Jump to content

DugSorensen

Members
  • Content Count

    5
  • Joined

  • Last visited

About DugSorensen

  • Rank
    Newbie

Recent Profile Visitors

145 profile views
  1. I've got the 70-200 2.8 and the 2x converter. You lose 2 stops with the converter. I have mainly been shooting sports so fast moving and sometimes long distances. What I've found is if I'm outside with good light (during the day not under lights at night) I use the 2x converter and have no problems getting sharp clear pictures. Even at the 400mm. I can be stopped below 6 if needed and can keep my shutter speed fast enough to stop the fastest movements of human sports. My assumption is you will find the same results with shooting wildlife. I think a big portion of your question will be answered in what time of day you are shooting, because of the amount of light present. Once in side in poor lighting I have to remove the 2x converter. Losing the 2 stops makes it to dark and I've found It's better to crop then it is to fill the frame with underexposed pictures or slower shutter speeds.
  2. DugSorensen

    2x teleconverter or Crop?

    So, After Chrissie told me not to be lazy 😁. I have taken a few shots at this. I'm still not an expert on the subject, this is my take on answering my own question. If you have a full frame camera and a large sensor you capture enough information that you can crop without introducing noticeable noise. I'm using a a7iii. In low lighting every time the cropping appears to produce better pictures then underexposing and trying to fix it in processing. So in this situation leave the 2x converter off, proper expose and crop. On the flip side if I use my old a33 I don't capture the same amount of information due to the sensor quality and size. Heavily cropping almost always destroys the shot. The under exposing does put a serious hit on the quality but it does appear to produce better results then Cropping. Obviously if your not in low light lose the 2 stops and shoot away.
  3. I've got a 70-200mm 2.8 Lens on a a7iii. Looking at shooting high school sports ie. soccer, football, volleyball etc. I'm often not close enough with the 200mm to fill the frame. At the 200mm I end up doing some heavy cropping. I have a 2x teleconverter but using it I lose 2 full stops. Shooting fast in low light those 2 stops are huge. I saw a suggestion to under expose and then use lightroom or PS to lighten the image. My question is this is it better to have proper exposure and crop a picture or to under expose and then lighten after. I'm told both introduce noise. I've not done enough to make the call myself. Do any of the experts here have a suggestion or a solution?
  4. I have the a33 I purchased it when Sony only had the a33 and a55. I originally went to purchase a camcorder for filming those "wonderful" family moments. I was shown that the a33 filmed in HD and thought it pretty neat. In high school I took photos for the year book on film. I picked up the a33 to get back into a little photography and also to make home videos.
  5. I've had a a33 for years and have loved it. I'm looking to upgrade. The main focus of my photos currently is high schools sports. I'm shooting fast moving objects in poor lighting conditions. Many of the gyms I'm shooting in are older and the lighting is bad. I'm just shooting for a hobby that I enjoy. I do a little landscape, and macro. I've been told the newer Sony cameras are able to shoot at a higher ISO with producing less noise. I'd like to keep with a Sony camera and also if possible the same lens mount without using adapters. I've also been told that the translucent mirror in the a33 "steals" some of the light for viewing, which compounds the problem of shooting in low light. What would you recommend as a step up camera? I don't feel the need to go full frame. I'd like to keep to less then $2k for a new body.
×