What's new
L-MOUNT Forum

Register a free account now!

If you are registered, you get access to the members only section, can participate in the buy & sell second hand forum and last but not least you can reserve your preferred username before someone else takes it.

Test/ First Impression S1RII does birds

...on the other hand, the 24 MP sensor is less sensitive to diffraction than the 44, and, likewise, will not show the IQ degradation of the 2.0x TC as much as a higher resolution sensor would. So maybe the pixel-level IQ differences between the two setups are not all that great.
 
Just to add to George’s point: now that I upgraded from the S1 to S1Rii, I would not want to go back. It’s like having a built in 1.4x and that’s exactly how I use hybrid zoom on zoom lenses and crop zoom on primes.

Noise at 6400 ISO is also very well overall.

I am seriously considering getting the Sigma 500 too and letting go off M43 altogether, which now I basically only use for wildlife.
 
Regarding "diffraction with tele-converters"
I'm trying to recall some memories... ... ... old memories ;)... ... ... of optical concepts :

Perhaps every body is ok ... ;) : I read that :

"A teleconverter (or focal length multiplier) is an optical accessory placed between the lens and the camera body to increase the effective focal length of the lens. Typically, it multiplies the focal length by a factor (1.4x, 1.7x, 2x, etc.), allowing for additional zoom.

Diffraction and Teleconverters​

Diffraction is an optical phenomenon that occurs when light passes through a narrow aperture (such as the lens diaphragm). It limits image sharpness, especially at very small apertures (high f-numbers, e.g., f/16 or f/22).

A teleconverter itself does not directly cause diffraction, but it can worsen its effects for several reasons:

  1. Light Reduction: A teleconverter generally reduces the amount of light reaching the sensor (for example, a 2x converter reduces the effective aperture by 2 stops: a lens set to f/2.8 becomes f/5.6). This may lead photographers to close the aperture further to compensate, increasing the risk of diffraction.
  2. Smaller Effective Aperture: Even if you don’t change the aperture setting on your lens, adding a teleconverter reduces the effective aperture. For example, a lens set to f/4 with a 2x converter behaves like an f/8 lens. If you close the aperture further (e.g., to f/11), the effective aperture becomes f/22, which increases diffraction.
  3. Optical Quality: Some low-quality teleconverters may introduce optical aberrations, but diffraction remains primarily linked to the effective aperture.

Conclusion​

The teleconverter does not create diffraction, but it can encourage its occurrence by reducing the effective aperture and pushing you to use smaller apertures. To minimize diffraction, avoid closing the aperture too much, especially when using a teleconverter."
 
ALAIN said:
Regarding "diffraction with tele-converters"
I'm trying to recall some memories... ... ... old memories ;)... ... ... of optical concepts :

Perhaps every body is ok ... ;) : I read that :

"A teleconverter (or focal length multiplier) is an optical accessory placed between the lens and the camera body to increase the effective focal length of the lens. Typically, it multiplies the focal length by a factor (1.4x, 1.7x, 2x, etc.), allowing for additional zoom.

Diffraction and Teleconverters​

Diffraction is an optical phenomenon that occurs when light passes through a narrow aperture (such as the lens diaphragm). It limits image sharpness, especially at very small apertures (high f-numbers, e.g., f/16 or f/22).

A teleconverter itself does not directly cause diffraction, but it can worsen its effects for several reasons:

  1. Light Reduction: A teleconverter generally reduces the amount of light reaching the sensor (for example, a 2x converter reduces the effective aperture by 2 stops: a lens set to f/2.8 becomes f/5.6). This may lead photographers to close the aperture further to compensate, increasing the risk of diffraction.
  2. Smaller Effective Aperture: Even if you don’t change the aperture setting on your lens, adding a teleconverter reduces the effective aperture. For example, a lens set to f/4 with a 2x converter behaves like an f/8 lens. If you close the aperture further (e.g., to f/11), the effective aperture becomes f/22, which increases diffraction.
  3. Optical Quality: Some low-quality teleconverters may introduce optical aberrations, but diffraction remains primarily linked to the effective aperture.

Conclusion​

The teleconverter does not create diffraction, but it can encourage its occurrence by reducing the effective aperture and pushing you to use smaller apertures. To minimize diffraction, avoid closing the aperture too much, especially when using a teleconverter."
Click to expand...
Yes, the TC does not cause diffraction, but it does exaggerate it. The important point to remember is that diffraction is always present, regardless of the aperture. It's just a question of whether or not it degrades the final digital image, which is a function of the sensor pixel pitch (and aperture, of course). So, at F5.6, while there is diffraction present, you can't detect it in the resulting 24 or 44 MP image. However, the TC - which enlarges the image that is projected onto the sensor - will enlarge the effects of diffraction (and all lens aberrations). So, from a diffraction standpoint, that F5.6 lens will look like an F11 lens when a 2.0x tc is used. And thus, diffraction effects - when the F5.6 lens is wide-open - will be visible (in my experience) on a 44 MP sensor, but perhaps not on a 24 MP sensor. Stop the lens down one stop (to a lens-native F8) and now the diffraction will be that of an F16 aperture, which will be visible on the 24 MP sensor as well.
 
Last edited:
The exaggeration of defects such as diffraction is exactly what I notice with my Leica 180 2.8 apo:
- when I add 1 x2 Leica apo TC (on the 60MP M11), I see a slight degradation, but the resolution "with TC" is still better than "the crop without TC."
- when I add 2 x2 Leica apo TCs (on the 60MP M11), it's not as good as the crop; I only use 2 x2 TCs for observation (with a 7mm telescope eyepiece or the 12.5mm TO-R).

For the moment, I have the 500 5.6 Sigma and I'm waiting for a TC-2011 + a 24-60 2.8 Lumix, purchased second-hand (14-day return policy). I'm going to order the S1II camera (unless I'm convinced to go for the S2RII, but I already have what I need in high resolution, but it's not very comfortable for moving subjects in low light) on Monday and receive it early enough to try the TC-2011 on the 500mm. We'll see if it can handle closing down a bit... ;)
 
So, I did a little fencepost test. S1RII with Sigma 150-600 @ 600mm, wide-open (F6.3). Then the S5 with the 1.4x TC added (so it was shooting at F9 instead of F6.3, and 840 mm instead of 600 mm).

Both shots were tripod mounted, 10 sec countdown, pinpoint focus.

Picked a shutter speed that allowed the S1RII to shoot at ISO 3200, but forced the S5 to shoot at ISO 6400. I did this because that's what would happen with most wildlife shots - the 1.4x TC equipped cam would be shooting at an ISO that is one stop higher.

Anyway, when zooming in to 200% on my MBP, I'd say that the S5 shots were just a little softer. Not by much, but you could see it.

Also pushed some deep shadows aggressively, and, again, I'd say the S1RII's noise was just a little less objectionable. This may be the S1RII's "Shadow Improvement" performance strutting it's stuff.

While I don't have a 2.0x TC, I suspect that the gap (with the S1RII using the 1.4x and the S5 using the 2.0x) would widen a little in favor of the S1RII, as 2x TCs are pretty demanding.

Not sure if the S1II would give the same response as the S5, but all three bodies show basically the same PDR on Bill's website in the ISO range in question.

Anyway, I could see somebody picking the S1II over the S1RII for wildlife & using the 2.0 TC instead of the 1.4, but in my mind you'd need to be very sure that there is some other advantage to the S1II over the S1RII to justify the (small) hit on IQ for wildlife. Plus, with the 2.0 TC the sensor is getting less light so the AF hit rate might not be as high on the S1II with the 2.0 TC. But, again, if wildlife isn't a main area of focus, there may be other variables that are more important to any given photographer.

I remain happy that I went with the R. For now, LOL.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top