Technical Musings... (Blue on blue)

EOS R EF 400 DOI 1.4xtcII 2.0xtcII f9(camera would not allow if it knew about 1.4xtc) 1/800 ISO 320

I was working all morning at f14 with both version 2 teleconverters as I knew stopping down would help to make it sharper. I knew from research online, the camera would only see the TC closest to the lens (the 2x and thus think f8 glass) in this case. Somehow I must have reset my settings and this image was created with the aperture too open for this f11 glass. The only unusual consequence was the stripes you can see in the larger feathers. Not sure of the exact technical reason for this anomaly.

This one is obviously focused sharply but to my eye ----there is a lack of fine feather detail (FFD) especially with the feathers on the back. EXP and light are A-OK as is the image design. I'd lost the two bits of the perch on the upper right, one large one in the corner and one tiny one on the edge of the frame.

with love, artie

Yes, Artie, I believe the lack of feather detail is another consequence of a too wide open aperture for this glass. Thanks, as always for the comments and suggestions.

I like the head turn and the clean background. I agree on the lack of feather detail. The whole image seems to be lacking in contrast and looks a little washed out on my monitor. I suggest you try some local contrast and sharpening just on the bird, although I'm no expert!

I like the pose but the image doesn't have much feather details. The old 400 DO could not take sharp shots with a TC, you will get much better results with the new 100-400 II and a TC and even better with 400 DO II.

TFS

Thanks all for the comments, but no one read the original post. This image should not have been taken. Reason; when you stack the teleconverters the body only sees the one closest to the lens. Why, I don't know. I mistakenly took this image as I didn't notice I must have accidentally hit the reset on the settings and the aperture was at f9. This glass combo is f11. The reason for the post title (technical musings) is what happens when your camera allows an aperture faster than your glass. I noticed the weird stripes, I guess you all noticed the rest. When I was working at f14 (this same morning) the images were plenty sharp to my eye even with stacked TCs. All the old 400DO needs is a simple s curve adjustment for a bump in contrast and it is a wonderful lens.

I read the original post and then commented on the image :)

a

BTW: I experiment a bit with the old 100-400 and the 2X focusing manually in live view and the IQ and FFD was outstanding (on a tripod of course).

with love, arite

Sorry, Artie, for falsely accusing you. Yes, the mocking bird I posted here on the forum was with 100-400 with 2xtcII. Plenty sharp and plenty of detail(and with AF on EOS R). Even without tripod (but you do have to stop down). As always, I really appreciate comments, suggestions and discourse.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arthur Morris

I read the original post and then commented on the image :)

a

BTW: I experiment a bit with the old 100-400 and the 2X focusing manually in live view and the IQ and FFD was outstanding (on a tripod of course).

with love, arite

---

your definition of sharp and mine are sometimes quite different hehe

did you get your 500 PF yet?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by David Roach

Thanks all for the comments, but no one read the original post. This image should not have been taken. Reason; when you stack the teleconverters the body only sees the one closest to the lens. Why, I don't know. I mistakenly took this image as I didn't notice I must have accidentally hit the reset on the settings and the aperture was at f9. This glass combo is f11. The reason for the post title (technical musings) is what happens when your camera allows an aperture faster than your glass. I noticed the weird stripes, I guess you all noticed the rest. When I was working at f14 (this same morning) the images were plenty sharp to my eye even with stacked TCs. All the old 400DO needs is a simple s curve adjustment for a bump in contrast and it is a wonderful lens.

---

A few notes that might be helpful.

aperture is just the ratio of the focal length to the physical opening in the lens, it has nothing to do with the camera body. the camera's metering is TTL so regardless of what the electronic reading for the aperture is the exposure will be correct.

Also note that at apertures smaller than f/11 the image will become soft because of diffraction effect (universal physics). You can read more about it here https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora...d-how-avoid-it


this calculator helps find the diffraction limit for your camera https://www.cambridgeincolour.com/tu...hotography.htm

Also, soft and sharp are somewhat subjective, what you may find sharp might be seen as soft by another pair of eyes. in this forum we look at processed JPEG files so it is somewhat hard to assess if the original was sharp or not.

Thanks so much, Arash. That's exactly the kind of info I was fishing for (already knew that causes the softness). I do invite you to look through my recent posts for a few, sharp to my eyes, images made with both the old 400do and 100-400 with variations of only 1.4xtcII, only 2.0xtcII and both stacked. I will tell you all those images were processed (from raw) at sharpness 2 in DPP and unsharp mask 110,.3,0 in PS as suggested in your and Artie's fantastic guides. And, I love my old glass...
Peace,
David

Arash -- I do not have my 500 PF yet but it should be soon ...

am

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi

your definition of sharp and mine are sometimes quite different hehe

---

The image I was thinking of was made with the tripod-mounted 100-400 II and the 2X II TC ... 1/200 sec. at f/11. And I did get some sharp stuff with the original 100-400 and the 2X using flash as main light. My point was that th optics are a lot better than folks think that they are ... Focusing manually in Live View for the Land Iguana image was a snap. How does it look to you?

with love, he he :)

Hey Artie to be perfectly honest this doesn't look tack sharp to my eye, it has lots lots of fine and intricate details because it was large in the frame but it is not super crisp.

Also anything even iphone photos can look pretty darn sharp when reduced to this small size for internet posting, as always, when I talk about sharpness I refer to RAW sharpness when viewed at 100% rather than post processed JPEG....


best

Thanks Arash. Please remember that we are looking at relatively small JPEGs here on BPN and that very few folks have large, expensive monitors. That said, I am confused when you say, it has lots lots of fine and intricate details because it was large in the frame but it is not super crisp.

I'd love to here what others are seeing.

with love, a

Hey Artie, you don't need a large expensive monitor to look at your files at 100% I was doing this when I had an old 20" monitor. You want to look at the quality of optics as opposed as the post processing skills.

Details means the amount of information in the photo , sharpness is mainly how crisp or well defined the edges of the details look. A sharpened file vs. a non sharpened file both have exactly the same amount of detail, however post sharpening the image is sharper.

hope this helps

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi

Hey Artie, you don't need a large expensive monitor to look at your files at 100% I was doing this when I had an old 20" monitor. You want to look at the quality of optics as opposed as the post processing skills.

Details means the amount of information in the photo , sharpness is mainly how crisp or well defined the edges of the details look. A sharpened file vs. a non sharpened file both have exactly the same amount of detail, however post sharpening the image is sharper.

hope this helps

---

Totally confused :)

No worries. I am happy in my ignorance.

When you say look at your files at 100% are you talking about looking at the master TIFF file at 100%?

Let's start with that and go from there.

thanks with love, artie

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Arthur Morris

Totally confused :)

No worries. I am happy in my ignorance.

When you say look at your files at 100% are you talking about looking at the master TIFF file at 100%?

Let's start with that and go from there.

thanks with love, artie

---

yes looking at RAW at 100%.

Arash, you said "The old 400 DO could not take sharp shots with a TC". This is where the discussion began. Then you said "when I talk about sharpness I refer toRAW sharpness when viewed at 100%". So I went to one of my raw files in DPP created with EF400DOI and 1.4xtcII, I set to 100% and then roughly cropped to the same view on my small monitor in dpp. This is the same view, in jpg form (no resizing) I get at 100% in DPP with raw. This was taken with shutter speed 1/640. These babies are moving and there will be slight motion blur at wing tips as they do oscillate at those speeds. I am not an expert at poking through raw images at 100% but this seems pretty sharp to me. So this is a jpg of a 100% raw view. No processing and no resizing even to make the jpg.

I do get your point, the newer glass can resolve better and create sharper images, but with knowledge of your tools, you can get sharp images with the old glass, including TCs. In my experience, you had to stop down a little to get it right. Besides, I'm waiting for the RF mount versions of the 100-400(hoping it's f4 the whole way) and RF TCs. And yes, if we could, we would all be running around with f2.8 600mm lenses...
And Artie, your dinosaur looks tack sharp to me.
Peace,
David

Hi David

The 100% crop is indeed pretty soft and lacking :S3:, it is just blurry to my eye... But then this is exactly what I would expect from that vintage lens plus a TC. Personally this file would be an instant delete for me, but if it is acceptable to you that's all that matters at the end of the day.

I will post some sharp crops so you can see what I mean by sharp. When folks talk about optics they usually mean sharpness of the RAW capture as opposed to small post processed files.

best

you can read my review of the 400 DO II here : http://arihazeghiphotography.com/blo...-light-lenses/ there are 100% crop examples for a dollar bill which should give you an idea of what a sharp RAW should look like.

Here is a field example of what I call a sharp frame (semipalmated plover ) this is with Nikon D850 but a sharp Canon lens gives similar results

100% crop from RAW, converted with C1P


Attachment 178624

Hi David, just another thought, but you could find your camera & lens are not perfectly aligned and so they need calibration. You can do a simple test, or use some kit Artie sells for 'lens alignment', but looking at the manual I don't think there is a facility for Auto Focus Manual Adjustment, but have you tried 'Focus Guide' p284, or MF Peaking p283, but I think it's a gimmick, however without trying it I could well be wrong.

If the kit is out I would pop it back to Canon, in the UK they offer a free calibration with, I think two lenses, but you would need to act quickly, I don't think you could do it 6 months or a year later, but it's worth checking.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Kaluski

Hi David, just another thought, but you could find your camera & lens are not perfectly aligned and so they need calibration. You can do a simple test, or use some kit Artie sells for 'lens alignment', but looking at the manual I don't think there is a facility for Auto Focus Manual Adjustment, but have you tried 'Focus Guide' p284, or MF Peaking p283, but I think it's a gimmick, however without trying it I could well be wrong.

If the kit is out I would pop it back to Canon, in the UK they offer a free calibration with, I think two lenses, but you would need to act quickly, I don't think you could do it 6 months or a year later, but it's worth checking.

---

Thanks for the plug Steve but there is no need to micro-adjust with mirrorless camera bodies as they focus via contrast on the sensor :(

with love, artie

Thanks Artie, it's not an area I know (still feel there is some way to go), but may get to see the EOS R at the end of the month with Andy Rouse who's been shooting with it over the last 4-6 weeks as I'm hooking up with him.

Thanks.

Hey Steve, Have fun and let us know how that goes.

with love, artie

Quote:

---

Hey Steve, Have fun and let us know how that goes.

---

Will do, as I've not seen him for a while so it will be fun to meet & shoot again together, however it will be mid December before I can report back :S3:, but I've seen some initial stuff from his recent trip to the Pantanal.

Arash,
Ok, you are using the third best sensor on the planet spec wise with a dxomark of 100. My poor EOS R is using the 5dmkiv(similar) sensor at a measly dxomark of 91. Already at a disadvantage there. Also different sensor designs produce different sharpness in raw output but part of design is the post processing ability to bring into sharpness. Your glass and camera definitely WIN!!! That's not the point. The point is I can create plenty sharp images with this glass, even for decently big prints. I know I have! I don't have a test lab and just picked another image I recently created at ISO8000 (I'll see your 800 and raise you 10x to 8000) 400DOI 2xtcII (I'll see your 1.4 and raise you to 2.0) f14 1/800). Again 100% raw. Yes you still win, but don't tell me this raw image is unusable.
More importantly, I can create images that "pull you in, make you care and evoke human emotion". At the end of the day, that's why I love photography and specifically avian photography.

And, I'm glad I have folks like you to push and teach me to get better at the same. And.. And, I still love my old classic glass (at least till RF mount telephotos come along)... No, I'll probably still keep it around like an old friend...
Peace,
David

Hi David,

The sensor has little to do with sharpness. Sharpness is just a function of optics and focus. I will post some examples with my 400 DO II + 2X III and the 5D4. It is just as sharp as the D850. I wouldn't get hung up on DxO etc. Canon sensors are pretty darn good and I had no issues with them when I had Canon for over 12 years.

BTW, it is not a contest at all just wanted to point out that the old 400 DO is not a sharp lens when you add a TC to it. The RAW itself is soft as you have shown above, if the bird is very large in the frame you can get something out of it by reducing and sharpening the JPEG but if the bird isn't that large it will be quite lacking. Now if you are happy with the results that's great. Since this is a critique forum folks sometimes may attribute what they see to your skills, I wanted to point out that's not the case here given the lens in use.

TFS

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Steve Kaluski

Hi David, just another thought, but you could find your camera & lens are not perfectly aligned and so they need calibration. You can do a simple test, or use some kit Artie sells for 'lens alignment', but looking at the manual I don't think there is a facility for Auto Focus Manual Adjustment, but have you tried 'Focus Guide' p284, or MF Peaking p283, but I think it's a gimmick, however without trying it I could well be wrong.

If the kit is out I would pop it back to Canon, in the UK they offer a free calibration with, I think two lenses, but you would need to act quickly, I don't think you could do it 6 months or a year later, but it's worth checking.

---

Hey Steve his focus is perfect but the old DO really struggles with the TC's. The optics is just not able to resolve....Back in 2008 I used this combo and it took me one day to send it back. :D

Hi Arash, thanks, I was just thinking of options for David, but felt a bit of a 'Pilchard' when Artie reminded me of the 'Focus by Contrast' :bg3:, read it on the launch material & saw it in action with the various videos, but just forgot - DOH!!!!

Never owned a DO, but gather the new 400f/2.8 is awesome (so is the price tag) and against better judgement bought the 2X MKII before 2008, big mistake, MKIII is far better. Having had my hands burnt on the 1DX MKII, the only body that I never had calibrated, took it off the production on launch, BIG mistake, very costly Botswana trip, hence I always suggest folk check their kit for alignment.

Glad to see you are enjoying being on the 'dark side'. :w3

Thanks Arash,
I do realize it is not a contest, that's my rye sense of humor with the poker jest. As I have said before, I do get your point. I just think it was a bit overstated. Post processing is part of the craft and it only took minimal sharpening to bring both my examples to a sharp state, even if they are presented larger than here. Plus, I learned what little I know about avian photography with this very ( albeit flawed) glass. If I hadn't been out of the game for ten years, I'd probably already own the newer versions. Now. I am waiting for canon's rf version telephoto and TC as well as a sport version of the mirrorless (with all the kinks out by then). Besides, using this old, slow glass challenges me. Imagine when I get the good stuff... Now, while I was joking about the poker reference, I am sincere in thanking you for your help. Especially those excellent guides.
Peace,
David

ps - just one at ISO 800 EF400DO and 2xtcII
pss - I was mistaken the previous tricolored was with both TC(1.4 and 2.0) stacked. That was reason for high ISO.

EOS R EF400DOI 1.4xtcII f5.6 1/640 ISO 320 100% crop from raw
Small bird in frame.

Newer Canon lenses were designed with TC usage in mind, the results are much sharper than the vintage lenses. The 400 DO II with the 2X TC is sharper than the naked old 400 for example.

Attachment 178648

Yepper, Arash, that's why I said (in my 10/25 post "Just a Test(f11 with AF)") about the EOS R with EF100-400I 2xtcII "This is old glass, but with newer versions you can walk around with a very light 200- 800mm rig.".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi

yes looking at RAW at 100%.

---

Thanks. Here is a 100% unsharpened crop of the Land Iguana image? What do you think? What do others think?

with love, artie

Just for grins. Native EF 400DO I, but at ISO 2000 as I was testing higher ISOs with the R. AF right between those eyes. That funky look in the yellow part of the eyes is actually a reflection of the grass all around this beauty. The pupils have the sunset sky. That small mountain partially blocking the sunset in the left eye, that would be me laying on the ground .
This is also small bird in frame.

Arash's point still taken, newer glass is better (I hope so for Canon's sake).

And, Artie, looks darn sharp to me.

Hey Artie if you want my honest opinion your crop isn’t sharp at all in fact it looks out of focus to me. It shows a lot of CA (chromatic aberrations) which was a problem with the old 1-4 and DO

best

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by arash_hazeghi

Hey Artie if you want my honest opinion your crop isn’t sharp at all in fact it looks out of focus to me. It shows a lot of CA (chromatic aberrations) which was a problem with the old 1-4 and DO

best

---

thanks.

a