Some great thoughts as always! You don't talk much of Olympus, but it actually has the best of both worlds for those who shoot in crop mode. Even older models had digital 2x TC, which is smart upscaling a crop into a full res JPEG. But it also saves a full size RAW file, so you have the benefit of either sharing a pretty amazing quality JPEG, but also adjust the crop and edit the RAW at home.
I was going to say the same thing! It sounds like they are saying other brands digitally crop in camera but don’t upscale the image back to full resolution in camera? I am unaware of what other brands do but I just started using my digital teleconverter with my OM1 mk ii and pair it with the 40-150 f2.8 and my 1.4 teleconverter. I am not saying it’s better than a longer lens, but it the best I have and does work.
Good talk. 👍 Also - the quality of the lens in front of the teleconverter is a big factor. I was in the kayak this week shooting otters, moose, and loons with the Nikon 400mm 2.8 TC, 400mm 4.5, and the 180-600mm 6.3. Only the 180-600mm showed any practical image degradation with the 1.4 TC (even it performed very well. And it was giving me a 250-840mm range in a $2700 package) (though f/9 was a big factor😳). I can’t say enough about the 400mm 2.8 TC -- being able to flip the TC switch as I drifted in toward the subjects was huge (especially fast moving otters who were quite offended that I was in their neighborhood). It completely changed my shooting experience and field tactics. The little 400 4.5 is also good enough with the TC that I have to look at the meta data to tell if it was on for a shot. If it had a built-in TC, I’d call it the ideal kayak wildlife lens.
That's a good tip about Adobe profiles. I use "camera matching" neutral for wildlife or "landscape" for landscapes. Yes, RAW files lend maximal flexibility in any scenario. But the correct profiles give the best starting points.
Good arguments for both sides of the coin. Personally, I completely agree that cropping in camera has the net result of less pixels on the subject. That said, I find several advantages to in camera cropping. I do find my AF lock on a bit faster and the subject detection eye-detect a bit more accurate that shooting a full frame image with a subject small in the frame. I also find that the metering of the exposure a bit more accurate. Lastely, if the TC is not built-in for that lens (i.e. NIkon 400mm TC or 600mm TC), then adding an external TC is problematic and doesn't always match the optics of your lens - leading to poorer IQ all around. This doesn't even begin to cover the time it takes to put on and take off the TC while you're shooting. When shooting with a higher MP camera, I prefer to crop with the equipment I own in camera if I have to. Nice video as always gentleman.
Very informative and some excellent tips as well. I like how you guys go into detailed reasons and explanations. I’ve heard many tips over my decades of photography, but a new one from you was the advantage of stepping back and using a TC to lessen the steep upward angle to give a more pleasing closer-to-horizontal viewpoint of your subject, high up in the trees. Love your videos and shots.
Hi Jan & Glenn, thanks for the useful comments on these images ! Obviously, you nailed the balancing exercise regarding maximizing the amount of pixels on the bird, a concern us birders face all the time. This year, I've stopped putting the 1.4x on the 100-500, because in most cases it's a lot better to switch to the 200-800 which actually renders better bokeh. I've recently done some experiments popping the 1.4x on the 200-800, but without stopping down the IQ isn't so good, and I still have to find the sweet spot how much to stop down.
thank you for your great Birdphotoshow! Now I also use the 2x Teleconverter on my Nikon 600 mm PF when the conditions allowed it. The pictures are really sharp when you not so far away from the bird. This is a great advantage of the new system cameras and the tools to denoise the image. Best wishes and fantastic photos
OM system does it differently. Digital 2x in camera crop gives you a cropped JPG but brings the file size back up to full 20 MP in camera! AND you still get an uncropped RAW file! This is very different from computer cropping where I am losing megapixels! I am not saying it’s better than a longer pro lens for birds, but it sure helps and it’s quite good!
Excellent info and opinions (as usual) on this episode guys. I use TC’s quite a bit and appreciate the various tips and observations you provided. Nikon has been famous for making subpar 2X TC’s but the performance of the TC20EIII and F mount lenses on the Z8 and Z7 II is astounding when compared to my D500. It definitely breathes new life into previously marginally acceptable equipment. Thanks for all you guys do for us.
Excellent discussion of the pros and cons of crop modes and teleconverters guys. So, I suggest that your follow-on presentation is to actually test an available professional 2x crop kit and then compare your results to those in your present discussion re photographing small birds. I am of course suggesting that you borrow an OM-1ii, the 150-400mm f/4.5 with the built in 1.2x, the OM/Olympus 1.4x and 2.0 TCs. This lens was designed to be extremely sharp with excellent micro contrast used wide open. The 2x crop 20 MP sensor also has twice the depth of field as a full frame sensor so depth of field at long effective focal lengths are not much of a concern. You will find that this zoom lens also close focuses at 1.3 meters so no worries about close birds. So without cropping one gets the following full OM sensor images: f/4.5 at 800mm, f/5.6 at 1000mm with the built in 1.25x. One can also use the 1.4x (without the builtin 1.25) and get 1,120mm at f/5.6. Using the 2.0x at 800mm zoom yields 1,600mm at f/8. The OM/Olympus 150-400mm lens and TCs were specifically designed to work together without degrading image quality - especially with the 1.4x and reasonably less so with the 2x. There is no need to stop down with the 1.4x to boost sharpness. If OM Systems won’t provide you with the equipment, I am certain that there are owners of the equipment near you (or traveling with you Glenn) who would be delighted to lend it to you. Let’s get some more sensor “diversity” in your excellent video discussions!
Canon would tell you to crop your 24mpx images because of course "that's all you will ever need". sure Canon! And if crop cameras were so great, Olympus would be the predominant choice for birds. They are virtually a non factor because the sensor performance and resolution is poor and noticeable in comparison. It's a shame Canon never considered making the APS_H sensors again. That may have been a really good compromise for bird photography. Thanks for the always informative and entertaining video! Great tweaks this week! Glenn, love your tip about the rain!!
By the way. As you have mentioned before using a extender with the RF 100-500mm 4.5-7.1 L one most set the zoom to 300mm to attach the extender. So lost of zoom for the range 100 - the starting point with the 1.4 or 2× extender.
Vital, must have tool! Having said that, I usually only use a 1.4. Have had very limited success with 2.0s (they are ok for filling the frame with a songbird that is already close, but usually horrible when trying to bring in distant subjects). Also, teleconverters should be of the same brand as the lens and only used on top quality, fast, fixed focal length lenses.
Great video guys - I use a 1.4x teleconverter a lot on my Sony A1 and 600F4 setup and get extra resolution in my photos but in my experience the 2x doesn't really give me any extra resolution at all. I think Tony Northrup may have had this experience when he tested my setup. Obviously there is a trade off to be had and here are the tricky questions for you now... We have optical resolution of the lens which is approximately proportional to the diameter of a lens. Putting a TC on your system doesn't change the optical resolution it only magnifies what you already have. The advantage comes with the TC if your camera does not have small enough pixels to resolve all of the detail in the image without the TC. So question to you is how do you know when this is or is not the case? I haven't talked about noise/ISO. Adding a TC means you have less light so have more noise. The vital question here is what is the relationship between noise and resolution. Once you know the answers to these two questions then you should know whether a TC is of benefit or not. Personally I think the camera manufacturers should tell us this especially if they are trying to sell us teleconverters - I am sure many people - including myself - have spent lots of money on teleconverters when they have no real advantage for the gear they have.
To me it’s often quite simple. I can in certain situations still get an image with the 2x TC and a bit of a crop that I could not get when using the bare lens or 1.4. If I crop then the file would just be too small
Another great video, thanks. When I owned canon gear APS-C sensor, I had the kenko 1.4x and the canon 2x extender. With the canon 300mm f/2.8 I got great results. Later when I had the canon 100-400 II lens the 1.4x still produced great results. Now with my m4/3 setup, I have used the MC-14 (1.4x) and get great results. I just got new MC-20 (2x) extender from japan via ebay. I have taken a number of test images out in the parks and very happy with the results. Will only use the MC-20 for special cases. So, with the Olympus 150-400mm TC1.25, have no reservations with using extenders. I used the MC-14 with the Olympus 100-400mm lens as well. I will use one if needed to get the image. No free lunch indeed. Know the tools and how to use them. I use zoom lenses for the flexibility. The 7D Mk II was my last canon camera and was a great camera for that time.
Hi guys ! Very good and usefull video. I love to use the built-in crop mode of the R5. Why ? Focusing on distant subjects is almost a no fault. Also, I am satisfied with the internal cropping of this body. Where I live it is really hard to be close from subjects but cropping mode saves the day. I just printed a large pictures (36 × 24) that is hanging on my bedroom wall. The picture is gorgeous and perfect. The blue heron is beautiful and scenery is outstanding. All of this has been done using the R5 (1.6 crop mode) + RF 100-500mm f/7.1.
Thank you for featuring my photo of the Thick billed Green Pigeon and your encouraging comments and tips! The shot was taken from inside a car and the rain and mist totally hid the bird in the next 15 seconds so I did not have any time for composing it any better - @aniltyaginature
Can only speak for Nikon Z9/Z8/Zlll but 100% the AF improves when you use DX crop mode n camera. The larger the subject is in the EVF the better subject detection works and the more accurate the AF is
@@codebunnies using a Z9 or Z8. It's 100% confirmable. If your subject is at a distance that the AF/subject detection (SD) is failing or not loving the eye or head in FX mode, you can switch to the DX mode and instantly see it lock the head or eye. Back to FX and it loses the lock and back to DX and it locks to the head or eye again. This is replicatable 100%. The AF on the Z9 and Z8 works directly off the EVF. I have been teaching one on one setup ava techniques for the Z9 since February of 2022.
@@aliendroneservices6621 today is not even close to being accurate with the Z9 and Z8. What he said is inaccurate with the Nikon mirrorless. It may very well be the case with Canon and it's as system
It is very easy to see and repeatable to see that Bird Eye AF is improved on Nikon and Canon cameras when in DX mode. I've owned the Z9 and R5 and on both cameras if the bird is too small in FX and BEAF isn't activating, switching to DX would allow the camera to see the eye. I'm fairly certain both these systems are using the cropped feed to perform AF and aren't actually using the outer AF pixels when in crop mode. Now I will say that with Sony it is almost the exact opposite with the A1. It actually does better finding the eye in FX mode than in DX...I still have no idea why. But with the latest Sony cameras that have the extra AI chip, the cameras are now showing the same behaviour of Z9/R5 and going to DX can help with BEAF. When I shot the A7RV and A9III this was a noticeable change to the AF behaviour compared to the A1.
When I retired and started trying my hand at bird photography all I had to use was my Leica V-Lux 114 bridge camera (twin to the Lumix FZ1000). But the 114 had a digitally enhanced crop mode called I-Zoom that helped produce better images than a standard digital zoom out to the 35mm = of 800mm's if you didn't overshoot its capabilities with your motor drive. Canon had a similar feature with the SX50hs though you had to shoot in single frame mode with a few seconds between shots. It produced surprisingly good photographs in low light. In both cases you need to be shooting JPEGS. I'd love to see this image-enhanced feature offered in MFT menus that could be programmed into a custom mode even if it slowed down the FPS or required lower ISO's.
Never hurts to have them. I've taken scores of great shots with them. My personal belief though is that a good crop body is the best option. Think about it. A 500mm F4 lens with a 1.4x extender will get you to 700mm and F5.6, (which then means you have to bump up the ISO or lower shutter speed to compensate). Why do that when you can get an apparent 800mm and keep your F4, (at least the amount of light going through the lens, not the DOF though. With tele lenses this isn't that big of a deal because DOF tends to work against you rather than for you)? Also, rather than expanding the image circle, (and thereby expanding the defects of CA and other issues), you are placing a portion of the image circle in the full size of the sensor. This means you are resolving more detail overall. I know someone will have some snarky response to this, but in my 15 years of doing wildlife photography, I have seen enough to know which is better. People do love their FF cameras though LOL.
Thank you for yet another interesting topic. Good to see photo of brown fish owl.taken by my friend hrishi. I am sure he would have full image of the bird..congrats hrishi
I have the 1.4 teleconverter for the Canon RF lenses. I rarely use it due to image degradation due to light, and hand held nature/bird photography. I feel that with the 100-500 mm range I am well equipped for most situations . If I am too far away for 500mm then I would get closer. If I need help from the 1.4 to get closer then it’s 1. Too much of a hassle, 2. Likely to be a poor image, and 3. It’s too restrictive for dynamic birding situations.
Nice video, and agree that TC is the best option when one cannot get closer to the subject. When saying that TCs make you lose a stop or two of light, I think it is important to specify - losing light with respect to what? As opposed to what option? As opposed to getting closer, yes, TC costs you light, but if you compare to cropping in camera or in post, or using a crop-sensor camera, these options mean losing light just the same as using TC. TC does not eat or steals light, it just distributes the light from the subject over a larger area on the sensor. Light intensity per unit area decreases, but the area occupied by the subject increases. By cropping, you retain the intensity of light per unit area, but you reduce the useful area of the sensor, so you end up with the same amount of light per your subject as with TC. ISO would go up with TC, but cropping amplifies the noise just the same as increasing ISO. E.g., crop sensors have performance which is equivalent to full frame sensors at twice as high ISO. Also, I don't understand how TCs reduce the depth of field - 300 mm f2.8 and 600 mm f5.6 have the same depth of field. Maybe you can see better that some parts of the image are out of focus because it has higher resolution with TC, but the depth of field does not change. When you print a photo twice as big, does it change the depth of field? TC is no different.
When I say it changes DOF I am comparing for instance 600 with 840mm, because that’s what’s changes when I add the TC. Of course dof is similar to another 840mm lens, but compared to my lens before I put the TC on it did I hope that makes more sense
Did you folks talk about the physical limitations of using RF Teleconverters on some Canon Zooms? The RF TC's only work at focal lengths from 300-500 on the 100-500mm L zoom.
On some occasions I have used my Canon R5 with the 600mm with two teleconverters, the 2x and 1.4x together with good results with F9. In extreme situations.
Great content as always! I have an EF 100-400 mk II and I'm considering upgrading my old 7D mk II with an R5, therefore I will need a R-EOS adapter and I am also considering to get a 1.4x TC. In this case, better to get an R mount TC or rather a EOS-EF mount TC? I am wondering if there is any difference in image quality, autofocus and camera-lens communication between the setup camera-adapter-TC-lens and camera-TC-adapter-lens.
I don't know why we can't have front attaching teleconverters. When I first started out I had to use a Lumix 45-175mm lens which even with the 2x crop didn't give me enough reach but I had heard floating on the net about an old bridge camera 1.7x teleconverter being able to be used in front of the lens and with a step up ring it did work! Sure it wasn't optically perfect but you only lost like a third of a stop of light and it did the job for ages until I could afford the 100-400
600 mm f4 lens has a front element about 150mm in diameter, 600 mm f6.3 about 95 mm. Front TC would have to be at least as large. It would have costed a lot of money and would increase the size and weight of the system a lot.
@@JoeMaranophotography Diameter of the front element is determined by the focal length and F number and does not in fact depend on the sensor size. If you consider a lens for MFT with equivalent field of view and light transmission to e.g. 600 mm f6.3 in full frame, this would be 300 mm f3.2 and the front element would be roughly of the same size.
@AVerkhovsky All I know is that weird ass contraption I used to put on the front of that lens was reasonably small (although it probably weighed more than the lens) the coolest thing was how it didn't lose light like how the regular ones do.
Great video as always! I'm very undecided if I should add a 1.4x Teleconverter with my R6Mk2 since I have the RF 100-500 but sometimes it feels i could use the extra reach and to counter the lack of 45mp when it comes to cropping. On the other side I'm not printing images its mostly for social media. Would it be a bit of a waste of money for now?
The key for using tele converters is to have a lens that is very sharp in the middle of the frame to start with. Best is if it outesolves the sensor. Otherwise you are better off cropping in.
It has to be more sensible to use the whole of the real estate of a full-frame sensor, then crop the shot back at the ranch; cropping in-camera's begging to make an uncorrectable decision.
Would another alternative be to use modern AI upscaling software? You would be able to dispense with the teleconverter and just use your prime/zoom lens. This would have the advantage of retaining the lens quality and depth of field.
not really, upscaling works well on a non cropped image, but if you try to upscale a larger crop from a 24MP camera, there's just no details to upscale and it usually doesn't look good
They have a very niche use in wildlife photography. The image quality degradation is severe when you're pushing the limits of foal length on a high resolution body. Not only are you taking lenses that already struggle in low-light and making them significantly worse by reducing by 1-2 stops, but you're also introducing issues like heat-haze distortion into the mix in conditions that would have been previously ideal. You're also limiting AF and tracking, which is essential in BIF or even subjects at longer ranges. I've used a 1.4 TC on my A7R V for 5 months and I've decided to stop using it. Unless you have absolutely perfect conditions with no external variables, you are going to run into the aforementioned issues, and these could ruin images that you would have otherwise nailed. They're just not worth the trade off.
Hello, I've been following you for a long time and because of your reviews I took the 180-600, but I'm on a Nikon Z5, I'm wondering if there is a greater loss of resolution with this 24mp sensor or 40+mp with, say, a 1.4x extender?
Maybe you should do a show where you illustrate how your brushes, presets etc actually work. As I see it you are asking folks to take a leap of faith that they will be a short-cut in their editing workflow. Maybe you have already done this, but I haven't found it, so a link wouldn't go amiss.
Nice video again. Q: do you always use a kind of a denoise proces (in LR , Denoise AI etc.) in the post proces in relation to the amount of ISO? For exemple, with a picture taken with ISO 1600 plus you do and beneath that ISO you don't? Because the "denoise proces" always gives less sharpness and takes away the details. Thanks.
question is i do not think adding a t/c is less light v cropping a image ,ie a sensor crop at 1.5xis just as noisy as adding a 1.4 t/c ,also the more mega pixels on the sensor the greater the obvious deprecation is shown by adding a t/c hence a 24mp sensor controls the adding of t/c better over a 60mp sensor ,to fully resolve 60mp you need a bare sharp lens imo ,but then you get down to the nitty gritty the sharpest primes fair best with t/c and larger apertures ie f2.8 fair better over f4 and 5.6 ,6.3 ,its just physics ,diffraction kicks in earlier on densely packed sensors so by f5,6 or f8 you may be at the limit .Its complicated for sure but adding a t/c means you are not needing to get close and disturbing your subject in some instances ,I am sure the first to market a t/c that gives 3 options 1. bare lens 2. 1.4 xt/c 3 a 2 x t/c in one module will win i am sure canon had a patent for this. Or even better a lens with built in t/c 1.4 and 2.0 t/c option although this kind of stuff is generally left for exotic lenses
There is one more technic you did not mention, to enhance the photo image in post software with fx Topaz Gigipixel. I have just done it with some of my old photos taken with a Canon DSLR 10 megapixels APSC camera, so now I can either have larger prints or crop more into the images of those photos, have a nice weekend both of you.
This topic is quite interesting to me. I understand the basics, and using crop mode in my R5 reduces pixels. What I’m never sure of,is how many pixels is too little in the final image. Or what resolution should I avoid. I’m pretty new and I’ve yet to print,but hope to soon. Like never crop below X by X. Or if you do, it will only look good in an 8 x 10 print. Some kind of guidelines there. I have the 100-500 and the 1.4 tc. I find the loss of light there not great, and rarely use it. I handhold and hike a lot, so I’m not carrying a tripod. Do we know if the R5 ii has any improvements in the crop mode? I might be interested in the R7 ii depending on those specs. It might be nice to see actual comparison of photos shot side by side with the R5 100-500 in full frame, then crop, then 1.4 tc. With a discussion around MP, resolution, and printing. Many of us don’t have primes.
R5 II will have the same MP. I think under 3-4k open the long side gets a bit light for many use cases. I have printed smaller ones, but then I often use Topaz Gigapixel to upsize first
A7IV APSC(Super35) mode has only 16MP so it is worse than for example A6400/6600, it is even worse in A7III and has only 10MP. Cropping from A7RV in practice we are getting A6700 sensor 26MP. So, technically, A7RV has the best of both worlds.
As always, a great video guys. I have been thinking of buying a 1.4x converter, and after this video, i don't need to think more hehehe. Wishing you both a great weekend, and looking forward to next video. Cheers, Bjoern📸🐦🦩
Around 8:30 you claim crop sensor cameras are "lower spec'd cameras" etc... not true. The OM-1 is an advanced crop sensor camera with all the AI etc and many other advanced features. Fact is, other manufacturers have copied them in adding subject detection, pre-capture etc to mirrorless cameras, so your claims are largely in accurate around mirrorless crop sensor cameras. I admit OM System are now lagging behind everyone else now in some areas but show me a FF camera with LiveND, Live Composite, in camera focus stacking, in camera hi-res shooting and also when handheld etc? So the OM-1 is actually massively more capable compared to the usual suspects. I shoot with a Z8 and an OM-1 so I have no bias for or against MFT or FF,, but at times I don't think the OM-1 doesn't get enough credit or mention where it should do and a lot of false information put out there.
Hi there, thanks for the information. In regards to your weekly tweak on color profile, are you still using DPP for your canon images as a first step, so that you get Canon's proprietary color profiles applied to your RAW images? If so, are you then applying noise reduction software on the TIFF file generated by DPP? Thanks much. --Kind regards
I use the RF 100-500 on the R5 and have done some of my own testing. I found that if I compared a 700mm image with the RF 1.4x with a photo taken without the 1.4x but cropped in to 700mm equivalent, that despite having more pixels on the subject with the extender attached, image quality was a tad better on the non-extended combo cropped in post. With the extender especially on a zoom lens like the 100-500, you need to stop down a bit for optimum sharpness… so with the 1.4x you’re at f10, but will need to stop down to about f12 for optimum sharpness… whereas without the extender I can keep the f7.1 aperture. A lot of people don’t understand that extenders are best suited to prime lenses, with only a small handful of zoom lenses that work well with extenders (usually a 1.4x, as a 2x on a zoom lens is typically just not great.
Interesting observation! Maybe TCs also work differently with sharper lenses. I just started using a bargain Sigma 150-500mm and even more bargain Tamron 1.4X TC... all adapted onto an Olympus E-M1 mark II and I actually find the opposite. Shots with 1400mm equiv FoV are MUCH more detailed than 1000mm without TC. You can see the texture of the feathers and eyes so much better.
I have problems with focusing on the 200-800 in flat light, little contrast. Unfortunately in the UK all we seem to get is flat light, rain, low light, even if it is July.
@@jan_wegener It hunts a lot, BIF is impossible as it keeps searching, even after locating subject. Using it on R5. Kite surfers in strong light it was brilliant.
Great video! You mentioned more than once about how adding a 1.4x TC would decrease your depth of field. Does the TC decrease the DOF more than an equivalent lens without the TC? For example does a 500mm F4 + 1.4x TC (700mm F5.6) have a different depth of field from a 700mm f5.6 lens with no TC at the same distance from the subject (if such lens existed)?
No, it’s the same. I guess I said it funny. The TC doesn’t decrease dof compared to a similar lens, but it does reduce it compare to the lens without the Tc, especially when I stop the bare lens done more
@@jan_wegener Thanks for clarifying. =). Yeah, I must have misinterpreted it. Perhaps you were suggesting that the TC would decrease your DOF vs. the alternative of cropping, which obviously would not. Thanks for the great videos and following up!
Within a few Years, 61MP FF Cameras will be the Standard for shooting Wildlife as that will bring all the options to the Table that folks shooting Wildlife need. First being a Crop Mode of 26MP. As of right now, the TECH isn't quite there.
Goo😅d episode - I use the 1.4x on the 100-500 and live with the reduced range 420-700 … when I want to live with the issues I will put the 100-500 on the R7 with fairly good results - the teles or crop sensor are needed because even shooting large birds in flight to in nest with babies you can never seem to get close enough … if Canon would ever deliver my 200-800 (waiting since January) … some of these issues would be eliminated …. ALSO JAN HOW DO I GET INFO ABOUT YOUR CHANNEL MEMBERSHIP ??? THANK YOU
Great video, but doesn't discuss the use of upscaling software like Gigapixel AI. This can be surprisingly close to using the RF 1.4x on my RF 100-500 with my R5.
The main difference is that upscaling works quite well the less of a crop an image is. Upscaling bigger crops usually doesn’t work well cause these not enough detail in it
@@jan_wegener I agree, but the RF 1.4x doesn't "crop" much. Overall the RF 1.4x is better, but Gigapixel is great if you don't have the teleconverter with you.
Jan, I believe you, and many others, are incorrect about the depth of field when using a TC. It is just a magnifier, so everything that is in focus without the TC should still be in focus with the TC. There is a lot of misinformation about this. The actual aperture does not change with a TC, i.e. the space the light comes through. The "apparent" aperture changes because less light hits the sensor due to the magnification of the TC lens. Note: an easy experiment to do!
If I stand in the same spot and put on a teleconverter, less of the bird will be in focus compared to no teleconverter. That’s what I am referring to. So technically the TC may not decrease DOF, but if I put a TC on and don’t move, I have much less of the bird on focus, because I have more focal length now. What’s the correct term for that?
@@jan_wegener I can see how if the subject is bigger to the eye the out of focus areas would be more noticeable, but it still seems that the same relative areas of the bird would be in focus and out of focus as the image (neglecting any loss of sharpness due to the TC) is the exact same image. If you cropped the image the DOF would not change and essentially the TC is an optical crop by projecting only a part of the image on the sensor. Sorry, I really didn't mean to beat this subject to death. Really enjoy your videos and your photography!
Great as always. Just a correction for you to consider: Teleconverters do not affect depth of field. They simply magnify exactly what you have without it. If your depth of field is 4” before the TC it’s still 4” with it. You’re just seeing the magnified version of it. This would probably make a great follow up video for you. Take an image with and without the TC on your 600f4 (or any lens that accepts it) then crop the image to without it to match and compare your bokeh. It should be identical.
@jan_wegener Regardless of what I do, I can not get many sharp images. I shoot primarily birds with everything from a 100-400, 200-500mm, and an old 600 f/4G. Tripod with the 600 and handheld mainly with the other two. I'm fairly confident ( or at least I think I am ) with the different focus modes. Larger birds I use wide area large and 3D to spot on smaller birds depending on the situation. Still birds, I'm usually 1/1250 and moving usually 1/4000. My keeper rate is abysmal at best
Maybe 5 seconds if it's built-in to the lens and you only need to flip a switch. No way it's 5-seconds if you have to remove the lens from the camera and *_carefully_* store or retrieve the teleconverter. More like *_1 minute._*
OM system does it differently. Digital 2x in camera crop gives you a cropped JPG but brings the file size back up to full 20 MP in camera! AND you still get an uncropped RAW file! This is very different from computer cropping where I am losing megapixels! I am not saying it’s better than a longer pro lens for birds, but it sure helps and it’s quite good!
