I Should Have Listened To Jared Polin (Teleconverters)
Вставка
- Опубліковано 2 тра 2022
- Was Jared Polin right all along? Is he the master of photography, and we are his lowly students? I figured maybe he was wrong about this. He was doing photography, I was doing video. Surely his information wouldn't translate, but then I tested them... Teleconverters. Are they worth it?
If you buy today's gear through my affiliate links, you can gain 3% sharpness for the low cost of hundreds of dollars, extra weight, worse autofocus, higher ISO, and knowing that Jared Polin is your Guru.
Jared Polin's video on teleconverters • A WARNING to All Photo...
Fuji XT4 amzn.to/31wORkb or bhpho.to/3mXJUs0
Fuji 100-400mm amzn.to/3J7Y0jO or USED amzn.to/3HZgsJO or bhpho.to/3fXB6OQ or USED bhpho.to/3tV3VDN
Fuji 2x teleconverter amzn.to/3KpXkWP or bhpho.to/3OFdXku
Fuji 1.4x teleconverter amzn.to/3y3JIxI or USED amzn.to/3vSg77R or bhpho.to/3KtBHES
All my gear and recommended products can be found in my affiliate shop, thanks for shopping around! www.amazon.com/shop/vegetable...
Patreon for Monthly Q&A Videos / vegetablepolice
T-shirts and merch! vegetablepolice.threadless.com/
My Monkey Strength ebook payhip.com/b/VyEG
My Music from videos! Entire Discography 15% off vegetablepolice.bandcamp.com/
Instagram / vegetablepolice
Random ass donations to paypal.me/vegetablepolice Thank you!
Q-Link Products changed my life! share.shopqlink.com/554.html
My Health Channel Vegetable Police / canadianwargod
My Music Channel Stern Beats / @sternbeats9057 - Комедії
If you buy today's gear through my affiliate links, you can gain 3% sharpness for the low cost of hundreds of dollars, extra weight, worse autofocus, higher ISO, and knowing that Jared Polin is your Guru.
Jared Polin's video on teleconverters ua-cam.com/video/jAOPEBpJ78s/v-deo.html
Fuji XT4 amzn.to/31wORkb or bhpho.to/3mXJUs0
Fuji 100-400mm amzn.to/3J7Y0jO or USED amzn.to/3HZgsJO or bhpho.to/3fXB6OQ or USED bhpho.to/3tV3VDN
Fuji 2x teleconverter amzn.to/3KpXkWP or bhpho.to/3OFdXku
Fuji 1.4x teleconverter amzn.to/3y3JIxI or USED amzn.to/3vSg77R or bhpho.to/3KtBHES
All my gear and recommended products can be found in my affiliate shop, thanks for shopping around! www.amazon.com/shop/vegetablepolice
Trust me, Jared Polin will never, ever be my Guru. That said, I have been having obviously demonic suggestions that I should get the MC-14 Teleconverter for my Olympus 100-400mm -- however, after much prayer and thought I have decided against it. Your inspired video helped to confirm that my decision is the right one.
Truth is, I am one of those oddballs who shoots almost 100% Jpeg (Gasp!), and have found that my handy dandy DTC (Digital Teleconverter) function works every bit as well as cropping in post. Thus I have it programmed on my E-M1X to the Video button since I am strictly a stills photographer. If I need a tighter crop than my lens @ 400mm, I simply press the magic button and 'Wallah!', I'm at 800mm with no change in exposure speed, and that crop is to the sharpest part of the image.
The only reason I have considered the 1.4X tele is due to good old fashion Greed -- I thought, if I can get 1600mm equivalent with the DTC, then the 1.4X will give me 2240mm! There is no end to the depravity.
My first photography teacher had a great saying about teleconverters , "double your focal length , halve your image quality " . 40 year on not much has changed .
Otherwise lens maker will market it as physics defying technology
It's not a halving of image quality, closer to about a 30% loss in sharpness and contrast but you do get more detail since you are physically zooming into the subject and today with High resolution cameras and Upscaling tech the downsides can be easily mitigated
@@CallMeRabbitzUSVI I agree and confirm. I bought Canon RF 1.4x teleconverter and it's really great.
@@CallMeRabbitzUSVI Hires cameras and upscaling mitigate the upside of the tc not the downside.
It has, glass is better now, most mugs here couldn't tell the difference if a pic had used a TC as they rely on others ignorance....But got to get those Affiliate links in by making shit up, want to learn about Photography, STAY OFF YT and buy a book.
This channel is great. Homemade techno, wildlife photography, satire and history (FUBU) all in one.
One big reason I rely on the 2xTC with my 200-600 is to ensure the subject is large enough in the frame to allow AF to function properly.
Yes, focus, that is the untold story.
Autofocus and composition. It is far easier to visualize the final image when it is close to the final size in the viewfinder.
"you skip this section, I will hunt your mom" 🤣 Who would have ever thought it could be so awesomely funny to watch a video about Fuji teleconverters? Never stop.
I skipped it.
Watches for the teleconverter/crop comparisons insanity... Stays for the magical animal footage. Nice work as usual! The song is a banger too 🤙🏻
EPIC video - and new soundtrack :) I have the 70-300mm and was thinking of getting the 1.4, but now think I will just put the money towards a 100-400, or wait until Fuji announce their longer range lens. I will still keep the 70-300mm for all round portability / convenience while travelling. It is still a brilliant lens and mine does not suffer from the stiff zoom ring yours seemed to have. Your videos keep getting more informative and useful, and you wildlife shots are becoming better and better - keep going down this road :)
I did no lab tests, but my most exciting moment with cameras was using the digital teleconverter at an Airshow with my Olympus. I was blown away at the details captured. I didn’t realise it was digital zoom till later, but the difference was not distinguishable from my eyes.
After seeing some of the questions you get, I am not so sure I’d trust any of the comment section as to what is sharper or not. Go with what it’s your heart and wallet that brings you joy.
On a side note, the new song, well done. You can trust that opinion.
The footage looked great! Well done 👍🏼.
Interesting tests! I got a Sony 1.4x teleconverter for my 200-600mm and no joke it was a game changer for me. As a bird photographer trying to pick up fine feather details with large crops, it allows me to pick up those finer details by having more pixels on the bird, yes it is softer but once sharpened in post i have a higher quality image using the converter. As soon as i zoom my lens out it completely defeats the purpose of having the teleconverter though, so I have to make sure its always pinned at 600mm
The fact that me and other photographers keep using the teleconverters (on zoom lenses) is enough evidence that they work even with the loss of light /sharpness, added weight, increased shutter speed needed, its still somehow worth it just to get those extra pixels on the bird, otherwise if the results were bad I naturally wouldn't choose to attach it...
Yeah, you can pry my teleconverters and Panasonic-Leica 200mm f/2.8 from my cold, dead hands. It loses next to no resolution and gives me the reach I need for tiny ass birds.
@@ryankwan1934 With my Sony tele I do have problems wide open at f9, but I think its a depth of field problem rather than a sharpness problem, when im close to my subject there is so little in focus, but once I stop down to f11 things appear much sharper but its just because more of the bird is in focus.
@@KurtisPape Depending on the MP of your Sony, at F9 you might be above the diffraction limit for the density of your sensor. A 50mp FF for example would exceed the DLA at around f6.
@@luisa9628 I don't really understand that whats the DLA? Anyway I use the A7R IV at 61megapixels
@@KurtisPape Diffraction Limited Aperture. The aperture above which images become less sharp. For that camera, due to the pixel density, anything above f6 is going to be less sharp. That's why your images are softer at f9.
I was gonna skip the song section, but I feared for my mom’s life.
Any loss of quality is imperceptible to anyone watching a nature video. I’m impressed with the quality of the teleconverters actually.
The Bob Ross test said it all. No need to test any more. From this day forward when testing your gear all you need is Bob Ross.
Can also stop watching all of youtube as Bob Ross is the holy final word on all matters photography. Just add a new book to the bible titled "Bob Ross", right after the 4 apostles fairytale stories.
I didn't skip your song, and I must say, it slaps harder than Will Smith
🤭
😂😂😂😂
The 1.4x was a must have at Starbase, conveniently it's super bright most days so speed isn't a problem, since getting closer isn't a option zooming and cropping is needed to figure out what they are doing, I really liked having the 1.4 on the 100-400 and take the art pics with the 50-140
Hey, just discovering your channel. I love the way you show and say stuff! Even if it's not always easy to notice your seamless transitions from very serious to extremely goofy haha.
The only time I use a teleconverter is when I do macro, to get more magnification. The rest of the time, yeah just native glass is better!
Interesting tests for sure. And I'm liking the new song! Can we download it from your Stern Beats page?
So, would the conclusion also be, get a GH6 and use the Leica 50-200 (rather than the 100-400) and crop in post where needed? Or even use Digital zoom in the camera?
I follow everybody but you quickly become my favorite
Nice job sir I’m a rookie here and would like to know if there is a zoom for the cannon M50 and what you would recommend or if I’m wasting my and your time with the question Thanks PS I use it when I’m spotting storms .
Regards from Poland I love Your channel. I just change canon system for sony (Sony a7VI) I want aske what I need to look after I chaged it?
2:31looking trough you tube compression, it looks to me that the problem is not "sharpness" but rather chromatic aberration.
You can see how the green fringing around the white letters give the impression of fuzziness.
Another problem to me, with the 2.0TC is that Toneh N. Is too busy doing stuff all at once in the background: "busy" is an understatemen.
Is a bridge cam the only affordable way to get close to the birds? I am a snob and would never use one BUT I have a friend who gets some actually nice bird shots with a £300 bridge cam with a lens that is something like 24-1200mm equiv
Interesting test. I couldn’t see much of a difference, and often thought the non-converter images looked better. I’d like to borrow one for my Panasonic 200 2.8. That lens outresolves the sensor on my g95, so may accept a teleconverter better. That said, with a lot of the resolution enhancement software, I find it’s pretty easy to crop photos digitally and get a lot closer.
I own the Sigma 1.4 TC. At the beginning i used it, but now i just crop my pictures. The Sigma TC somehow it seems to me like it washes out the colours.
Since i don't like to do alot of colourgrading, i prefer to not use it...
4:32 Can you talk to us about the barcode on the Sony lens? Is that for your personal inventory system? Asking because I am currently using QR codes for lens inventory but always considering new options.
I might be missing something here, but the teleconverter gives you more resolution per magnification. You are imagining a larger (magnified) image on your sensor. So you will have more 'room' in post to crop etc.
So excited for the new song :D that clip was hard
Just to point something out. TCs do NOT stop your lens down. Aperture is measured relative to the focal length. A TC changes the focal length of your lens, but the entrance pupil stays the same. Hence a pupil of diameter 50mm gives you an aperture of f/4 at 200mm focal length and when you add a 2xTC it gives you f/8 at 400mm. And since Tóneh comes from the size of the pupil there should be little to no difference between using a TC and cropping.
Thank you, missed this comment
Also when cropping digitally in Post you also lose the same "iso" because the same noise is related to a lower area. Literally the same difference between a big and a small sensor, it is a crop and you have less total light than before
@@daweil94 Less total light is irrelevant, it's light density that matters. And that's exactly what f-stop tries to measure.
@romanpul TC changes your light density, which is what we primarily think of when 'stopping a lens down'. Yes it doesn't change the depth of field, assuming distance from the subject is exactly the same, which is the 2nd factor (not just entrance pupil size) to depth of field. All TC does is it magnifies the light and projects it into a smaller image circle and you lose light density in the process. The exact opposite happens with a speedbooster, where you gain f-stops.
A tele converter is basically an optical crop. It brings additional glass in the way, which is bad, but with cropping in post you loose pixels, which may be bad if you haven't enough
Great footage, that Female Blackbird perched in the Bullrushes was fantastic. I think the teleconverter definitely serves a purpose you just have to understand the difference between using all the sensor with a converter and a portion of the lenses visible field of view, or cropping the sensor. With the right lens at the right appeture the teleconverter might be a better image, especially in video where the resolution is already much lower than with stills. Cropping in on 4k isn't so bad but cropping in on 1080 does get a little grainy sometimes, but not always. I would say keep the converters it gives you options. You don't have to shoot with it. I enjoyed the music as well!
'You don't have to shoot with it'..... it would make a really expensive paper weight. But stylish of course.
@@ItsWhatIDo I never suggest not using it only that you don't always have to, I think I made the point that it definitely had a time and place, his footage clearly displays it's value!
the toneh is typically more with the teleconverter if you have to punch in to achieve equivalent framing without it...this usually applies for wildlife photography.
The times when it probably would make a difference is if you shoot jpeg with sharpening. The sharpening process usually includes 'edge enhancement' which will add a tiny line of white pixels around (for example) the edge of black text. When you zoom into that then the pixels increase in size, the enhancement effect becomes more obvious, but...only if you use a loupe
I heart the slow, mystic cross dissolves. Sweet bird on turtle rave action.
New song made me feel unease at the beginning, LOL. Images ... I think they look amazing! Colors, look of the footage, goof framing ... Nice job!
why not get a a7r4 ? then you have the extra resolution to crop into ?
is the zoom not doing artificial scale? our computers and browsers are doing automatic text anti-analyzing, image software is doing it any time you zoom.
My mother remains safe another day. That turtle had “it” factor.
Hi bro are you hand held or talk about tripod heads masterful in all ways. Whens your movie coming out?
You are a hoot thanks for sharing
Great tune - great video thanks
Like the new music! And the birdies…had a shoot (stills) on Saturday shooting surfing. I used my 1.4x on a 4/3 50-200mm Oly set-up. So,it’s about 560mm extended out. Excellent results,I daresay…
I stayed for the song. Did not skip. I dig it.
Casey, I'm sure this has been asked and you've thought of this, but I don't recall every seeing camcorders recently reviewed on your channel. With your current focus on wildlife videography, are there any advantages those can offer over ILCs?
Camcorders have big zoom ranges but they’re incredibly hard to keep a stable image at full zoom without a good….read heavy, tripod. We all know how much Kasey loves tripods and monopods.
My father has a Sony AX-700 - it is useless for wildlife videoagraphy , as like Kiwi Mike says, it is virtually impossible to keep the image stable at the longer end of the zoom scale. It is par-focal though, so you can zoom without losing focus - so that annoys me, but I don't feel so bad as after he has zoomed in it is wobbling all over the place :D
I initially also thought that the teleconverter is less sharp, but looking at the crazy punch ins it seems like the teleconverter gives a softer image with MORE detail, which seems counterintuitive. So like yes it's giving more detail, but if you can't see it without cropping in like crazy, what's the point? Unless you plan to sharpen in post and then maybe the teleconverter just wins.
When I bought my 200-500 Nikkor lens, it cam with a 1.4TC. I use it a lot without any problems.
The only issues that might arise is if you zoom in too far when processing.
I also use a 2xtTC with my Z mount 70-200. That works extremely well too. I wouldn't be without them.
Great video and comparisons. I believe focus accuracy/performance decreases on mirrorless when using a TC due to less light hitting the sensor. Nikon Z lenses have less compromise with their TC's. If you can get even your hands on a TC.
2:04 What is the (razor thin) white line along the bottom left of the screen? Seems visible below the 1.4 mark on the left image and it bounces around until 2:14. Seems to reappear later. Am I hallucinating from a lack of toneh?
The trick is to hold the ISO, chose the best aperture, and have longer exposure times. You might miss some shots, but you are not suppossed to get all goodies all the time. It´s about stretching the thing for "eventually" better outcome if you know what you do, and you are patient. My two cents after having 1,4x and 2x. The 1,4X is obviously better than no TC, but....
got a fax from Mum today that read: "...I feel like I'm being hunted"
Hey thanks for testing that! At the same time I now wonder if the announced 150-600 would be better than just cropping the 100-400....interesting times :)
Look at you now you're a scientist ;p lol and a new song !!! I want the lyrics and a music video about it ! :)
always interesting my friend! Merci 🎥🎥🎥
and that's without upping the resolution your video with an AI based software. sounds like a sponsor video opportunity to me....
I am actually surprized how sharp your teleconverter shots are.
I've started using a 1.4 teleconverter to make my wide tilt shift lens less wide. I suppose your point is that the 1.4 could be applied in post to achieve the same result. It is nice not to have to fiddle with the digital zoom on the camera to see what the 1.4 crop in post would look like... so 1.4x makes shooting faster. I've been running the 1.4 for real estate shoots and only taking it off for extra small rooms. Also means I don't need to manually crop in post. Of course this is still photography with a tripod and flash.
I don't know, I love both my teleconverters for my Olympus.
Agreed. I used to have the Olympus 300 f4 PRO and the Olympus 1.4 teleconverter. My still and video images were VERY sharp!
Great tests, dude! I think the benefits are mainly if you shoot photography. I definitely don't see a big enough benefit to use a TC for video. With photos you you get the advantage of using the sensors full potential and full resolution. With video (even when downsampled) there's lots of compression happening. But I'm no professional so I could be just talking out of my butt.
Nice footage of the Belted Kingfishers
Am I correct to think that a teleconverter would be more useful on an a7siii than on an a7riv?
Since the a7riv has 61 megapixels, you can have a 5 times crop to get to the 12mp of the A7Siii. And cropping on the 12 mp of the A7Siii doesn't give you a lot of megapixels to play with. So if you want extra reach on the A7Siii - the teleconverter will be a good choice. (you can still use the teleconverter on the a7riv of course, but you likely won't need it with all that cropping power)
So fun listening to you
Use the teleconverter to double your focal length and apply 2 times digital zoom in your footage. That way you will touch your subject keeping a clean image.
Do more of this stuff! Slow mo footage plus your music 😎
When are you going to start uploading documentaries, or just wildlife footage with music at least?
The 1.4x seems like a better compromise. I did notice that the 1.4x was a bit sharper in the duck shot vs zooming in. More importantly I saw much fewer video compression artifacts because when you crop in post you are also zooming in on artifacts and the compression has happened before the zoom. When you use a TC the magnification happens before the light even hits the sensor. So I do think it would be worth using in some situations.
The 2x doesn't seem worth it for the noise and AF issues.
The new song is epic!
I read a comment once that stiff zoom ring on Leica 100-400 happens when you forget fo fully disengage zoom locking mechanism. Could anyone confirm that was the case? If that would be the case, I would give the lens a go. I use GH6 with Lumix 100-300 II for slow motion wildlife video and I am pleasantly surprised with results although it lacks the reach a bit. Also it is said to be better optically at the longer end and have better AF. I don't know if that would justify the proce increase.
I had a 100-400 copy that was definitely stiff/sticky at the long end - and that was with the lock fully disengaged. I believe there are smooth copies out there though.
My 100-400 is exactly as smooth as my 100-300mm.
I'm sure some are stiff but mine is definitely fine.
If you buy used from sites like mpb etc, they usually mention the smooth zoom ring.
If it is ofc
Enjoyed the video and your unique delivery. In every example, the 1.4 TC seems better (than cropping to equivalent angle). You proved Jared wrong.
I've done deep testing with my rig and in every way it is better to add TC glass than crop away pixels.
Yes! Leica 50-200 plus 1.4 tele is magic. The 50-200 is my fav lens now
The difference in the fine lines of the aluminum brushing on the 35 might be a slight difference in focus: in some zones of the frame the no teleconverter shots look better and in others worse, most of the time no difference worth the price.
I do mostly stills not video. I've used TC's over the years both 3rd party and camera brand. My experience with stills is similar to yours, cropping in is about the same image quality is so close as to not warrant giving up the extra stop plus of light.
For video this makes complete sense, because you already have enough information when cropped (so long as the main lens is high-resolution enough to land the light on that sensor making use of every pixel. You simply can't beat pixel perfect sharpness. The TC might help with photos on some lenses on some sensors and with some settings - but not always. Especially not with video which is relatively low-res.
I had the same issue with my FF Nikon setup. My FF 300mm prime + TC1.4 had the same reach but a less clear image compared to using the 300mm on a crop-body WITHOUT the TC. I wasted $450. This is because that particular lens was so sharp the FF sensor was not even high resolution enough to get the most "potential" out of that lens. Simply increasing the density of the sensor (with a crop sensor) managed to utilize that extra sharpness that was just "hiding" in waiting. No TC necessary. I think this is mostly a "problem" when your lens is super sharp already though. It's always best to increase the sensor density up until the lens is no longer over-powered. Much better to do that if possible than use a TC.
Your sensor even while cropped in post, was still 4k, and the lens (without TC) was more than sharp enough to provide pixel level sharpness for that cropped zone.
I have the exact opposite take, re: photo vs video TC performance, because cropping in on a compressed video in post also crops in on lossy compression and artifacts. With a photo you can just shoot RAW so the compression artifacts are not really baked into your shot when cropping.
@@officialtiimo i'm not sure that would be the case though... because the compression comes after the light is captured by the sensor. All my points are relating to that prior process so any compression would happen the same with or without TC
@@officialtiimo Same here. For video there's only so much you can crop in because the image (usually) is already low resolution compared for photo. Unless you're going 8k to 4k or 4k to 2k output it just ends up looking blocky and pixelated if you crop to far. Slight softening from a teleconverter is a better trade off if light allows.
I think probably what's going on with the 5.5x zoom on the 1.4 GM lens, with the lines that you can see with the teleconverter, but not the in post crop, is the difference between the resolving power of the lens vs the resolving power of the sensor.
The overall image without the teleconverter is sharper, *but* those lines get lost between pixels on the sensor... maybe.
Teleconverter has an added advantage of blurring background a bit more than just cropping in to match focal length equivalent. But the loss of light can be detrimental in some cases.
Yeah it looks like the tele convertor is giving more detail but is introducing a little glare (bloom). Nice tune, I havent heard this one from you before.
I just noticed the "Toney" t-shirt - that is hilarious !!
The advantage of the TC for me is seeing my subject better (birds) a little better while I’m photographing them even the there’s little gain in post.
can't deal with your lights man)) great work
The tests were pretty good as it's typically dark (ish) outside. but the teleconverter image would look better if it wasn't running at such a high ISO.
That said, everyone (you, Toneh, Jared), doesn't seem to know that real wildlife photography occurs in the earliest hours before the sun is really up. Need that fast super tele
I wonder if physics becomes an issue with a TC do you start to get refraction artifacts that would amplify as the lens stops down. The place this might be an issue is macro if you wanted more reach and have more dof
Loved the breakbeaty music section
What is the “tonney or tony” you speak of?
You know what? I've just ordered a t-shirt, because it looks freaking cool on you brah! ✌
Super cool music and nature vid
New song is pretty frickin' alright! I expect a full Stern Beats montage music video to microdose to on a Wednesday afternoon!!
Congratulations on your discovery of Brick Works' majestic and natural waterfall! Also, screw you for spotting TWO kingfishers when I only spotted one and couldn't get a single photo of it.
I will never use a teleconverter unless it’s built in therefore made for that specific lens.
My take would be that with the teleconverter you get a lot of ghosting but you also get micro contrast, meanwhile with this post cropping you keep the same sharpness without the ghosting but of course you loose the micro contrast as well.
Which one is better?
I think for wildlife (which I have no experience of) you want the micro contrast (?!) to better showcase the species you capture on footage (?!).
Still debating on a tele for my R6 since I'm starting low in resolution...
I think this is consistent with what other tests have shown with various lens combinations: TC offers a slight advantage when a) lens is good to begin with, b) TC is high quality and c) both play well together. After selling my Canon EF stuff, I've decided not to replace my EF 1.4 TC but stick with the basic lenses.
As per my comment previous video, TC only worth using if the lens is sufficiently sharp that when used natively you could crop to or close to the sensor resolution while producing acceptable images. When used at 400mm focal length the fuji 100-400 lens just isn't that sharp. Whereas for e.g. 80mm macro or 50-140 the 1.4 TC can have some niche value.
Did you say I stopped your Mama? Lol! Dude you are funny and teaching at the same time. Every ti.e I learn from you I laugh. Awesome truth.
I actually stopped using my teleconverter, but think I will bring it back out the cupboard after seeing that it still does have slight benefits
You and Kenny Vs Spenny are best thing that Canada gave to the world
The 2X teleconverter is a waste. 1.4x is useable, though not ideal. The key is, you still have to get closer. Go back to the waterfall shots. Look how much heat wave distortion because you were so far away. That will affect your bird photos also. So keep learning how nervous your birds are and how close you can get. Try shooting in a botanical garden. Birds there are more used to non-aggressive humans and may let you get closer. Good luck!
P.S. the blackbird in the reeds is some of your best footage yet. That's from getting closer. Luckily, red-winged blackbirds aren't very shy compared to others.
5:51
Damn, your music slaps
i'm digging the ...psy trance? What would you call that genre?
It's probably hit or miss depending on the converter/lens combo. My Canon 1.4x iii and 70-200 f/4L lens are tack sharp and it gives me noticeably greater focal length. Pixel peeping shows 0 loss of quality
You should always add links to your music!.
It's not finished :)
@@cameraconspiracies I would subscribe to your music in order to use it on UA-cam videos
1.4 is ok. cropped sensor better and 2x is a glass jar on a mount. teleconverters give you grain advantages
Pix awesome.
Music awesomer ! Is that a word, don't know maybe I should look it up. Did you really create that?
I don't know but maybe I'm getting addicted to your videos, I'm not sure... don't hold me to it.