Hello,

I need some help figuring out what I am doing incorrectly but my internet while I am in the Grand Tetons isn't very good.

I am shooting a D800 with the 300mm F2.8 vrii lens along with all 3 TC's. Naturally, while being out here, the 2.0 TC 3 has come in handy the most since I seem to always need more reach.

However, it has really made the images soft when zooming into them. (I haven't been able to get a picture uploaded on here because of internet...even though my facebook page can upload)

I am using the wimberley wh-200 head and a sturdy tripod...always keep my hand resting on the lens above the wimberley and try to roll my finger over the release on the D800. (I have also been trying to keep the shutter above 1/1000 even though the elk and moose haven't been moving very quickly to see if that would ease the softness)

You can see some samples on www.facebook.com/sheetsstudios until I can get some uploaded on here.

I head to Yellowstone in the morning for a week so please help...it's driving me crazy as the 300mm has been perfect without TC's and all I read is how the TC's do work fairly well. I have also looked up and seen examples that look fairly crisp to me at 100% crop.

Thanks!

Ryan

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

you may have to auto fine tune your TCs with the 300. I had to do that with my 600, they may be front or back focusing.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

I agree That very well could be the trick ^^^

Hi Ryan! Sorry but it is impossible to judge sharpness and FT by your images. Some of them are front- and some backfocused. Looks like. What sensors were in use while shooting? Couple images with crops posted here with detailing explanation will be on help. Maybe, it was too dark for AF system with TC? Please try to post. Dimitri.

I don't find image quality with teleconverters is anywhere near as good as with the bare lens. I did some testing on a more extreme combination - the 600 f/4 and all three teleconverters on a D800E. I found only the bare lens produced the jaw dropping sharpness the camera is capable of rendering. The 1.4 teleconverter was pretty good, and the 2.0 teleconverter was marginal.

Keep in mind that when you look at a D800 image at 100% you are near the level of earlier cameras at 200%. The 100% crop - 1000 pixels - of a D800 is just 5mm of a 35mm sensor, while the 100% crop of a D3/D700 would be 9mm of the sensor. You can sharpen the image a little more, add a little contrast, and it will improve. But don't expect the great images of your 300 f/2.8 to be as good with teleconverters.

Eric Bowles
Nikonians Team
My Gallery
Workshops - Smokies Oct 2012

Nikonians membership — my most important photographic investment, after the camera

Indeed. That is what in my experience with 300+tc. Dimitri.

Eric, I am going to ask a dumb question, I am sure.

I don't understand your calculation of a 100% crop. The actual size of the sensor (rather than pixel density) is the same on the D800 as on the D700. So, if you are cropping x% on one it should be the same size as on the other, in terms of MM of a 35mm sensor...no?

Or to state it another way, wouldn't you have proportionally more pixels in a D800 crop than in a D700 crop.

Or let me ask it more simply. What exactly does 100% crop mean? I am sure it is obvious to some, but maybe not.

Larry Miller, Annapolis, MD
D700/D800
http://www.pbase.com/lmmiller9
http://lmmillerphotography.smugmug.com/

Larry - it's not a dumb question.

Essentially, a 100% crop is an actual pixel sized view - but it's the pixel size of a monitor. For the sake of argument, let's assume that to be approximately 1000 pixels (there are other sizes).

Here's an example to illustrate. This is one image with no unsharp mask applied (since the amount of sharpening would vary with image size). The image was edited and resized in Capture NX2. The screen shots are from viewing the resized images in View NX2 (the scale is on the top right corner).

First - here is a full image from the D800E resized for posting here.



Now here is a screen shot of a 100% crop of that image.



Here is the same image resized to D700 proportions - a 4,256 x 2,832 pixel file - and then viewed as a 100% crop. This is a screen shot of the 100% crop.



And here is the same file resized to 1000 pixels on the long side - and viewed at 100%. Again - this is the screen shot.



What you see is that as the number of pixels in the image change, a 100% crop also changes. With the D800 full image you are looking at 1/7 of the image with a 100% crop - or a 4 inch crop on a 30 inch print. With the image resized to match a D700, you are looking at 1/4 of the iamge or 7.5 inches of a 30 inch print. And with the image resized to match a 100% crop - 1000 pixels - at a 100% crop you are looking at the full image - okay for the web but the full size of a 30 inch print.

So when you are looking at an image from a D800, you are zooming much more than the same image from a D700 or typical FX camera. The D700 is not going to show much noise. But the process of resizing a D800 to D700 proportions, will elimiate a lot of visible noise and allow for more sharpening on the D800 image before resizing (since sharpening halos and effects will also be reduced in size).

Eric Bowles
Nikonians Team
My Gallery
Workshops - Smokies Oct 2012

Nikonians membership — my most important photographic investment, after the camera

Attachment #1, (jpg file)
Attachment #2, (jpg file)
Attachment #3, (jpg file)
Attachment #4, (jpg file)

Hi Eric. Can you tell me which is for you the best magnification to evaluate sharpen in a D800 image using Capture NX2 or Lightroom 4 i.e. ?
Mi experience is that sometimes the image is right at 50 % , but soft at 100%.. I'm talking about a sharpen pic, ( no blur, no front or back focus , etc..)
PD : with the final print in mind ( 60 x 40 cm and up ), not for web.

Thanks a lot.

Luis

Generally I would suggest viewing at 50% rather than 100% for general sharpening. A spot check on a specific area of detail at 100% can be fine - especially if you have an image with an area that is likely to have problems.

Eric Bowles
Nikonians Team
My Gallery
Workshops - Smokies Oct 2012

Nikonians membership — my most important photographic investment, after the camera

Eric, thanks. It is more than a bit confusing, but I think I have the idea.

Truly the term "100% crop" is a misnomer. A 100% crop would be no crop at all if one took the term literally. A 50% crop would give you half the image size, etc. But, that logic seems irrelevant. But, what you are saying is that at 100% you are looking at the full image, you just can't see it because your monitor won't display it. So, you are seeing full image size, but within the frame of your monitor. I think.

Larry Miller, Annapolis, MD
D700/D800
http://www.pbase.com/lmmiller9
http://lmmillerphotography.smugmug.com/

Larry

Your example is correct.

And it is confusing.


Eric Bowles
Nikonians Team
My Gallery
Workshops - Smokies Oct 2012

Nikonians membership — my most important photographic investment, after the camera

>Truly the term "100% crop" is a misnomer. A 100%
>crop would be no crop at all if one took the term literally.

The term does have a literal meaning, but not the one you assume...

A "100% crop" is (as Eric says) a section cropped from an image, with pixel dimensions such that you can view all (i.e. 100%) of it on your monitor without re-sizing.

For example, if your monitor has a resolution of (say) 1600x1200, a 100% crop can be anything up to 1600 by 1200 pixels.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

This is what I don't understand... if looking at actual pixels, shouldn't actual pixels be sharp without noise (at low ISO) on any pro camera? I don't see how comparing the print size makes any difference. I recognize that with a higher resolution camera, the noise is less noticeable on output, but the reality is that the camera should be able to take sharp images with no noise for the resolution it is designed for. So when I look at those pixels I expect them to be sharp. And with the D800 they are not. This makes no sense to me at all.

Christina

Think about it this way. On the D800, a 100% crop on my computer is just over 12 inches wide. That image is less than 1/7th of the total 7000 pixel width of the image. So I am looking at a small section of a 7 foot wide image, from a distance of less than 18 inches. And my screen still has 1000 pixels being shown. Any noise that is just a pixel or two is invisible at a normal size print or viewing distance.

If I did the same thing with a D700, the image is just 4 feet wide. It's still enough to not see the noise at all if noise is small, but not to the same extent as the D800.

The question of sharpness is similar. To get a comparison with your D700, you need to zoom to nearly 200% - which you would rarely do. Also remember that the high resolution of the D800 lets you see detail - or softness - that would not otherwise be visible.

I had my 70-200 out the other day and was shooting a job at f/3.2 to f/3.5. Everything was a little soft. But the images were for web use and nothing larger than 8x10 prints. You would never see the softness resized for that use. The lens is sharper at closer to f/5+ - but I wanted the shutter speed and subject isolation.

Eric Bowles
Nikonians Team
My Gallery
Workshops - Smokies Oct 2012

Nikonians membership — my most important photographic investment, after the camera

Okay thanks, that makes sense that I'm seeing noise that wouldn't otherwise be visible because I can't zoom in that much on the D700 without image degradation. Thanks for your response.

>>Truly the term "100% crop" is a misnomer. A
>100%
>>crop would be no crop at all if one took the term
>literally.
>
>The term does have a literal meaning, but not the one you
>assume...
>
>A "100% crop" is (as Eric says) a section cropped
>from an image, with pixel dimensions such that you can view
>all (i.e. 100%) of it on your monitor without re-sizing.
>
>For example, if your monitor has a resolution of (say)
>1600x1200, a 100% crop can be anything up to 1600 by 1200
>pixels.

Sorry but I have to disagree.
100% crop literally could be 1 pixel or the almost full size of the original image and anything in between.
For example D800 7360x4912 image size is full size. 7359x4911 is a 100% crop.

How people use it is a different story.

Technically any crop regardless of the size is 100% crop as long as it came from un-resized image.
Just because someone looks at it at 200% or 50% does not make it 200% or 50% crops respectively.
Usually people post 100% crops to show the important part of the picture. If they post the full image it will take to long to download and it will not convey what people are trying to display.
If one downloads 100% crop and zooms to 200% it is still 100% crop and nothing can change it.
The only thing can change 100% crop is some kind of resizing.

I'm not sure what you are trying to say with this post. Are you simply saying that a crop and a view are different? Everyone will agree with that - but if you cropped to a 100% view, the conventional reference is that is a 100% crop.

Eric Bowles
Nikonians Team
My Gallery
Workshops - Smokies Oct 2012

Nikonians membership — my most important photographic investment, after the camera

I am trying to say that 100% crop does not depend on size of your monitor or view or anything else. Any crop from original (not resized) image is 100% crop.

What you say is technically correct, but you're missing the context.

The whole point about making a 100% crop for the web in order to demonstrate something is that the cropped image should be equally viewable by your whole audience. So, obviously, it needs to be small enough to fit on the average person's monitor without being re-sized.

Brian
Welsh Nikonian
Check out the Nikonians Team pages

My testing of a 200-400mm on a D800E produced images that were almost the same sharpness with and without a 1.4x TC on. However, I had to increase ISO so I could increase shutter speed when I installed the TC because the longer FL magnified any slight camera shake...even that caused by the mirror. If you are standing outside and there is any wind blowing, it can add to the camera shake even on the most stable tripod/head.

VR on can help with that motion.

BTW, I use the Wimberley as well.

Larry Jordan

D800E, 14-24, 50, 24-70, 70-180 Micro, 70-200, 80-400mm AF-S

Website:
http://larryjordan.smugmug.com/

My experience with TCs, without exception, is that they ALL must be calibrated for best perfomance. Also, each TC will require it's own calibration. For example, your 300 2.8 may be perfectly sharp at 0 calibration, but w/ a 1.4 it may require +5, with a1.7, +9, and w/ a 2.0+ 12. I have all three TCs, and while they all looked pretty sharp initially, every one, without exception, became noticably sharper after calibrating. And this has proven true with every lens used. While there are any number of things that may cause a lens to be less than sharp with a TC, including a faulty TC, I would venture to guess that the majority could be made much sharper simply by calibrating correctly. If you doubt this it's easy enough to prove with just a half an hours experimenting. Think about it for a second... Everything mass produced has +/- tolerances. When you add a lens to a camera, you now have two things with tolerance variations. Add a TC, and you now have three things working in combination all with +/- variations. It would not be logical to expect all three to perform perfectly without some adjustment. Any one who doubts that a 300 2.8 with a 2x TC can be VERY sharp need only do a search of Lance's photos w/ a 2x TC.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Hi Everyone,

Really appreciate your quick responses and am very sorry about the lack of even half way decent internet to upload the images.

Can someone help me on how to calibrate/fine tune a TC? (When you say +5 or - something do you mean that their is a menu option for focus fine tuning?)

Also...since two days ago I did start using the 2.0 TC with the 300mm at f8 which I read online was the sharpest for those two together...still not exactly what I want at 100% crop but perhaps I am being too picky?

Thank you very much...

Ryan

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

You're correct that stopping down to f/8 is going to be better than shooting the combo wide open. But it still may not be ideal. Out in the field (ie in the Tetons or Yellowstone) your best way of AF fine tuning is going to be crude at best. Pick a subject, and shoot a few images. Change the AF fine tune by about 5 +/- and then shoot the subject again. Chimp at 100% (medium mag) on your D800 screen. Choose the AF tune value that looks best.

Once you're home, you can buy Reikan Focal and really find the best AF tuning value.

-Alex Rosen
www.flickr.com/photos/klrbee25/

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

>Hi Everyone,
>
>Really appreciate your quick responses and am very sorry about
>the lack of even half way decent internet to upload the
>images.
>
>Can someone help me on how to calibrate/fine tune a TC? (When
>you say +5 or - something do you mean that their is a menu
>option for focus fine tuning?)
>
>Also...since two days ago I did start using the 2.0 TC with
>the 300mm at f8 which I read online was the sharpest for those
>two together...still not exactly what I want at 100% crop but
>perhaps I am being too picky?
>
>Thank you very much...
>
>Ryan

First you have to understand few things about TC.
What TC does is crop the center portion of the image and magnifies it.
It is like if you do it on your computer, crop and zoom to original dimensions. Except TC does it optically.
Obviously the smaller the crop and larger the magnification the worst IQ you get. That is why 1.4x TC usually perform better than 2x because 1.4x takes larger area and magnifies it 1.4x.
2x TC takes smaller area and magnifies it 2x.
If your lens has any imperfections with use of TC it gets magnified.
On top of that TC is a add-on lens. So any misalignment between the lens and TC and IQ gets even worst.
Sometimes it is better to crop and interpolate yourself than to use TC.

But if you want to use TC you need to stop down at least one stop over the combo. So f2.8 with 1.4x TC will give you F4 but you should stop down to at least F5.6 or even F8.

Also keep in mind that there is no guarantee that a given teleconverter and lens combination is truly sharp at any aperture. The use of a teleconverter is a way to go beyond the limit of the lens but you sacrifice light and quality. You have to determine where the tradeoff is too much.

I'm not very happy with the 2.0 teleconverter on any lens. It's okay - and I may use it, but it's not as sharp as a bare lens and getting closer. And the loss of a couple of stops can be a big issue.


Eric Bowles
Nikonians Team
My Gallery
Workshops - Smokies Oct 2012

Nikonians membership — my most important photographic investment, after the camera

Yes the numbers other posters are giving for AF fine tune values.

You can't calibrate a TC alone, you can only calibrate the combination of a lens and a TC. The AF fine tune will give you separate settings for a lens without TC and for each lens and TC combination.

Gary in SE Michigan, USA. Co-organizer of the Southern Michigan Chapter
Nikonians membership - My most important photographic investment, after the camera.
D4, D800e, D300, D90, F6, FM3a (black), FM2n (chrome)
YashicaMat 124, Graflex Speed Graphic 4x5
My Nikonians Gallery & Our Chapter Gallery

And the Nikon bodies are smart enough to save AF fine tune values for a lens with and without TC!

-Alex Rosen
www.flickr.com/photos/klrbee25/

Visit my Nikonians gallery.

Too bad the Nikon bodies cannot tell when you put a Canon 500D on the end of the lens to make it a macro lens, and store the AF fine tuning for that combo. I was using the 500D yesterday on my 70-200mm to capture a wasp image, and I had to use manual focus because the AF was off. I tried the 1.4x TC first, but it was costing me too much detail.

Maybe I will break down and buy a macro lens. I have not had a NAS moment lately, and I miss the excitement.

Larry Jordan

D800E, 14-24, 50, 24-70, 70-180 Micro, 70-200, 80-400mm AF-S

Website:
http://larryjordan.smugmug.com/