darklights Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 My daughter bought me an early Christmas present last night, andcouldn't wait for me to test it out (isn't it usually the personrecieving that this happens with?). This is a very un-scientific review: The following image is a 100% crop of an 7" x 8" flag marker. Imeasured the distance to the flag from where I stood, 150 feetexactly. I used ISO 400, TV 400, AV 7.1, at a focal length of 300mmusing a Canon 75-300 IS usm and a Quantaray (sold by Ritz) 2x TC on a300D. I have to add this...IS function worked very well with this TC, whichsurprised me. In sunlight AF works O.k, even at AV of 7.1 which iswhat I had it set at(add the two stops due to TC on top of that). Over all, for a very low cost TC that is consumer grade I'd say thisTC worked beyond its' 79 USD cost. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darklights Posted December 11, 2004 Author Share Posted December 11, 2004 Further: In addition I'd like to add there was now USM or any post processing done on this crop. The following image is a scaled down for web sample of the original picture. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shambrick007 Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 Not trying to be a jerk, but actually it looks pretty bad to me - low contrast and soft. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
www.philwinterphotography. Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 It's waaay underexposed. But what I can see leads me to think that $79 was not well spent. Sorry. Phil Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron c sunshine coast,qld,a Posted December 11, 2004 Share Posted December 11, 2004 I think the cheaper TC's just don't tell the camera that they are there,that's why you have the underexposure <BR>When using it i guess you have to increase exposure two stops from indicated metering Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darklights Posted December 11, 2004 Author Share Posted December 11, 2004 You know, this is a little embarassing, but after Phils' comment I checked a few things out. I had to re-setup my computer last week and forgot something real important. I forgot to re-calibrate my monitor! And Phil is right...it IS wayyyy underexposed. I could hardly see the darn thing after. As to the sharpness issue, there are probably a few extenuating circumstances there. Such as: the TC seems to have added more noise (dunno how though) to the 400ISO, and the fact that I just flat out need glasses :-) My kids not to hip on me posting her picture but here's one that seems sharper to my failing eyes, using the same setup (caught her rolling on the ground with the pups).<div></div> Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ron c sunshine coast,qld,a Posted December 12, 2004 Share Posted December 12, 2004 Thats' pretty good! <br>About the same as i got from a teleplus 2x TC (they are probably identical anyway) <BR>Are those pups border collie cross?They sure are nice. <BR>My bitch will have pups within the next two weeks! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
darklights Posted December 12, 2004 Author Share Posted December 12, 2004 I'd love to have a border collie cross, but these are Doberman-Bulldog cross breed. In other words, good Ol' American mutts. Now that you mention it, the TC does look very much like a teleplus. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Create an account or sign in to comment
You need to be a member in order to leave a comment
Create an account
Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!
Register a new accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now