Sponsor Message:
Aviation Photography Forum
My Starred Topics | Profile | New Topic | Forum Index | Help | Search 
Article On IQ Degredation Using TCs (Nikon)  
User currently offlineSNATH From United States of America, joined Mar 2004, 3254 posts, RR: 21
Posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 15 hours ago) and read 5761 times:

Hi all,

Here's an interesting article on the effect on IQ of using the different Nikon TCs:


Given that a lot of folks here use TCs I thought I'd share.


Nikon: we don't want more pixels, we want better pixels.
2 replies: All unread, jump to last
User currently offlineckw From UK - England, joined Aug 2010, 813 posts, RR: 12
Reply 1, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 10 hours ago) and read 5713 times:

I would say that's pretty much what one would expect - the more powerful the convertor, the greater the image degradation. However, in specific terms I'm not sure how useful this review is. The test were carried out on a Nikon D800E - this camera is atypical in so much that it does not have an anti-aliasing filter.

While in theory the 800E can be sharper than a standard 800, lack of the antialiasing filter can have disadvantages - a greater potential for moire is well known (though perhaps surprisingly not evidenced much in real world tests by reviewers). Another is "early onset diffraction".

In brief where the 800E might show diffraction effects at f11, the "standard" 800 should be good to around f16-f22 which makes some of the comments in the article less applicable to most Nikon users.

Personally, I would not have thought the 800E a good choice for aviation photographers - while it offer advantages with natural subjects and wide - normal lenses (say landscape photography), the use of long lenses (forcing smaller apertures) on artificial subjects (which have edges and regular patterns) does not play to the 800E strengths. Having said that, the real world differences are likely to be small and only of concern to pixel peepers.



Colin K. Work, Pixstel
User currently offlinemegatop412 From United States of America, joined Sep 2005, 341 posts, RR: 0
Reply 2, posted (3 years 1 month 3 weeks 3 days 2 hours ago) and read 5690 times:

One reason I decided against getting a 70-200mm f/2.8 was because I would need to add a 2X TC (or at least the 1.7x) to get to a reasonable focal length needed for aviation photography, which would degrade the IQ to or near the point at which a slower zoom with more useful focal range would actually be the more practical choice(to say nothing of the added cost). Since I rarely shoot in low light, 2.8 isn't needed. Plus I don't get hung up on extreme subject isolation- f/5.6 @ 300mm provides enough should I want that.

Top Of Page
Forum Index

This topic is archived and can not be replied to any more.

Printer friendly format

Similar topics:More similar topics...
Using The Nikon 80-400VR With The D90 posted Sun Aug 2 2009 09:42:16 by Alasdair1982
Pretty Funny Article On Ken Rockwell posted Thu Mar 22 2007 14:46:43 by Clickhappy
Another Article On CD Durability posted Thu Jun 17 2004 12:02:48 by Joge
Good Article On The Durabilty On CD's And DVD's posted Thu Jun 10 2004 19:57:31 by Clickhappy
Popular Photo Mag. Article On Camera Law posted Wed Feb 19 2003 01:26:17 by Paulinbna
Sun-Sentinel News Article On FLL View Park posted Wed Jan 8 2003 06:39:20 by Db777
A Really Good Article On Photography posted Wed Jan 8 2003 01:53:07 by 2912n
Any Experiences On The Nikon D7100 posted Sat Mar 30 2013 22:45:38 by egondo
Anybody Using Sigma 50-500OS On Full-frame? posted Sun Mar 10 2013 06:25:36 by jnrfalcon
Nikon 70-200mm 2.8 Vrii Worth The Purchase On Sale posted Fri Mar 1 2013 17:08:48 by chuck9941