Page 3 of 3 FirstFirst 123
Results 21 to 26 of 26

Thread: RF Native Lens Cropped vs 1.4x vs 2x

  1. #21
    Senior Member Fast Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Ferndale WA
    Posts
    1,158
    You really need to be using low ISO for future comparisons. If you want to try with higher ones too that's great. Just to see how it affects things. But low ISO stuff to single out sharpness is important.

    But the 2x is pulling far more detail overall all things considered. I didn't bother with the 1.4x results because I already new they looked fine from the last time and looking at them in RAW just confirmed it. The native and 2x are both looking nearly the same sharpness wise. Both are pulling great sharpness, if both are pulling in the texture of the paper that's pretty respectable resolution. The 1.4x is just redundant really when the 2x is looking nearly as sharp as a native lens. It just be splitting hairs. Main reason to use it is just for the correct focal length for the job and of course one extra stop if light.

    I'm sure at ISO 100 we would reveal more differences. But at ISO 1000. It's looking very good.

    But for kicks I can process the 1.4x results.

    But for me low ISO shots, like 100 or 200 is not uncommon for me. Certainly under 400. I do my fair share of very low light. But I have found it's usually better to try and avoid those situations in the first place. Sometimes just because you can doesn't mean it's best.
    Last edited by Fast Glass; 03-07-2022 at 10:43 PM.

  2. #22
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    3,088
    Most of the shots I take with a long lens will be Morning or Evening, in addition usually 1/500 or higher. Often time it is in the shaded woods. It seems I am struggling with the higher ISO more than enjoying ISO 100 or 200. It seems I am always stuck in the low light situation.

    I need to go ahead and either get a chart or a decent printer replacement. I need to figure out why the EF 1.4x looked like crap. (dirty or it has problems)

    Thanks for all your thoughts on this. It is helpful.

  3. #23
    Senior Member Fast Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Ferndale WA
    Posts
    1,158
    For sure. I understand what you are saying. But I think the premise of gaining light is where you are confusing things. Cropping doesn't lose exposure but raises noise to the point where using a higher ISO would achieve the same end result noise wise.

    I think it is useful to know what it does with higher ISO's. And I agree it is 100% relevant. You'll know how far you can push your settings.

    I like to isolate things like sharpness in this instance and let ISO fall where it may. Whether it is ISO 12800 or 400. I'll just know for myself what ever ISO I am using, I'm still pulling the most detail I can. Because if we shoot even higher ISO's, we can render these differences moot. So while it is useful to know what it does at higher ISO's. It doesn't replace or very good at figuring out is it better to use an extender or not from a detail resolving standpoint.

    Basause if it is sharper/pulling in more overall detail with a 2x, there is no reason to crop. Because if I crop by 2x, I'm gonna reveal the same amount in noise as if I used an extender and used 2 stops higher ISO. At least in theory. There could be other sensor tech stuff happening that I don't know about. I am no Daniel Browning. Haha.

    But if cropping is actually sharper, then regardless of the ISO it will be the better option. But so far it seems that the 2x is still relevant.

    When I get home, just for giggles I'll do the same post processing with the 1.4x and covert to Jpeg. The RAW preview doesn't tell all.
    Last edited by Fast Glass; 03-08-2022 at 12:50 AM.

  4. #24
    Senior Member Fast Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Ferndale WA
    Posts
    1,158
    Sorry if I am sounding like a broken record player, just tell me to stop if I do. Lol.

    Ok, I'll stop now.

    But I'll post for giggles the 1.4x results and leave it at that so all can see.

  5. #25
    Senior Member
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Planet Earth
    Posts
    3,088
    Not at all.

    I was in the process of explaining what I meant by loosing light. I think it is just a bad description on my part. What I refer to is when the ISO goes up, to keep it down the shutter speed must be slower. Early morning and evening this is always an issue. It "feels" like I am loosing light but really it is just pushing down the shutter speed.

  6. #26
    Senior Member Fast Glass's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Ferndale WA
    Posts
    1,158
    I hear ya, my minimum all depends on what I'm shooting. if I am hurting for light I'll go as low as 1/160. It just means I can't stop motion. But when birds are in between movements. They are often times stock still for a brief moment. And I'll raise my shutter speed when I want to capture motion.

    So I'm not cranking it to the moon the ISO at least as much.

    I used to do lots of lower light stuff, but lately I have tried as much as possible to hit that sweet spot in the evening where I get a good amount of light but birds are still active. Same in the morning.

    Or depending on my birding locations they will be there throughout the day. So I can have my pick of lighting. This is ideal. I can be using ISO 100 or 200 and get what ever shutter speed I need. Maybe little bit more if I need higher shutter speeds.

    Of course, this is just me. And not everyone is me.

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •