First Cardinal

[MARINERMAGNUM]

I always try to get a shot of the 1st Cardinal of the year that I spot. Tradition I guess. This one happened to be female,and she popped up while I was metering on a Junco. The shot is cluttered,but being tradition,I had to take it.

Having just sold the 50D and waiting on the new body,I was using a 20D and I was suprised how well it handled the 2X extender on my 70-200mm zoom lens. Still a great,great camera body! Shot in jpeg.

Exif:

File Name IMG_3873.JPG

Camera Model Canon EOS 20D

Firmware Firmware 2.0.3

Shooting Date/Time 11/29/2009 12:41:23 PM

Shooting Mode Aperture-Priority AE

Tv( Shutter Speed ) 1/500

Av( Aperture Value ) 7.1

Metering Mode Evaluative Metering

Exposure Compensation -1/3

ISO Speed 800

Lens 140.0 - 400.0mm

Focal Length 400.0mm

Image Size 3504x2336

Image Quality Fine

[Steve Foss]

Nice tradition and nice shot, MM.

The camera sensor is not the limiting factor in how well the lenses and teleconverters perform. It's generally the native sharpness of the lens and TC, as well as the technique. You've gotten consistently good results with your 2x over time if my memory serves, and that tells me you not only have a good copy of the 2x and sharp lenses, but that you are a sharp and savvy operator of those lenses.

I've got some really sharp images taken with my 20D/30D sensors and the Canon 2x and Canon 400 f2.8L Mk2 (non IS). Conversely, I've got some garbage images shot with the 1DsMk3 and the Canon 200 f2.8L with no TC used. In my case it was good technique/bad technique, not a matter of sensor capability. That's usually how it works.

[wishing for walleyes]

Thats a very nice and sharp picture of a great looking bird.

[MARINERMAGNUM]

Thanks Steve,appreciated.

I keep thinking of buying a 100-400L again for walkability sake,but if my memory serves it was best stopped down to 7.1 or 8,which is where the 2X on my zoom really works best. Setting the focus limiter to 2.5M-infinity also speeds up focus tremendously.

I've compared my 2X + zoom shots to some 100-400 shots I have,and I see a miniscule edge going to the 100-400 in sharpness-about a 10% adjustment in unsharp mask brings them dead even. This is only when viewed at 75-100%,any smaller-forget it,you can't tell which lens shot what. I will say that you have to be more critical of your technique-which is good practice anyway.

Getting close and filling the frame will always yield a better image than cropping in from long range-and trying to get close is half the fun! If you can close half the distance at 200mm F2.8 over the guy with a 400mm 2.8 your image should be comparable and you saved $6500!

[ShawnZ]

Not sure I agree with your self assesment that the image is cluttered, it certainly is a beautiful image of a cardinal in some harmonious habitat!

[Birdsong]

I agree with Shawn--I like the background very much. It is a change from our rich greens of summer, but they suit her well--especially the little hints of the warm reddish browns against the cool gray-blues. Both are reflected in her feathers--bonus!

[upnorth]

I am going with those that say that is a good pic. Nice to have some background or it may get too stark.

[Jim Almquist]

Great looking shot with some very nice colors.

[Canon Guy]

That's a great image! Not too cluttered for my tastes.

[MN Shutterbug]

Interesting. I'm considering selling my 100-400 and getting the 70-200 and 2X converter. This way, I'd have a good sports lens and still have the focal length for birds. I can see by your cardinal, sharpness is still attainable. The 2 drawbacks I see are, more $$$ of course and an extra lb. with the converter.

Which converter are you using, Canon or Kenko?

I do like the natural setting in this shot.

[Steve Foss]

Mike, I'd introduce a note of caution into your plan by saying MM's results with his 70-200 and 2x are not typical, and probably are a combination of excellent sharp copies of the glass in question and a very studied and solid technique, not to mention some Photoshop sharpening expertise.

Mostly with that combo the results are noticeably softer than images from the 100-400 wide open at 400mm. For some added perspective, in my experience, the 70-200/1.4 TC shot wide open at 280mm produces about the same IQ as the 100-400 wide open at 400mm.

You're also going to notice slowdowns in focus speed with that TC/lens combo. With your 50D and the f2.8 of the 70-200, you'll notice the focus speed is definitely faster than with the 100-400. Strap the 2x to that 70-200 and it'll run a good bit slower, more like your 100-400. It'll also hunt a bit more for focus in low light or with non contrasty subjects.

That being said, that 70-200 is a sweetie of a sports lens indeed! I'd pair it with Canon TCs. Kenko doesn't make any TCs that are quite as good as the Canons. I owned the pro model Kenko 1.4 for awhile and sold it off because I wasn't satisfied with its performance. Both with focus speed and IQ the Canons are better. The differences are small but noticeable, and any TC defects are magnified because it sits so close to the camera's sensor. That's also one reason TC glass must be kept spotless. Get some dusts/smears on the TC and your IQ goes to the dogs.

Just all in my experience and my opinion.

[MN Shutterbug]

Once I get a Pileated Woodpecker and Golden Eagle, I'll have enough birds, anyway. What am I saying? I'm addicted. I sure wish I had a money tree in my backyard.

I've read reviews regarding the Sigma and Taron 70-200's and there are just too many people claiming that AF is slow and unreliable in low light, and all indoor sports are relatively low light.

Thanks Steve, for your viewpoint and advice.

[Steve Foss]

Aside from focusing a bit more slowly, both the Siggie and Tammy 70-200 series lenses are softer wide open at 200mm than any of the Canon 70-200 lenses.

Getting bitten by the indoor sports bug or what?

[MN Shutterbug]

Getting bitten by the indoor sports bug or what?

I've been considering this for awhile now. The only competition would be the local newspaper, and their shots leave a lot to be desired. They have an online gallery where people can buy them off of. The only problem is, as one lady at a store pointed out to me last week, consumers around here are more interested in how cheap they can get things than the quality.

I've shot some sports before, although with 400 ASA B & W film and flash, so I do know what's involved. I realize it would still be somewhat of a new type of learning curve with digital, but I could adapt.

I'm thinking that the wisest thing would be to wait until spring and shoot some baseball. I could test the market that way and not have to invest in another lens. It sure is tough to resist the urge.

[Steve Foss]

If you wait to shoot spring/summer/fall sports, you may find yourself able to sock away print money from those events and pick up a great used copy of the 70-200 f2.8L non IS for under $1,000. The IS is generally wasted on sports, anyway, and that way you could keep your 100-400 and not have to compromise on IQ like you would with the 70-200/2x TC.

I shot outdoor sports with the 100-400 for four years on the 20D/30D and found that iso800 was as high as I had to go, even on cloudy days. I wasn't able to freeze bat motion for baseball at iso800 on dark days, and on occasion fast moving legs/arms would show blur, but the faces/torsos always were sharp. Of course, with the 50D and its excellent in-camera NR in jpeg mode, I'd bet you could get excellent images at iso1600 pretty easily.

You also may try your hand at practicing on some outdoor daytime hockey. I've always found hockey the hardest sport to shoot. Even at the high school level, things go MIGHTY fast in a hockey arena. Once you get your timing fast enough to shoot hockey, the other high school sports will seem easy in comparison.

Hey MM, sorry we digressed into sportsland on your fine cardinal thread!

[MARINERMAGNUM]

Quote:

Which converter are you using, Canon or Kenko?

Mike,I just use Canon stuff all the way.

It's true that a 2X tc will have it's effects on lens performance but to me the good outweighs the bad. I've done some extensive tests with the 2x and 1.4x on my 70-200 and have found the biggest detraction is the slowdown of focus speed. This handicap can be alleviated somewhat by setting the focus limiter switch to the distance you're shooting at.

Checking for the "substancial" drop in sharpness that I'd heard about for years forced me to do the myriad of tests. Truthfully,the biggest drop was in contrast-not sharpness. As Steve said,maybe I got lucky with the glass I have. Stopping down 2-3 stops of aperture really makes the sharpness a non issue-for my glass anyway. I tested with everything locked down on my Manfrotto 536Mpro tripod and 490 rc4 ball head-so I know nothing moved.

Keep in mind also that your 50D has the micro adjust feature that allows adjustment of these combos whereas the olders bodies do not. The 50 recognizes if you have a 1.4x or a 2x on the body and will record all the settings for any combo of either setup so you can tweak the les/tc combo for optimum sharpness.

The info on sharpness issues when using the tc's was born in a time when micro adjustments weren't possible on a camera body. Today however,it's a whole new ballgame. Which is to our benefit for sure!

This is all pretty much fluff because as Steve stated a used 70-200 2.8 non is is around $900. I wouldn't give up my own long lenses,I just like seeing what's possible with all avenues.

[Steve Foss]

Thanks for the amplification, MM. TCs aren't perfect, but darn it if they aren't perfect enough in some circumstances.

XT, I was able to get some acceptably sharp images with the 100-400 and Canon 1.4 TCII when the light was excellent and I had solid tripod stability. Manual focus is a big limiting factor there, but it works in some situations. And since AF is lost with all but the "1" series bodies anyway when shooting the 100-400/1.4 TC, you can pick up a TC Mk1 for a LOT less than a Mk2. As far as I know, the only real-world difference between the Mk1 and Mk2 was autofocus performance.

Not to mention you could sell your 50D and pick up a lightly used 1D mk2 and only be out $200 or so. THAT would autofocus a 100-400/1.4 TC, and you'll be stunned at the difference in native AF performance between a 4-year-old Mk2 and a new 50D.

Am I whetting your appetite yet?

[MN Shutterbug]

Am I whetting your appetite yet?

Actually, no. I'd be out a couple hundred for the camera, another $300 for the TC, and still not have a sports lens.

It's a moot point now. I've decided against sports photography. Sports bore me, anyway. I've decided to go a different direction. And no, not weddings or studio work.

Although, I'm glad I started asking questions. It was extremely educational, and knowledge is good.

[Steve Foss]

I'm glad I started asking questions. It was extremely educational, and knowledge is good.

Always!

[MARINERMAGNUM]

Quote:

I've decided to go a different direction. And no, not weddings or studio work.

uh oh! my imagination is in road gear!

[Steve Foss]

uh oh! my imagination is in road gear!

Curb it, tractor man!

Oh what the heck. Macro, XT? I mean, how many directions are left for a guy of your advanced age? Are you gonna turn into a landscape puke? Traffic cop? Coffee geezer in a diner?

[Jim Almquist]

Originally Posted By: MARINERMAGNUM

uh oh! my imagination is in road gear!

Curb it, tractor man!

Oh what the heck. Macro, XT? I mean, how many directions are left for a guy of your advanced age? Are you gonna turn into a landscape puke? Traffic cop? Coffee geezer in a diner?

STOP IT NOW

I'am getting coffee all over my screen