• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Stacked 1.4's v 2x tc samples (1 Viewer)

Roy C

Roy C

Occasional bird snapper
Attached shots are shot in raw and completely unprocessed apart from converting and saving as a jpeg (full frame obviously resized). One was shot with stacked 1.4's (kenko pro and Canon) and the other with a Canon 2x.
Shot on a tripod with remote release.

Can you see any difference in IQ and if so which one do you prefer.

From left to right #1 full frame #2 full frame #1 100% crop #2 100% crop
 

Attachments

  • stack1.jpg
    stack1.jpg
    172.2 KB · Views: 164
  • stack2.jpg
    stack2.jpg
    184.1 KB · Views: 157
  • stack1_100.jpg
    stack1_100.jpg
    126.9 KB · Views: 200
  • stack2_100.jpg
    stack2_100.jpg
    136.7 KB · Views: 201
Amazingly I don't think there is too much difference to these. The first shot is showing less contrast than the second, which also looks a little sharper as well (though this might just be a result of the increased contrast that its captured). The focal ranges appear very similar (its tricky since one shot appers to have been shot higher/lower than the other).
Certainly I don't think there is too much to tell the two apart, though I would be tempted to say that the second is looking a little better (if a little more noisy).

So which is which then?
 
I agree with Marcus. Stack 2, to my eyes, shows slightly more detail in the fins on the heating vent.

Last year I borrowed someone's Canon 2x to try with my 300 lens. At that time I was using, and still use, a Sigma 1.4x EX and Jessops 2x converters. The finer detail which showed in cropped images with the Canon was noticeable. Also the AF seemed to react more quickly and positively too. I bought one soon after!

Mike
 
Thanks for your comments guys. I am glad that most think #2 is marginally best as that is the 2x tc that I have just bought.
I was surprised how much more mag the 2x seems to have than the 1.4's (yeah I know 1.4 x 1.4 is only 1.96) but both shots were taken from exactly the same position with the tripod head locked solidly, if you look at the full frame shots the 2x seems a fair bit more magnification.
 
I will go along with No2, but test shots of chimneys bore me, looks like you need to replace some concrete, only joking Roy, don't jump out of your cot.:-O
 
Nikon Kid said:
I will go along with No2, but test shots of chimneys bore me, looks like you need to replace some concrete, only joking Roy, don't jump out of your cot.:-O
Click to expand...
LOL Terry, it aint my chimney. The beauty of using chimneys for test shots is that they do not move like birds!
 
Last edited:
Marcus Conway - ebirder said:
What was you fstop and how did you focus?
Click to expand...
It was stopped down one Marcus, the stacked tc's only show f5.6 (and 420mm) in the exif of course but it was effectively 600mm at f8 the same as the 2x shot. I used AF centre point.
Both shot within a minute of each other at ISO 800 but strangely enough the stacked combo gave 1/800 and the 2x was 1/1000. I guess a 1/3 of a stop is nothing.
 
Last edited:
Roy C said:
It was stopped down one Marcus, the stacked tc's only show f5.6 (and 420mm) in the exif of course but it was effectively 600mm at f8 the same as the 2x shot. I used AF centre point.
Both shot within a minute of each other at ISO 800 but strangely enough the stacked combo gave 1/800 and the 2x was 1/1000. I guess a 1/3 of a stop is nothing.
Click to expand...

It would be nice Roy, to do the same shot but manual focus and see if its a better image, if so you need a nice new camera with micro focus.
 
Nikon Kid said:
It would be nice Roy, to do the same shot but manual focus and see if its a better image, if so you need a nice new camera with micro focus.
Click to expand...
I think you miss the entire point of this thread, trying to compare two different set-ups with manual focus would be madness, you might focus one better than the other. I am not bothered about the IQ but just the difference between the two when using the same settings.
 
Roy C said:
I think you miss the entire point of this thread, trying to compare two different set-ups with manual focus would be madness, you might focus one better than the other. I am not bothered about the IQ but just the difference between the two when using the same settings.
Click to expand...

I'm a bit confuessed now, if you're not comparing image quality then what differences are you looking at?
 
Roy C said:
Both shot within a minute of each other at ISO 800 but strangely enough the stacked combo gave 1/800 and the 2x was 1/1000. I guess a 1/3 of a stop is nothing.
Click to expand...

Maybe not at those shutter speeds Roy but when you're dealing with 1/125 and 1/250 it could make all the difference.

I suppose next is to stack the 2x and a 1.4x! Under the right circumstances it can actually produce.
 
postcardcv said:
I'm a bit confuessed now, if you're not comparing image quality then what differences are you looking at?
Click to expand...
What I mean is that I am not bothered if you could get better IQ from another method,nor am I much concerned if people think the IQ is absolute garbage - I am just concerned about the difference in IQ between two combo's as shot. The fact that you may be able to get better IQ by using different methods or equipment is irrelevant to me, I am just concerned about any differences in IQ between the two as shot.
What I should have said is that I am not bothered about the actual IQ but just about the differences in IQ between the two.
 
Last edited:
Jaff said:
I suppose next is to stack the 2x and a 1.4x! Under the right circumstances it can actually produce.
Click to expand...
Up to now Adam, being able to get greedy and stack a 2x and 1.4 is the only reason I can see for purchasing a 2x tc. After taking the 2x out in the field today it certainly does not focus any better that the stacked 1.4,s. and to my eyes the difference in IQ is marginal.
Can anyone else see any other advantages for the 2x against stacked 1.4's ?

edit: just tried stacked 1.4 and 2x (840mm) and shot through a double glazed window at next doors alarm box in light drizzle (ISO 1600, 1/60 sec). Although it takes a lot more processing I was quite surprised at the results, looks very promising indeed.
 
Last edited:
Roy C said:
I think you miss the entire point of this thread, trying to compare two different set-ups with manual focus would be madness, you might focus one better than the other. I am not bothered about the IQ but just the difference between the two when using the same settings.
Click to expand...

Roy I did not miss the entire point, as I gave you my opinion on your shots, which I agreed with all the posters that the No2 shot was slightly better in image quality. If you did not want us to wander a little, like I did, you should have made it clear in your post, I was only saying each image could have been AF and manual, and more would have been learnt about the lens + camera setup. I will go back to sleep now :t:
 
Roy,

Be brave! Stack all three of your converters on the lens, manually focus using 5x magnification with Live View and use a remote release. It works!

Mike
 
Roy C said:
Thanks for your comments guys. I am glad that most think #2 is marginally best as that is the 2x tc that I have just bought.
I was surprised how much more mag the 2x seems to have than the 1.4's (yeah I know 1.4 x 1.4 is only 1.96) but both shots were taken from exactly the same position with the tripod head locked solidly, if you look at the full frame shots the 2x seems a fair bit more magnification.
Click to expand...

I don't see your point about the magnification Roy.

A 1.4x converter gives 40% increase in mag and a loss of one f-stop.
Two stacked 1.4x converters would surely give 80% increase in magnification, and 2 f-stops loss of light.

Surely a 1.4TC +1.4TC (40% + 40%)=80% rather than 1.4 x 1.4? hence the difference in magnification.

You say the camera says it is 420mm (but that it is really 600mm with two stacked 1.4TCs?) I disagree.
Surely you really have 540mm here but the camera is saying 420mm, because it is only recognising one of the TCs in the EXIF data.

Steve
 
Last edited:
Warning! This thread is more than 15 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Similar threads

A
Using Canon R6 in full frame versus cropped mode?
Replies
3
Views
5K
Aliks
A
W
Olympus 800mm equivalent - no more detail than Nikon 630mm?
Replies
8
Views
2K
fazalmajid
fazalmajid
Zackiedawg
Topaz Gigapixel AI for enlarging heavy crops, getting better detail on birds
Replies
12
Views
4K
MKinHK
MKinHK
M
EOS-R first impressions for bird photos
Replies
6
Views
6K
HokkaidoStu
HokkaidoStu
M
Z7 first impressions
Replies
18
Views
4K
Neil
N

Users who are viewing this thread

Total: 2 (members: 0, guests: 2)
Back
Top