Dragonflies and Damselflies
- Thread starter AlanF
- Start date
Upvote
0
too dark in the details for me, most in penultimate photo...the head is almost invisible
Last edited:
Upvote
0
That's nothing to do with the aperture, it's the relative light intensity and reflectivity in the different regions. It would be the same difference at wider apertures. Look at the ones above in more uniform light.
Upvote
0
First of all thank you for the compliments.
Background info for you:
Right now, I'm mainly concerned with the sharpness when using the 2x TC.
I had a copy that was either a lemon or I just didn't know how to use it properly.
The photos prove the opposite, at least at close range.
And I still need to test the TC with the 100-500. That lens might have an issue... let's hope not so
But I can understand your comment and taste:
The black forehead and the almost black background in combination with the brightly illuminated compound eyes give a high contrast.
This is how it would look like, if I'd raise the shadows and reduce the contrast. IMO too much PP and it starts too look flat. But YMMV.
Upvote
0
Some white-legged damselflies (Platycnemis pennipes).
Last one a very immature one.
R6m2+100-400+2x@800mm
R50+100-400+2x@800mm
Last one a very immature one.
R6m2+100-400+2x@800mm
R50+100-400+2x@800mm
Upvote
0
@Maximilian the RF100-400mm is performing very well with the 2xTC here. I haven't used it myself because it's not nearly as good as the RF 100-500m with the the 2xTC at long distances. have checked it out carefully today at close to the minimum focal distance and it is very similar in IQ to the 2xTC on the 100-500mm, and much lighter and more convenient to use. I am posting some close up insect shots with it.
Upvote
0
You were focussing on the lenses of the of the eyes and that's what made your first version a much better photograph, it contrasted and emphasized them just like have a narrow depth of field brings out a subject.First of all thank you for the compliments.
Background info for you:
Right now, I'm mainly concerned with the sharpness when using the 2x TC.
I had a copy that was either a lemon or I just didn't know how to use it properly.
The photos prove the opposite, at least at close range.
And I still need to test the TC with the 100-500. That lens might have an issue... let's hope not so
But I can understand your comment and taste:
The black forehead and the almost black background in combination with the brightly illuminated compound eyes give a high contrast.
This is how it would look like, if I'd raise the shadows and reduce the contrast. IMO too much PP and it starts too look flat. But YMMV.
View attachment 230049
Upvote
0
… and you‘ll get nuts when you try DIF with it+TC. Much too slow AF.
I‘ve stopped trying after some attempts.
Naked 100-400 is good enough for DIF.
I did prove that in the past, several times.
Tomorrow, the weather should be good enough for tests of TC+100-500.
l‘ll report.
Upvote
0
I wouldn't go nuts because I would never try it! I need a wide field of view for anything in flight and a 2xTC slows down AF too much.
Upvote
0
Some compound eye closeups with R6m2+2xTC and both teles, all close to MFD and with cropping:
four-spotted chaser
with 100-400@800mm
with 100-500@1000mm
scarce chaser
with 100-400@800mm
with 100-500@1000mm
four-spotted chaser
with 100-400@800mm
with 100-500@1000mm
scarce chaser
with 100-400@800mm
with 100-500@1000mm
Upvote
0
Finally the first 2026 Anax imperator - and sitting indeed, not quite often, that I get those.
Hide and seek
And then really well
Hide and seek
And then really well
Upvote
0
In addition:
Look at the forehead of the emperor dragonfly:
It seems it had a accident when it hatched
Look at the forehead of the emperor dragonfly:
It seems it had a accident when it hatched
Upvote
0
It shows a 100-400 element, which I don't like (i use 100-400 with TC 1.4) and the details are blurry...
Unfortunately you can't get more out of it ... let's face it, the 100-400 with TC is not the sharpest lens (Don't take this as a criticism, I've been using that lens for a long time and I'm bothered by the fact that it's not very sharp and detailed, I always have to additionally sharpen the RAW photos in software)
Unfortunately you can't get more out of it ... let's face it, the 100-400 with TC is not the sharpest lens (Don't take this as a criticism, I've been using that lens for a long time and I'm bothered by the fact that it's not very sharp and detailed, I always have to additionally sharpen the RAW photos in software)
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I don’t take this as criticism.
Thank you for your opinion.
I post those comparisons and you and I look at the results and analyse them.
I am pleased with the details. But I am also happy that the 100-500 looks better.
Esp. when you compare the price difference.
Upvote
0
Yes, it's like comparing a "macro" taken with a 100-400 with TC to, say, an RF 100mm f/2.8L Macro. That's just different.
Upvote
0
You are using an R7 with a diffraction limited aperture of f/5.2, @Maximilian is using an R6ii with a dla of f/9.6. The RF 100-400 has an aperture of f/8. The two cameras respond differently when a 1.4x TC is put on the lens. The R7 is pushed further into dla-limitations but the R6ii less so. It's a waste of time if not disadvantageous putting TCs on to narrow lenses on the R7 but you can squeeze out more resolution with FF cameras. I know this from direct experience with my R7 and R5ii bodies as well as from theory.
Upvote
0
IMO it is about how reliable your tool is.
When I look for „perfection“ it is not necessarily squeezing out the last detail out of a scene.
If I was after that I‘d do focus stacking.
I am trying to get the best out of the scene in front of me with the gear I have with me.
If I take an APS-C body with a more critical DLA because I want a small, light and less expensive body, I want to get the best out of it.
And as my R50 has no sensor protection and cleaning included, changing lenses in windy and dusty environment is out of discussion.
I prefer the R6m2, but not always.
So life is always a compromise.
And it’s up to you and me to make the best compromise possible/acceptable.
That’s my opinion.
When I look for „perfection“ it is not necessarily squeezing out the last detail out of a scene.
If I was after that I‘d do focus stacking.
I am trying to get the best out of the scene in front of me with the gear I have with me.
If I take an APS-C body with a more critical DLA because I want a small, light and less expensive body, I want to get the best out of it.
And as my R50 has no sensor protection and cleaning included, changing lenses in windy and dusty environment is out of discussion.
I prefer the R6m2, but not always.
So life is always a compromise.
And it’s up to you and me to make the best compromise possible/acceptable.
That’s my opinion.
Upvote
0
Similar threads
