To tele or not - and which one

MikeSD

TPF Noob!
Joined
Jan 6, 2013
Messages
6
Reaction score
0
I have a new Canon RF 200-800mm. I know this has been asked and answered. But maybe not for extreme distances

I want to shoot extreme distances where distance to subject is very small. Like shooting eagles (not with bullets) at 200 yards, or Saturn. That makes them very small on the sensor. I have a R7.

I know the more pixels you can put on the subject is needed. So I'm thinking a teleconverter is unavoidable. I doubt I'd get a very good image if I cropped

Agree or disagree.
 
Let me start by saying I'm a Nikon shooter so I'm talking generally, not specific to your individual body and lens.

First, given software like Topaz these days, I think your assumption about grain and cropping is wrong. If you can get a sharp image, crop, and then use Topaz to denoise and upscale, I guarantee you'll get a better image than if you use a teleconverter.

I've shot eagles before. Unless they're stationary, using a teleconverter is going to get you closer but at the cost of sharpness and exposure. Which is going to give you a crappy photo--no detail in the feathers for instance. Far better to shoot that eagle so it's small but sharp with low ISO and then use other software (like Topaz) to upscale and remove noise.

Second, unless you're planning on doing this every weekend, think about renting a professional quality long-range prime or zoom. Yeah, there's a rental fee. But for shooting wild wildlife (not a typo--I mean eagles vs. cardinals, lions vs. squirrels) you benefit from a professional quality lens that can shoot in low light with fast shutter speeds.
 
Let me start by saying I'm a Nikon shooter so I'm talking generally, not specific to your individual body and lens.

First, given software like Topaz these days, I think your assumption about grain and cropping is wrong. If you can get a sharp image, crop, and then use Topaz to denoise and upscale, I guarantee you'll get a better image than if you use a teleconverter.

I've shot eagles before. Unless they're stationary, using a teleconverter is going to get you closer but at the cost of sharpness and exposure. Which is going to give you a crappy photo--no detail in the feathers for instance. Far better to shoot that eagle so it's small but sharp with low ISO and then use other software (like Topaz) to upscale and remove noise.

Second, unless you're planning on doing this every weekend, think about renting a professional quality long-range prime or zoom. Yeah, there's a rental fee. But for shooting wild wildlife (not a typo--I mean eagles vs. cardinals, lions vs. squirrels) you benefit from a professional quality lens that can shoot in low light with fast shutter speeds.
I do go out most weekends. Rarely use tele. Also I rarely use post processing, except for videos and maybe to add a little sharpness. I'm not shooting for National Geographic. Just trying to get decent photos. The 800mm prime is going to be my retirement lens
 

Most reactions

Back
Top