| Sign in: |
| Members log in here with your user name and password to access the your admin page and other special features. |
|
|
|
|
|| SportsShooter.com: Member Message Board
Argh!!! Disaster!
David Turnedge, Photographer
 |
Elizabeth Bay | NSW | Australia | Posted: 4:21 AM on 02.27.05 |
->> I should have known better than this, but it seemed like a smart idea at the time!
I use a 1D and a 100-400mm L. Nice combo. Except that on the racing circuit I was at today 400mm doesn't cut it.
Enter my Phoenix brand x2 teleconverter (I have no idea where I got this from - I just found it lying in my camera bag one day).
I am also planning to buy a prime so I thought I would stick with a single focal length for the day - just to see what it is like.
The teleconverter took away two stops so I decided to shoot at ISO 1600 to give me f13 or thereabouts (my 100-400mm L's sweet spot, or so I am told).
I didn't think anything of sticking with a single focal length for the day - I was surprised but I didn't once feel like zooming in or out. I shot at 300mm + x2 all day.
I've never used a teleconveter or ISO 1600 before - can you see what's coming?
Most of my shots are nicely framed, it was a nice day, the motor racing was exciting, I was having a ball.
I got home and either the ISO 1600 or, more likely, the cheap x2 teleconverter, trashed the quality of my images. I was MF and AF all day and for the most part everything was cool - but the grain - the quality - unrecoverable so far as I am conerned. Shocking.
Thankfully this was not a paid gig this weekend - a test - and boy did I learn a few big lessons!
1. My 100-400mm L hates teleconverters and/or
2. My cheap Phoenix brand x2 teleconvter is garbage and/or
3. All x2 teleconverters are garbage and/or
4. My 1D hates shooting at ISO 1600 and/or
5. I should give up being a photographer (possible after this wasted day at a great circuit)
I have posted one untounched 100% crop image straight out of the camera (save for cropping and conversion to JPEG) - it is image #10 on my page.
Your opinions and observations on teleconverters, my lens choices, my ISO choice, and anything else you care to mention - ALL WELCOME - I am feeling masochistic today so don't beat around the bush - PLEASE.
:-) |
|
Sam Morris, Photographer
|
Henderson (Las Vegas) | NV | USA | Posted: 4:32 AM on 02.27.05 |
->> Did you update your page? If not, why were you shooting 1600 in the daytime?
For what you are describing, my bet is Number 2, 100%, and Number 3, 50%. |
|
David Turnedge, Photographer
|
Elizabeth Bay | NSW | Australia | Posted: 4:32 AM on 02.27.05 |
| ->> Sorry - strike that second last para - I cannot post a sample now - just your general comments are welcome. |
|
David Turnedge, Photographer
|
Elizabeth Bay | NSW | Australia | Posted: 4:46 AM on 02.27.05 |
| ->> OK - the evidence is now on my personal page - picture #10. Erm... ugh! |
|
Juan Villa, Student/Intern, Photographer
|
Visalia | CA | USA | Posted: 4:49 AM on 02.27.05 |
| ->> Like Sam said, why 1600 in the day? |
|
David Turnedge, Photographer
|
Elizabeth Bay | NSW | Australia | Posted: 4:54 AM on 02.27.05 |
| ->> I wanted f13-16 at around 200 - with the x2 teleconverter I needed ISO 1600... this is Australia where it's summer - none of your northern hemisphere weak sunlight days here!!! |
|
Nathan Simpson, Photographer, Student/Intern
|
Santa Barbara | CA | USA | Posted: 4:57 AM on 02.27.05 |
| ->> Well I see cheap lens soft and digi grain from the high iso. The combo was suicide. The cheep tele converter alone would have killed you. Sometimes the grain is excusable so I am not commenting on that. Well besides any thing older than the 20d, 1d/1ds mkII has a very noisy 1600 iso file, although the 1ds isn’t to bad. |
|
Chris Ivin, Photographer
|
Sydney | NSW | Australia | Posted: 5:02 AM on 02.27.05 |
->> I guess if you shoot alot of this kind of stuff you should be a pretty good judge of whether your problem is focus tracking or noise related. Zoom lens are always going to
track slower than Primes and the story doesn't get better when you add the converters. If you're happy with the focus and general image qualities then I'd run your pics thru some noise reduction filters. ( Fred Miranda, Noiseware, Ninja )
I've gotta say, I was surprised that you were shooting at such a high iso and f-stop combo |
|
David Turnedge, Photographer
|
paul barton, Photographer
|
Sutton | UK | UK | Posted: 7:44 AM on 02.27.05 |
->> seems you got all your gremlins out of the bag on the same day!
1. My 100-400mm L hates teleconverters and/or
a good lens when the light is good.................
2. My cheap Phoenix brand x2 teleconvter is garbage and/or
never use another brand converter on another brand lens.............
3. All x2 teleconverters are garbage and/or
most x2 are a last resort anyway,only use a x1.4 if you need to,much better to save up and buy a longer lens like you said you are going to do
i have to say that using 1600 asa is just asking for trouble,not only will you have alot of "grain" but it will soften the pictures! |
|
Geoff Miller, Photographer
|
Portage | MI | USA | Posted: 10:06 AM on 02.27.05 |
->> David,
The TC and the ISO were probably a 1-2 punch in the photographic gut. I had sort of a similar experience with a Tamron 1.4x TC on my 300mm Nikkor last year. To minimize problems with vignetting, I've always shot it "wide open". The images I got that time about made me sick when I pulled them up on the PC. I decided to upgrade to the "Pro" Tamron TC. I got it and was bummed out to find that the new TC actually fared worse on the 300 than the old TC. BUT, through controlled testing I discovered that the old TC had a "sweet spot" when I stopped the lens down to f8. So I returned the "Pro" TC and will only use the TC when I can stop the lens down to f8 (actually f11). I'd buy a Nikon TC, but they never made a non-S AF'ed TC. |
|
Sam Santilli, Photographer
 |
Philippi | WV | USA | Posted: 10:09 AM on 02.27.05 |
| ->> David, when chimping did you bring the image up closer? Not that camera screens are great for detail, but did it look ok then? Sorry your day was a bust, we have had that happen. At least you get fresh Fosters! |
|
Chris Peterson, Photographer
|
Columbia Falls | MT | USA | Posted: 10:53 AM on 02.27.05 |
| ->> The problem really seemed to be that you were "stuck" in f13 mode. It seems really strange that a lens that long would have a sweet spot at f13. Just my opinion. At least you didn't lose any money. I use a Nikon 1.4 tele on a 400 often. The only problem is focus. It's a manual lens and itcan be difficult at times to get the focus dead on. Other than that, it's a great piece of glass. |
|
Andy Mead, Photographer, Photo Editor
|
Durham | NC | USA | Posted: 2:59 PM on 02.27.05 |
->> Dave,
Did you try running the images through Noiseware, Noise Ninja, or some other noise reduction software?
I pulled your image down, ran it through Noiseware, then adjusted the levels in Photoshop and got a usable image. Not great, mind you, but definitely usable.
http://www.ycjphoto.com/images/david_turnedge.jpg
Somebody with more skill and time could likely do even better.
I only shoot the 1D I have at ISO 1600 as a last resort, and I long ago learned that my Canon 2x converter should only be used with my prime lenses, and then only in good sunlight.
I discovered the wonderfulness of Noiseware after I was forced to shoot a soccer game at 1600 last fall (f/2.8, 1/250th - and still underexposed) in Panama. |
|
christopher koutsis, Photographer
|
huntington | ny | USA | Posted: 3:11 PM on 02.27.05 |
->> Let me just say... sold the 100-400 last year... and it's a sick little lens for the money at low ISO's and at a focal lenth of 350 and lower. As for the high f13 f-stop ... well F5.6 is where David's starting point is... throw a 2x extension on and it's now around F11 right off the bat (the camera won't allow you to go any lower at a 300mm focal length... actually a 1/2 stop over f13 would have been optimal with the 2x. Regardless... I owned a 1d as well last year and used 1600 all the time. Sure it was a lot of noise, but not like your pic David. The 100-400 is NO prime 300 or 400. But a lens like that isn't supposed to take their place.. it can't compare. But put it up to at 70-200 and they'll come close in both optics and speed (outdoors).
Next time, work on your focusing and crop more (leave the tele converters for the prime lenses. I hate my 1.4x converter on a 70-200, let alone a slightly slower focusing 100-400. Just |
|
David Turnedge, Photographer
|
Elizabeth Bay | NSW | Australia | Posted: 8:03 PM on 02.27.05 |
->> Hmmm... thanks for all your responses... I must admit I am surprised at how bad things ended up... as I said, glad it was a 'fun day' and not a 'work day'.
Could it be that I have one of the rumoured 'bad' 100-400mm lenses?
I sure know that I made a few bad choices on Sunday that compounded any problems I had with lense and technique. |
|
Todd Corzett, Photographer
|
Livermore | CA | USA | Posted: 9:27 PM on 02.27.05 |
->> I once tried to use a Canon 1.4xTC on the 100-400 on my D30... I lost the AF, but could take care of that with pre-focusing. Unfortunately, the quality drop-off with the 1.4xTC was very noticeable (ISO100 in full sun). I use the 1.4xTC on my 70-200mm f/2.8 all the time, and it works great, but on the 100-400 it's a bit off. I can only image what a non-matched 2xTC would be like. Add in the noise from high-ISO and I think this is what put it over the edge.
-Todd... |
|
David Martin Olson, Student/Intern
|
Sacramento | CA | | Posted: 10:48 PM on 03.01.05 |
| ->> 9 |
|
Wesley R. Bush, Photographer
 |
Nashville | TN | U.S. | Posted: 11:47 PM on 03.01.05 |
| ->> David, why do you keep posting that? |
|
Wesley R. Bush, Photographer
|
Nashville | TN | U.S. | Posted: 7:38 AM on 03.02.05 |
->> David e-mailed me and asked I explain for him.
"I wish I knew - I keep typing up a
regular post, hit return and voila:
all it says is "9" - I'm on funky
old computers at work and don't
know how to play with the
browser settings. I'm going to quit
for now and just post from home.
Sorry.
DMO" |
|
Isaac Davis, Photographer
|
Saugus | CA | USA | Posted: 2:58 PM on 03.04.05 |
->> David,
This brings up something else in my opinion. Getting in a rut, and I don't mean a long term one, a short quick rut. You spent the entire day shooting with the same lens and the same settings. This too in my opinion is a recipe for disaster, especially in uncharted territory, ie: using a 2x that you've never tried before. I think the day may have been more salvageable if you had mixed things up a bit. Try different iso's, shutter speeds, aperatures, lenses. I think you should put a #6 and it should read:
6. I unfortunately picked a bad combination of equipment and settings, and stuck with it.
Personally, shooting motorsports, I can't recall ever forcing my aperature to 13 for any length of time, whether it's for a sweet spot, or to ensure focus. Try opening up to a 4 or even 2.8 and see what your results are. One more thought on the tc. If you truly feel, and maybe it's true that 13 is the sweet spot for your 100-400, when you put a tc on it that might be nowhere near the sweet spot for the tc.
It's all about getting a feel for the situation, and being able to make adjustments on the fly. Hardcoding your settings is a bad idea. At least you found this out on a freebie.
Isaac |
|
christopher koutsis, Photographer
|
huntington | ny | USA | Posted: 3:24 PM on 03.04.05 |
| ->> One stop above your maximum apeture is the Sweet Spot of any lens I was told. So, if you have a 2.8... f4 is the sweet spot. If you have a 4.5 - 5.6 (as in the 100-400) than f8 is the sweet spot (without a converter). Actually a little higher than f13 would probably be the sweet spot for a 100-400 with a tc. But I would never use a no-name brand. If you're have to use tc's stick to the same brand your lens is... ie. canon/canon. Once you start mixing things get complicated, and in this case, nasty. |
|
Randy Janoski, Photographer
|
Chapel Hill | TN | USA | Posted: 3:30 PM on 03.04.05 |
->> David,
Hey take this in the very best way...slap!
That's my hand hitting the back-side of your head!
A "Phoenix" teleconverter? Come on, what the heck is that?
Both Canon and Nikon make very good quality teleconverters many are matched for the best optics they can produce with specific lenses. But always remember a teleconverter is not a lens, they are used/added when you have to or want to use them for some reason.
I have both the Canon 1.4 and 2X, I'll use them if I have to... always remembering they are converters, another tool. |
|
Return to --> Message Board Main Index
|
