1. Welcome to Mu-43.com—a friendly Micro 4/3 camera & photography discussion forum!

    If you are thinking of buying a camera or need help with your photos, you will find our forum members full of advice! Click here to join for free!

Telephoto Zoom comparison

Discussion in 'Open Discussion' started by ralf-11, Apr 14, 2019.

  1. ScottinPollock

    ScottinPollock Mu-43 Regular Subscribing Member

    107
    Oct 26, 2017
    There is something wrong here. Your posted screen grabs of SOOC jpeg and raw are identical. How can that be?
     
  2. masayoshi

    masayoshi Mu-43 Top Veteran Subscribing Member

    813
    Dec 5, 2016
    Salt Lake City
    Masaaki
    So, which one you'll keep?
    I'll be happy to buy 50-200 without TC, if it's priced right.
     
  3. TNcasual

    TNcasual Mu-43 Legend Subscribing Member

    Dec 2, 2014
    Knoxville, TN
    FTFY
     
  4. ralf-11

    ralf-11 Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 16, 2017
    It is unclear to me why Leica could not design a tele-convertor that does not degrade IQ. tho that used to be common before the advent of numerical design in optics.

    As to the results here, maybe this one is a bad copy.
     
  5. ralf-11

    ralf-11 Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 16, 2017
    I'm not following your question.
     
  6. TNcasual

    TNcasual Mu-43 Legend Subscribing Member

    Dec 2, 2014
    Knoxville, TN
    Every 2x tele-converter ever produced has degraded the result of the parent lens. That's just physics.
     
  7. ToxicTabasco

    ToxicTabasco Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jul 2, 2018
    South West USA
    The first one looks better with the depth of field, contrast, and clarity in the center.
     
  8. oldracer

    oldracer Mu-43 Hall of Famer Subscribing Member

    Oct 1, 2010
    USA
    +1 That's also why they are relatively uncommon. TANSTAAFL.

    If you mentioned up front that one of the images was taken using a teleconverter I would have predicted that would be the less-sharp image. @alex g@alex g nailed that one. If this was a test at all, it certainly wasn't apples to apples.
     
  9. ScottinPollock

    ScottinPollock Mu-43 Regular Subscribing Member

    107
    Oct 26, 2017
    SOOC photos have much applied to them including sharpening, white balance, noise reduction, etc, etc. They will look nothing like the raw file as they are already processed in camera.

    Here's a 100% crop of a quick snap, both in raw and SOOC. You'll see lens correction, sharpening, noise reduction, and more applied to the SOOC image, and none of it in the raw file. Yet the two screen captures you posted (one supposedly SOOC, and the other raw) appear to be identical.
     
  10. ralf-11

    ralf-11 Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 16, 2017
    The side by side comparison is LR showing the raw files. So it is the LR engine - No way for me to directly view a raw file, if I understand your stmt.

    --------------

    I disagree that it is "just physics" that might make a 2x extender on a lens not have equal IQ to a lens twice the FL. Think about how a lens is designed.

    Anyway, this combo is obviously not adequate for me, and is boxed for return.
     
  11. TNcasual

    TNcasual Mu-43 Legend Subscribing Member

    Dec 2, 2014
    Knoxville, TN
    Yes. Yes it is. When you add optics to "extend" the lens, you are degrading the image. Full Stop. Always has been and always will.

    Designers can mitigate some issues by engineering the lens and the tele-converter together, but there is no way around the properties of light.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  12. Phocal

    Phocal Mu-43 Legend Subscribing Member

    Jan 3, 2014
    Houston
    A lens twice the focal is designed to be that focal length. With a tc you are basically adding in an enlarger, which is completely different than how a 2x focal length lens is designed.
     
    • Agree Agree x 2
  13. TNcasual

    TNcasual Mu-43 Legend Subscribing Member

    Dec 2, 2014
    Knoxville, TN
    Further...

    I still think that there is an issue with your lens or tele-converter. Those results are not acceptable. I could get better with my 100-300i and cropping to 400 than that, I think. The 50-200 should start at a sharpness where the tele-converter is at least as sharp as the cheap consumer lens, cropped. Do you have the ability to try other bodies? Of run tests on the lens with and without the tele-converter.
     
  14. ralf-11

    ralf-11 Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 16, 2017
    I could have tried a different body, but why bother? (also my G9 works very very well with my PL 12-60 and other lenses) I agree it seems way off and may be a bad example. I disagree that "it's just physics" but my PhD is not in optics...
     
    • Funny Funny x 1
  15. TNcasual

    TNcasual Mu-43 Legend Subscribing Member

    Dec 2, 2014
    Knoxville, TN
    • Agree Agree x 1
  16. ScottinPollock

    ScottinPollock Mu-43 Regular Subscribing Member

    107
    Oct 26, 2017
    Never used LR... is it so bad it is displaying the jpg preview in the raw file? I am just looking for answers as there is no way that lens can be that bad. I have kit lenses that are sharper than that.

    Anyway... welcome to Nikon! I've been using their gear for over a decade.
     
  17. ScottinPollock

    ScottinPollock Mu-43 Regular Subscribing Member

    107
    Oct 26, 2017
    Maybe that explains it.
     
    • Agree Agree x 1
  18. TNcasual

    TNcasual Mu-43 Legend Subscribing Member

    Dec 2, 2014
    Knoxville, TN
    Yep.
     
  19. ralf-11

    ralf-11 Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 16, 2017
  20. ralf-11

    ralf-11 Mu-43 All-Pro

    Jan 16, 2017
    I assume LR uses their own rendering engine.

    And - thanks for the 'welcome' to Nikon - but you are 48 years late...
     
  1. This site uses cookies to help personalise content, tailor your experience and to keep you logged in if you register.
    By continuing to use this site, you are consenting to our use of cookies.