R7 vs R6 vs R5 vs R3

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19434994
I like that rule, and will add a postulate to that.

"If I compromise IQ because the final resolution requires a digital resampling to increase it, I will use a TC."

This adds the body to the equation a bit.

I should have added. I will no longer feel compelled to use to just because I own it. I was already doing that with BIF but never really applied a rule to it. I'm looking forward to trying out my lens on the R7.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #19434828
If we are still talking about TCs my rule of thumb has been,
- TC on a big prime is usually better than crop.
- TC on zoom is almost always worse.


Of course things change, zooms keep getting better, as do the TCs, but I still mostly stick to that rule. Also, when I shoot the zoom (100-400mm) I want to be able to react to action and track fast subjects,. as mentioned, even with the latest tech, this gets harder with the TC. So another argument against TC on the zoom.

Agreed.

The RF 100-500 takes the RF 1.4xTC well and I don’t hesitate to use it for perched birds. But it’s not ideal for BIF. I found results somewhat disappointing as in a bit soft.

Much depends on how far you are from the subject. All too many people think that with an extender you can shoot birds from farther away. You can’t. Even with an extender, being close(r) is still best as the least you need to crop, the better the result will be. A TC plus a substantial crop means bad IQ.

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #19435102
Agreed.

The RF 100-500 takes the RF 1.4xTC well and I don’t hesitate to use it for perched birds. But it’s not ideal for BIF. I found results somewhat disappointing as in a bit soft.

Much depends on how far you are from the subject. All too many people think that with an extender you can shoot birds from farther away. You can’t. Even with an extender, being close(r) is still best as the least you need to crop, the better the result will be. A TC plus a substantial crop means bad IQ.

Me too. That was why I responded in another thread about having to be more aggressive sharpening. I really noticed it with a TC. Also a member at Fred Miranda said the TC is OK with that lens but as soon as you start cropping it starts to break down. Not slight cropping but when you start to push a little. I have definitely noticed that.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19429185
...

By the end of the evening, I was running ISO 32000-51200, and haven't yet hit those files. That should be fun.

wow and i thought i had it bad shooting football at 12800. i doubt you had your SS cranked up to 1/1000 or more so thats some pretty low light there!

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #19435102
.
All too many people think that with an extender you can shoot birds from farther away. You can’t. Even with an extender, being close(r) is still best as the least you need to crop, the better the result will be. A TC plus a substantial crop means bad IQ.
.

.
I completely agree, Levina, and I am glad that someone finally said this.

I have found that extenders give really good results if I am already close enough to shoot the subject successfully without an extender, but just want to fill the frame a bit more, or fine tune my composition so that no cropping at all will be required when processing the images.

But if I can't get close enough, or don't have a long enough lens, and use an extender as a crutch to make up for a shortcoming, then of course the results are going to be sub-ideal. . In such situations, it is often better to just sit and watch the action and not take photos.

EDIT:

Below I'm posting a pic to show what I mean. Obviously, I was close enough to get nice frame-filling full body shots of this buck with my 400mm prime, or with my little 100-400mm zoom. But I wanted to get some true head shot portraits, so I put the 2x extender on, to eliminate all of the "wasted space" around his head, and not waste pixels or depth of field, which would happen if I shot wide and cropped later.

Again, the extender is used to get a different composition when already within good photo range, not to make up for being too far away.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19435136
.
I completely agree, Levina, and I am glad that someone finally said this.

I have found that extenders give really good results if I am already close enough to shoot the subject successfully without an extender, but just want to fill the frame a bit more, or fine tune my composition so that no cropping at all will be required when processing the images.

But if I can't get close enough, or don't have a long enough lens, and use an extender as a crutch to make up for a shortcoming, then of course the results are going to be sub-ideal. . In such situations, it is often better to just sit and watch the action and not take photos.

.

That’s how I use extenders too, Tom. I don’t use them often.

Agree that the 100-500 gives similar IQ with 1.4x.

I think about whether to use an extender primarily in terms of available light. If I want a tighter shot and there is good light (say R5 ISO <400) I will put on the 1.4x even "to get closer to the subject.". The one stop noise increase is of little concern since ISO <800 is quite noise free anyway.

Levina de Ruijter wrote in post #19435102
Agreed.

The RF 100-500 takes the RF 1.4xTC well and I don’t hesitate to use it for perched birds. But it’s not ideal for BIF. I found results somewhat disappointing as in a bit soft.

My experience also. My RF 100-500/RF 1.4x combo produces good results on stationary subjects. But when photographing airplanes in flight (really big birds)
my results were also a bit soft. Also, AF performance was reduced a little. If I run the images through Topaz Sharpen I can clean them up somewhat. However I decided not to use the extender.

But the lens by itself is outstanding at all focal lengths. It's superb on my R3.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19435136
.
I completely agree, Levina, and I am glad that someone finally said this.

I have found that extenders give really good results if I am already close enough to shoot the subject successfully without an extender, but just want to fill the frame a bit more, or fine tune my composition so that no cropping at all will be required when processing the images.

But if I can't get close enough, or don't have a long enough lens, and use an extender as a crutch to make up for a shortcoming, then of course the results are going to be sub-ideal. . In such situations, it is often better to just sit and watch the action and not take photos.

EDIT:

Below I'm posting a pic to show what I mean. Obviously, I was close enough to get nice frame-filling full body shots of this buck with my 400mm prime, or with my little 100-400mm zoom. But I wanted to get some true head shot portraits, so I put the 2x extender on, to eliminate all of the "wasted space" around his head, and not waste pixels or depth of field, which would happen if I shot wide and cropped later.

Again, the extender is used to get a different composition when already within good photo range, not to make up for being too far away.

Hosted photo: posted by Tom Reichner in
./showthread.php?p=194​35136&i=i119708704
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

.

That’s a gorgeous portrait, Tom.

digital paradise wrote in post #19434845
Interesting. Older article but get once said TC's are tuned for primes.

https://wordpress.lens​rentals.com …09/01/teleconve​rters-101/

Historically It's important to not confuse physical compatibility, with AF function and IQ.

Canons 1st EF TCs were made to match with the EF 300mm f/2.8L and 400mm f/2.8L
They also worked on the 500mm f/4.5L, 200mm f/1.8L and others, but the optic design was for those f/2.8 lenses. In the case of the 500mm f/4.5, AF was only possible on 1 series bodies back then.

Likewise with the next gen, the MkII. (made to go with the 1st gen of IS lenses.) Again, specifically made to optically match with the f/2.8s. The 1.4x in particular also worked wonders with the f/4 IS supertelephotos, (500 and 600)
The 1.4x also could go a long way towards making the f/2.8 70-200mm lenses a little longer at f/4. This was the first and only (at the time) zoom/tcon pair that Canon touted. IMHO it wasn't a bad pair up at all, but it was not as good as the bare 100-400mm gen 1 by a long shot.

I believe the EF MkIII and Gen II IS lenses were the first to be less specific, the entire stable of Supertele had more in common on that regard. At least in that case, I do not recall Canon ever going out of their way to mention that the MkIII were designed to match just the f/2.8s

In all of this, though they might fit some other lenses, Canon has always been pretty tight lipped about the other lenses these t-cons fit. Even with the MkII 100-400mm and MkIII 1.4x, you'd be hard pressed to find Canon pushing that combos virtues.

Of course, now with mirrorless, a lot has changed.

CyberDyneSystems wrote in post #19435204
Historically It's important to not confuse physical compatibility, with AF function and IQ.

Canons 1st EF TCs were made to match with the EF 300mm f/2.8L and 400mm f/2.8L
They also worked on the 500mm f/4.5L, 200mm f/1.8L and others, but the optic design was for those f/2.8 lenses. In the case of the 500mm f/4.5, AF was only possible on 1 series bodies back then.

Likewise with the next gen, the MkII. (made to go with the 1st gen of IS lenses.) Again, specifically made to optically match with the f/2.8s. The 1.4x in particular also worked wonders with the f/4 IS supertelephotos, (500 and 600)
The 1.4x also could go a long way towards making the f/2.8 70-200mm lenses a little longer at f/4. This was the first and only (at the time) zoom/tcon pair that Canon touted. IMHO it wasn't a bad pair up at all, but it was not as good as the bare 100-400mm gen 1 by a long shot.

I believe the EF MkIII and Gen II IS lenses were the first to be less specific, the entire stable of Supertele had more in common on that regard. At least in that case, I do not recall Canon ever going out of their way to mention that the MkIII were designed to match just the f/2.8s

In all of this, though they might fit some other lenses, Canon has always been pretty tight lipped about the other lenses these t-cons fit. Even with the MkII 100-400mm and MkIII 1.4x, you'd be hard pressed to find Canon pushing that combos virtues.

Of course, now with mirrorless, a lot has changed.

Thanks for the info. Interesting.

Tom Reichner wrote in post #19435136
.
I completely agree, Levina, and I am glad that someone finally said this.

I have found that extenders give really good results if I am already close enough to shoot the subject successfully without an extender, but just want to fill the frame a bit more, or fine tune my composition so that no cropping at all will be required when processing the images.

But if I can't get close enough, or don't have a long enough lens, and use an extender as a crutch to make up for a shortcoming, then of course the results are going to be sub-ideal. . In such situations, it is often better to just sit and watch the action and not take photos.

EDIT:

Below I'm posting a pic to show what I mean. Obviously, I was close enough to get nice frame-filling full body shots of this buck with my 400mm prime, or with my little 100-400mm zoom. But I wanted to get some true head shot portraits, so I put the 2x extender on, to eliminate all of the "wasted space" around his head, and not waste pixels or depth of field, which would happen if I shot wide and cropped later.

Again, the extender is used to get a different composition when already within good photo range, not to make up for being too far away.

Hosted photo: posted by Tom Reichner in
./showthread.php?p=194​35136&i=i119708704
forum: Canon Digital Cameras

.

Nice capture.

It's easy enough to look at the mount of an EF lens and check if Canon intended extenders to be used. There are three more electrical contacts in that case. Like on the EF 135 mm f/2L USM. You can use it with the TS-E 24 mm f/3.5L II as well, but it's not intended. Only seven contacts.

Now we have new rumors of the R6II and R8 (basically the R II), just to muddy up the waters even more.

It will be ever increasingly difficult to figure out what to get, the spec deltas just aren't going to be that different between all the bodies in the long run. Basically it will likely end up a) Resolution needs, b) FF vs APS-C, and c) budget. Features/AF/IQ, etc will all be pretty close.

TeamSpeed wrote in post #19435680
.
Now we have new rumors of the R6II and R8 (basically the R II), just to muddy up the waters even more.

It will be ever increasingly difficult to figure out what to get, the spec deltas just aren't going to be that different between all the bodies in the long run. Basically it will likely end up a) Resolution needs, b) FF vs APS-C, and c) budget. Features/AF/IQ, etc will all be pretty close.
.

.
I agree that the main differentiation for a good number of people will come down to resolution and sensor size. . But I would like to add build quality to that, as a primary factor of product differentiation, and not a secondary one.. . When I say build quality, I am referring to a combination of ruggedness, weather sealing, size, built in grip, and oversized battery.

The R3 has an entirely different level of build quality than any of the others, and that is a major priority for many of Canon's top level customers in certain genres.

I have heard several pros say "like a toy" in a derogatory way when speaking of the R5. . These guys all jumped on board with the R3 and wish Canon had offered it right away, because they didn't like having to use a toy-like R5 while waiting for Canon to release a mirrorless body with full pro build quality. . I mean, they all used Canon's 1 series for many years, and going from that to a little R5 was really tough for some of them.


.