Re: Canon Cameras

To: "David Stowe" <>
Subject: Re: Canon Cameras
From: "Ákos Lumnitzer" <>
Date: Fri, 26 Nov 2010 10:36:24 +1100
HI Dave et al.

Firstly, it would be a good idea to not assume that all my images are
posted on web forums only. Many of those forums are littered with people
who have all the best gear and could not take a photo of a tree to save

I never said the 2x will equal a bare lens. Of course there is a
difference at 100% using bare lens, 1.4x and 2x; but that is not the
point. The point is that if needed, the 2x in the right hand is a great
tool. Maybe I am just lucky and have "the" right hand or a very good
converter as said. The end buyers/users don't sit and fuss over pixels
and/or what converters are used and looking at 100% view. As long as the
image meets their needs and is sharp enough for the purpose, which is
perfectly achievable, then that is all that matters in the end. :)

What is surprising that Dave mentions technique not being a contributor to
final image quality. I am glad you didn't teach me about photography mate!

People looking for info read all this tech talk about poorer quality this
and that and will shy away from using some equipment based on what other
say just because they want to pixel peep and complain about soft this and
soft that! People need to get out and actually take photos! Thank God I
don't listen to everything I read on the net. :)

And Arthur Morris (amongst a few others) is still my number one
inspiration! :)

Cheers guys...

On Fri, November 26, 2010 8:22 am, David Stowe wrote:
> Akos
> The 500mm is such a sharp lens that you get used to a certain level of
> quality. With a 1.4x I don't really notice the difference, whereas with a
> 2x I do notice a difference in quality. Nothing to do with technique. I
> also have reasonable shots with stacked converters but you could never say
> they are as sharp as the 500mm by itself.
> Obviously its easy to make these images look sharp when resizing for web
> forums and adding sharpening etc, but at 100% i personally find a
> difference.
> Cheers
> Dave
> On 26/11/2010, at 7:43 AM, Ákos Lumnitzer wrote:
> David
> I have to disagree about the Canon EF 2x. Maybe you have a bad copy or I
> have a fabulous one. Under the right circumstances and using solid
> technique I most certainly get more than good enough quality images and I
> don't even use a 500/4L yet. Even stacking a 1.4x and a 2x I can get very
> good results (hand holding!). Just food for thought. I admit, I am no
> pixel peeper, but certainly have a very good grasp of this funny thing
> called photography and professional nature photographers world-wide like
> what I am capable of producing.  :) What my point is that there are many
> factors to consider with converters; light, lens, technique, converter
> quality (individuals most likely differ) and so on. I won't even touch the
> subject of cropping (excessively) as many now do because they have 15+
> megapixel cameras.
> respectfully yours
> Akos
> (just an amateur in many worlds) :)

Ákos Lumnitzer

To unsubscribe from this mailing list,
send the message:
(in the body of the message, with no Subject line)
<Prev in Thread] Current Thread [Next in Thread>

The University of NSW School of Computer and Engineering takes no responsibility for the contents of this archive. It is purely a compilation of material sent by many people to the birding-aus mailing list. It has not been checked for accuracy nor its content verified in any way. If you wish to get material removed from the archive or have other queries about the archive e-mail Andrew Taylor at this address: andrewt@cse.unsw.EDU.AU