Member ![]() 461 posts Likes: 21 Joined Nov 2007 Location: Sydney,Australia n Frankfurt,Germany More info | Jun 14, 2021 07:40 | #4175 White Bellied Sea Eagle. https://smithersphotography.com.au/
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Capn Jack Cream of the Crop ![]() More info | Jun 14, 2021 08:04 | #4176 John Sheehy wrote in post #19247853 ![]() This type of test has questionable relevance to most real-world TC use, as the target is twice as far from the camera in the 1000mm version as the 500mm version. These tests were definitely not set up to aid in assessing equipment for focal-length-limited photography. In the real world, you usually put a TC on because you can't get close enough, and would otherwise have to crop; you usually don't step twice as far away because someone forced the TC into your system. One should expect a slightly softer render at 1000mm, but not so much softer that any item in the center of the target wouldn't be recorded better overall if both focal lengths were shot at the same distance from the target, which is more representative of most real-world TC use. BTW, CA can be corrected better than what we see in these tests, and better-sampled versions of the same CA can be better corrected. Some of what looks like luminance blur in the repeating lines is actually CA that is mostly cancelling its colors out by adding fringes from both sides, re-combining the colors. IOW, correcting the CA in the 1000mm version would not only remove the color, but also improve the contrast in the repeating lines. The proper test for what really matters for much TC use would be to set the distance to that which frames the target at 1000mm, and then shoot 700mm and 500mm from that same distance, and crop the target and upsample them to 45MP, and also do CA correction on them all. If we want to extend the test to consider noise, using low light, then the same shutter speed could be used for all, too. The R5 with a 1.4x is similar to the R6 with a 2x, in pixels-on-subject, from the same distance (a slight advantage to the R5 of 1.125x pixels or 1.06x in each dimension). Same for no TC on the R5, and a 1.4x on the R6. So, the R5 helps with TC avoidance, by getting the pixels-on-subject in an optically better way. Please consider that if I have a subject adequately framed at 500 mm, I would use the 2x teleconvertor if the same subject is twice as far to get similar framing. I'd suggest the test may well somewhat represent real-world use. I only use my TC if the subject is distant. I don't step twice away because I have a teleconvertor, I use it because the subject is twice as far.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
John Sheehy Goldmember 4,048 posts Likes: 893 Joined Jan 2010 More info Post edited 11 months ago by John Sheehy. | Jun 14, 2021 10:00 | #4177 Capn Jack wrote in post #19247866 ![]() Please consider that if I have a subject adequately framed at 500 mm, I would use the 2x teleconvertor if the same subject is twice as far to get similar framing. I'd suggest the test may well somewhat represent real-world use. I only use my TC if the subject is distant. I don't step twice away because I have a teleconvertor, I use it because the subject is twice as far. So then, what is the core problem with being at 2x the distance by necessity? Is it the TC, or the distance itself? Somehow, TCs seem to get blamed for distance, but distance itself can easily be most of the reason for the inferior capture of the normalized subject. Just because a TC does add at least a tiny bit of aberration itself to the analog projection of the lens, does not mean that all or even most of the loss in subject quality is due to the TC.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Jun 14, 2021 10:13 | #4178 |
LJ3Jim Goldmember ![]() More info | Jun 14, 2021 10:49 | #4179 John Sheehy wrote in post #19247901 ![]() So then, what is the core problem with being at 2x the distance by necessity? Is it the TC, or the distance itself? Somehow, TCs seem to get blamed for distance, but distance itself can easily be most of the reason for the inferior capture of the normalized subject. Just because a TC does add at least a tiny bit of aberration itself to the analog projection of the lens, does not mean that all or even most of the loss in subject quality is due to the TC. I'm still not quite understanding the logic (sorry!). Here is the owl again: Image editing ok; C&C always welcome.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Capn Jack Cream of the Crop ![]() More info | Jun 14, 2021 10:56 | #4180 John Sheehy wrote in post #19247901 ![]() So then, what is the core problem with being at 2x the distance by necessity? Is it the TC, or the distance itself? Somehow, TCs seem to get blamed for distance, but distance itself can easily be most of the reason for the inferior capture of the normalized subject. Just because a TC does add at least a tiny bit of aberration itself to the analog projection of the lens, does not mean that all or even most of the loss in subject quality is due to the TC. I would agree with that- some loss of resolution may be from the teleconvertor, but there are may other contributors to resolution loss. Dust, haze, fog, add to loss of resolution and contrast. Variations in the atmosphere from uneven heating can blur images. My technique is such that I find that longer focal lengths with a teleconvertor installed require me to use a tripod due to motion blur for good results. I'm assuming that "normalized" means the subject is imaged to the same size on the sensor in both cases.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Jun 14, 2021 10:57 | #4181 A couple more shots of the first adult mantis I've seen so far this summer. This one had some bright yellow markings on it which isn't what I normally see IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2m5udr4![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Flickr stream: https://flic.kr/ps/se6hB
LOG IN TO REPLY |
JayLT Senior Member More info Post edited 11 months ago by JayLT. | Jun 14, 2021 11:06 | #4182 Capn Jack wrote in post #19247927 ![]() I would agree with that- some loss of resolution may be from the teleconvertor, but there are may other contributors to resolution loss. Dust, haze, fog, add to loss of resolution and contrast. Variations in the atmosphere from uneven heating can blur images. My technique is such that I find that longer focal lengths with a teleconvertor installed require me to use a tripod due to motion blur for good results. I'm assuming that "normalized" means the subject is imaged to the same size on the sensor in both cases. Agreed. I've used both the 1.4x and 2x converters with the 100-500 on my R5. And while I think the 2x is still the best 2x extender I have ever used to this point, when you try top use it to shoot at real distance it can be very difficult to get nice sharp shots. But is that really all that unexpected? It's 1000mm (hand held for me, almost never use a tripod) f/14 which is well within diffraction range, and then you add in atmospheric issues on top of that and it really narrows the usability of the combination, but again I think that should be expected. Flickr stream: https://flic.kr/ps/se6hB
LOG IN TO REPLY |
Jun 14, 2021 22:48 | #4183 Happened across this black and yellow mud dauber earlier today. Only got a couple pics in focus before it decided to leave IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/2m5xoW3![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() Flickr stream: https://flic.kr/ps/se6hB
LOG IN TO REPLY |
John Sheehy Goldmember 4,048 posts Likes: 893 Joined Jan 2010 More info | Jun 15, 2021 05:17 | #4184 LJ3Jim wrote in post #19247924 ![]() I'm still not quite understanding the logic (sorry!). Here is the owl again: ![]() ![]() The logic was that the test chart comparison at the.digital.picture does not predict many real world differences, where the subject would be at the same distance, with and without the TC. If it did not interfere with focus, then yes, it was a choice I would have made, too, even if 100% pixel views look softer than without the TC. For a perched bird, you can use manual focus, too, removing one potential TC problem.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
John Sheehy Goldmember 4,048 posts Likes: 893 Joined Jan 2010 More info | Jun 15, 2021 05:27 | #4185 Capn Jack wrote in post #19247927 ![]() I would agree with that- some loss of resolution may be from the teleconvertor, but there are may other contributors to resolution loss. Dust, haze, fog, add to loss of resolution and contrast. Variations in the atmosphere from uneven heating can blur images. My technique is such that I find that longer focal lengths with a teleconvertor installed require me to use a tripod due to motion blur for good results. I'm assuming that "normalized" means the subject is imaged to the same size on the sensor in both cases. No, normalized in the display of the results. You can't normalize subject size (in mm) on the sensor with two different focal lengths, and the same subject and distance.
LOG IN TO REPLY |
![]() | x 1600 |
y 1600 |
Log in Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting! |
| ||
Latest registered member is hencc 1026 guests, 233 members online Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018 |