That's a complete (and I suspect deliberate) misinterpreation of what Dave
said. Of course technique is essential, whatever gear you're using.
I've very much enjoyed many of your photos, and well as Dave's, and it's
pretty obvious you both know how to extract the best from your gear.
What both Dave and I were saying about 2x converters is that - even with
good technique - neither of us are particularly happy with them. That
applies to me both with Nikon and Canon gear incidentally. 1.4x I routinely
use, but 2x I find degrades the quality of the image unacceptably for me.
It's all subjective of course, but let's now make things personal!
On 26 November 2010 10:36, "Ákos Lumnitzer" <> wrote:
> 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
> > 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
> > 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)