Upsizing vs Teleconverters which is best?

06/18/2009 05:46:37 PM · #1

I made a recent blog post comparing which is better, using a teleconverter or just cropping upsizing/ upresing the image in photoshop.

The results were a bit surprising and something I wished I had known before. The conclusion: save your $$ and just use photoshop

Upsizing vs Teleconverter

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

06/18/2009 05:57:29 PM · #2

I love when people do stuff like this, but I have to ask why the crops are different sizes? It seems he did something wrong if everything is supposed to be equivalent as far as focal length goes. So the results may not be valid due to a flawed methodology.

I also wonder (and I don't know the answer to this), does it make a difference if the deer you are shooting is 50m away instead of the basket being 3 meters away?

06/18/2009 06:03:56 PM · #3

the reason the crop was different has something to do with the lenses. I shot the 100-400 lens at 400mm (it said so in the exif as well) and shot the 70-200mm at 200mm with the 2x extender (the exif said 200mm+ 2.0x extender) but the images were still zoomed in to different lengths?! only slightly but there was a difference.

Yeah, i wonder how it would change with objects further away as well.

Message edited by author 2009-06-18 18:05:05.

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

Olympus 12-45mm f/4.0 Pro

06/18/2009 06:19:11 PM · #4

Ah, I didn't catch you did this yourself. But still, some of the crops are quite different and it seems to indicate something was overlooked. On the second batch there is a 27% difference in the size of the 70-200 2x and the 70-200 1x with upsize. 27% is like the difference between a 400mm lens and a 300mm lens. It shouldn't be that different.

I'll be interested if you get things to match up what the results are.

OdysseyF22

Panasonic DC-G9

06/18/2009 06:21:52 PM · #5

My personal experience with teleconverters is this: in anything less than ideal lighting conditions, there'll be a noticeable decrease in quality & increase in fringing/CA. After having just done a lot with a 2x TC, I'm more inclined to crop whenever possible.

Five_Seat

Canon EOS-6D

06/18/2009 06:33:01 PM · #6

In my relative limited experience with teleconverters, I have almost no noticeable drop-off in image quality with the 70-200/4.0 + 1.4x.

My $.02

DrAchoo

Panasonic Lumix DMC-LX5

06/18/2009 06:47:56 PM · #7

I'll tell you what. I've got a 300mm and a 180mm macro and a 1.4x teleconverter. I'll try the same experiment with either lens to see what I come up with.

To upconvert I would take the shot without the 1.4x and crop it to the exact field of view as the shot with the 1.4x, then I'd upscale to the same pixel # as an uncropped RAW using Bicubic Smoother. You could then take a 720x720 bite to post online.

Nikon AF-S Nikkor 70-200mm f/2.8G ED VR II

06/18/2009 06:49:35 PM · #8

Originally posted by Five_Seat:

In my relative limited experience with teleconverters, I have almost no noticeable drop-off in image quality with the 70-200/4.0 + 1.4x.

My $.02

but have you check at how much (or little) quality you will loose if you just upsize it that extra 1.4x? probably very little.

Message edited by author 2009-06-18 18:49:46.

MattO

Nikon D4

06/18/2009 06:51:40 PM · #9

There is one thing that your upsizing will never do vs. a Teleconverter, and that is Blow the background out with bokeh. The main reason I use a teleconverter over is for reach and still fill the frame. Bokeh and DOF are influenced alot by the factor of distance to subject and focal length of lens. Give me a teleconverter any day over upsizing. I want my backgrounds blown out with purty bokeh.

Matt

All of these are with the 300F2.8IS and 1.4 Canon TC

Message edited by author 2009-06-18 18:53:47.