What's better for the extra reach...a 1.4x TC or a 1.6x Crop camera

Ever since I got a 5D, I've used my XT (and 40D when I had it) for more reach. I'm starting to wonder, would a 1.4x TC on a 5D produce better images than just using a 1.6x Crop with higher pixel density? Anyone have any experiences?

Why? was your 40D a telephoto camera?

Well, a teleconverter costs you 1 stop of light, and will degrade the image at least a little bit. For max pixels on target, the 40D will still get more pixels where you want them.

Ok I am confused....assuming you are using the same lens on the XT and the 5D how is the XT giving you more reach....the focal length is the same you just seeing less of the image with the XT. So if you shoot with the 5D and crop the photo in photoshop then you can end up with the same shot as with the XT. The only diffrence I see is the 5D having more Megapixles so you could blow the image up more.

Someone correct me if I am wrong about this because I getting really confused with all these post about crop....

A 1.4 TC degrades image quality always. Sometimes it's not entirely evident, sometimes it's seemingly nonexistent, sometimes it obvious. All depends on the lens. Long story short, if you wanted the "longer-focal-length-in-35mm-equivalent" I would go with the 40D route (heh, maybe not the XT route though).

More pixels on target.

Denny G wrote in post #4717109
Why? was your 40D a telephoto camera?

tjrenegade wrote in post #4717241
Ok I am confused....assuming you are using the same lens on the XT and the 5D how is the XT giving you more reach....the focal length is the same you just seeing less of the image with the XT. So if you shoot with the 5D and crop the photo in photoshop then you can end up with the same shot as with the XT. The only diffrence I see is the 5D having more Megapixles so you could blow the image up more.

Someone correct me if I am wrong about this because I getting really confused with all these post about crop....

No, but it has a higher resolution than if I had just cropped out the center image on a 5D. Sure I can always get a longer lensm for the 5D, but I use to have a 400 f/2.8 IS and 500 f/4 IS and they're not a walk in the park lens.

The 300 f/2.8 IS on the other hand is light enough to use without a monopod or tripod. For me it's the perfect compremise btwn focal length and weight. I originally sold my 1st 300 for the 400, for the reach, but the weight out weighed the reach advantage. Then traded it for a 500 since it was lighter, but still it sat in my house too much. Then sold it for 300 f/2.8 IS (actually 2 of them, but long story don't ask) and I'm happier but wanting more reach.

Now back to the 300mm so for more reach should I even bother getting a TC or just stick with using my XT. What do you guys think the difference in IQ would be if any?

tjrenegade wrote in post #4717241
Ok I am confused....assuming you are using the same lens on the XT and the 5D how is the XT giving you more reach....the focal length is the same you just seeing less of the image with the XT. So if you shoot with the 5D and crop the photo in photoshop then you can end up with the same shot as with the XT. The only diffrence I see is the 5D having more Megapixles so you could blow the image up more.

Someone correct me if I am wrong about this because I getting really confused with all these post about crop....

If you made a shot with the same lens on an XT and on a 5D from the same location, then cropped the 5D shot to the same image size as that on the XT, you will have far fewer pixels in the 5D shot. The cropped 5D shot will have only about 5 megapixels, compared to 8 megapixels for the XT image.

Straight up cropping, the XT will probably beat the 5D because of the 8MP vs. 5 MP. Five MP is low enough that this will degrade resolution on large prints.

The TC+5D on a quality zoom lens like the 70-200 f/2.8 will be close to the 70-200 native on the XT.

The TC on an L prime (300/4, 400/5.6 or one of the supertelephotos) and the 5D+TC will be better IQ than the XT native.

drjiveturkey wrote in post #4717284
The 300 f/2.8 IS on the other hand is light enough to use without a monopod or tripod. For me it's the perfect compremise btwn focal length and weight.

I don't have the 300 f/2.8 so I can't give you any personal experience. But, I have read on this board that the 2x TC was specifically designed/tuned for use with the 300 f/2.8 and therefore performs better with that lens than any other. Maybe someone else can confirm this?

I have used both the 1.4x and 2x TCs with my 70-200 f/2.8 IS on the 5D. While the 2x causes noticeable degradation in IQ, I'd be very hard pressed to differentiate images taken with/without the 1.4x in anything but low-light conditions. If the 1.4x doesn't keep me from getting a proper exposure because of the loss of 1-stop, it works great for me. Since there are more elements between the object and the sensor, there has to be some degradation, but I rarely see it in the pictures.

drjiveturkey wrote in post #4716993
Ever since I got a 5D, I've used my XT (and 40D when I had it) for more reach. I'm starting to wonder, would a 1.4x TC on a 5D produce better images than just using a 1.6x Crop with higher pixel density? Anyone have any experiences?

you'd be better off with a crop camera for reach. and you can also use a tc with the crop camera.

ed rader

It doesn't sound as if there's a clear answer to your question. Perhaps you could take some comparison shots and post back here (assuming you have the 1.4x converter and lens).

ed rader wrote in post #4717510
you'd be better off with a crop camera for reach. and you can also use a tc with the crop camera.

ed rader

yep i agree here and sold my 5d parlty because of fps and mostly to get the 40d 1.6crop reach with 10mp and still be able to add a tc .
Rob.

BogongBreeze wrote in post #4717536
It doesn't sound as if there's a clear answer to your question. Perhaps you could take some comparison shots and post back here (assuming you have the 1.4x converter and lens).

my answer was pretty clear...i used the 5d and 30d in tandem just like i recommended .

ed rader

I have the 300 f/2.8IS and both the Canon 1.4x & 2x TC's. This is one amazing lens. Many claim it's the sharpest lens in the world. That, of course, could be argued time and time again on forums across the land.

I use both TCs and I'd dare anyone to pick a photo where either one or none was used. This lens handles both TCs like they were not even there. And the reason is the quality of the lens itself. The 300 seems to be the sweet-spot in Canon's arsenal.

Not dissing the 400/500/600 as they are marvels in their own right, and also handle both TCs very well, but the 300 stands alone in my book.

JeffreyG wrote in post #4717483
Straight up cropping, the XT will probably beat the 5D because of the 8MP vs. 5 MP. Five MP is low enough that this will degrade resolution on large prints.

The TC+5D on a quality zoom lens like the 70-200 f/2.8 will be close to the 70-200 native on the XT.

The TC on an L prime (300/4, 400/5.6 or one of the supertelephotos) and the 5D+TC will be better IQ than the XT native.

I'm failing to see how this would be. Adding in any TC is going to cause some degradation. It may not be much, but it WILL be some. You can't even AF the 400 f5.6 w/ a TC on the 5D, and you wouldn't get quite as many pixels on target anyways (560mm vs 640mm FOV).

I'm not putting down the 5D in any way here, but when it comes right down to it, more pixels on target, with no image degradation is going to be better when you are looking for extra reach.