Steve's Comment About TCs on Vahagraphy's Youtube Live Stream

If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).

Whiskeyman

Well-known member
Supporting Member
First of all, Steve was hosted on a Youtube.com livestream today by Vahagraphy, and it was a great presentation. If you didn't get to watch it, here is a link. Well, it's also a link to it even if you did get to watch it.:)

During the livestream, Steve offered a point about teleconverter (TC) use and how many photograpers use them outside of their best method of use . Instead of using a TC to increase the size of a subject that is very small in the frame a bit so that the amount of cropping is decreased but still significant, Steve talked about using TCs to completely fill the frame with a subject that was already significant in the viewfinder and how that is the best use of TCs.

I hadn't really thought about that before, but now that I do, I have to agree with him on this point. (Like on nearly every other subject he discusses. Don't most of us?) I think back on some of the shots where I had a TC connected to my camera and lens and the times where I needed to back away from the subject produced much better photos than the ones where I still needed to get much closer to the subject. In other words, a TC won't rescue a bad shot most of the time, but can help improve some of them in the right conditions. This changes how I plan to primarily use TCs from now on.
 

DRwyoming

Moderator
Supporting Member
Good call out.

FWIW, that's how I think about cropping as well. IOW, if the image is just tiny in the viewfinder I won't crop to create a frame filling image. But if the image takes up a substantial portion of the viewfinder I might crop for compositional reasons, to change aspect ratio (e.g. changing 3:2 to 4:5/8:10 or maybe 16:9) and often end up with the same size subject or perhaps a slightly larger subject but not dramatically so. IOW, I don't think of the crop tool as an instant zoom tool as much as a compositional and small image size adjustment tool. Same way I think about TCs for the most part.
 

Steve

Admin
Staff member
Supporting Member
First of all, Steve was hosted on a Youtube.com livestream today by Vahagraphy, and it was a great presentation. If you didn't get to watch it, here is a link. Well, it's also a link to it even if you did get to watch it.:)

During the livestream, Steve offered a point about teleconverter (TC) use and how many photograpers use them outside of their best method of use . Instead of using a TC to increase the size of a subject that is very small in the frame a bit so that the amount of cropping is decreased but still significant, Steve talked about using TCs to completely fill the frame with a subject that was already significant in the viewfinder and how that is the best use of TCs.

I hadn't really thought about that before, but now that I do, I have to agree with him on this point. (Like on nearly every other subject he discusses. Don't most of us?) I think back on some of the shots where I had a TC connected to my camera and lens and the times where I needed to back away from the subject produced much better photos than the ones where I still needed to get much closer to the subject. In other words, a TC won't rescue a bad shot most of the time, but can help improve some of them in the right conditions. This changes how I plan to primarily use TCs from now on.
Thanks so much :)

Just an additional note / clarification:

It's not so much about using the TC to completely fill the frame with the animal, but rather to fill the frame the way you want it, resulting in minimal to no cropping. Often, we don't want just the animal but some of the surroundings too for a bit of context. When I'm live I sometimes don't get to the more subtle points like that - I'm always better with a script :)
 

Whiskeyman

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Thread starter
... I'm always better with a script :)
Aren't we all. I may have misinterpreted your statement, too.

Anyway, thanks for clarifying, for you and for me! It was a great event, and I was lucky to be home to see it, instead of at work. (Thank goodness for vacation days!)
 

Ralph

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Thanks so much :)

Just an additional note / clarification:

It's not so much about using the TC to completely fill the frame with the animal, but rather to fill the frame the way you want it, resulting in minimal to no cropping. Often, we don't want just the animal but some of the surroundings too for a bit of context. When I'm live I sometimes don't get to the more subtle points like that - I'm always better with a script :)
Excellent watch Steve.👍👍👍
 

DavidT

Well-known member
Supporting Member
I enjoyed this segment as well and it’s a good point. I also use them to fill the frame and is why for birds I still like my 600f4 over my 400f2.8 which he also discusses. I find with Sony I don’t suffer from using a TC but past Canon and Nikon TC I just never really liked. I assume mirrorless and it’s capability to more accurately focus with TC is a contributor along with optic design.
 

Andrew Lamberson

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Great job on the interview Steve. Very informative. I am glad you are still a fan of the 800 PF. I really hope it works well on a Z6II, IF I ever get one (sounds like it will be a really long wait!)

I have found that the 1.4 TC on my Z6 II with the 500 PF is excellent. The 1.4 was virtually permanently attached to the 500 PF for the Warbler migration this spring.

Same with the Sony 1.4 TC on my new Sony Alpha 1 with both the 100-400 zoom and the 200-600 zoom, the results were excellent a few weeks ago at Forestville State Park. I was as close as I was going to get to the Yellow Warblers and Yellowthroats...unless I was going to climb a tree and go after them! Plenty of light so no issues there!

I have used the 2.0 TC on my Z6II and 500 PF only when there was no way to move closer. Specifically, the Snowy Owl image from this winter. I was shooting from the road and could not trespass to get closer. It was a "good" shot. You really have to use the 2.0 with a LOT of light!
 

DougC

Well-known member
Supporting Member
I was fortunate to shoot with our moderator Dave Ryan in south Texas several years ago. During a break in the action he made the statement to me that TC’s are not designed to bring something far away closer. They are designed to bring something close even closer. That piece of advice has stuck with me ever since.
 

RichF

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Sometimes when you need a small image (screen size), I have cropped heavily. once in South Texas there birds were taking a break so I decided to shoot wasp drinking (or what ever the wasp does when it lands on the water). Image was fairly good. In fact I got Best of Show in a local competition.

Wasp Drinkingl.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 

ajm057

Active member
Thanks so much :)

Just an additional note / clarification:

It's not so much about using the TC to completely fill the frame with the animal, but rather to fill the frame the way you want it, resulting in minimal to no cropping. Often, we don't want just the animal but some of the surroundings too for a bit of context. When I'm live I sometimes don't get to the more subtle points like that - I'm always better with a script :)

Great chat - I listened to it and much enjoyed the humour and guidance.

Use of TCs -- I too prefer bare lenses - my 600/4.0 was my favourite too -- but analysing the shots I used from 4 months of African Safari - 60+% were taken with a 600mm and only 30% of these were with a TC. My 2nd favourite lens is the 400/2.8 -- 20+% for pre-dawn, dawn, sunset and post sunset action primarily with lions, leopards and their prey.
Now my favourite lens is the Z 400/2.8TC since it gives both 400/2.8 and 560/4.0 and takes external TCs as well. Yes I too would have prefered a Z600mm f/4.0 TC -- but that is not likely to arrive until the end of the year.

It "used" to be the case that using TC's on a DSLR materially impacted the Autofocus points one could use on Nikon cameras - often only having the central point and/or a few more if the combination of TC and lens pushed the widest aperture to f/8 or more. Now with the Z9 the issue of giving the sensor as much light as one can (wide open, +ve exposure bias even ETTR, slightly elevated ISO settings) and a larger enough subject that the camera's AF can "find" the eyes seems really rather important to securing sharp shots.

I am in the camp who prefers to move closer or adding a TC (but normally only the TC14III or ZTC14) rather than sacrifice pixels by switching to an in camera crop, particularly when this takes a few key-strokes/button presses (rather than simply assigning it to a button). Going from 45.7 to 20mp is a significant loss of real estate and bearing the risk the subject moves rapidly out of frame.
In the case of the Island Female (2 year old leopard) in Mala Mala all we had to do was wait and she walked right passed us.

untitledSMALLER.jpg
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
 

bleirer

Well-known member
Supporting Member
I'm not sure I'm really getting the distinction being discussed. The TC changes the angle of view with a cost of at least a little IQ and the penalty in exposure. Thats pretty much the whole story. When to use it or not just depends on what other options are available.
 

DRwyoming

Moderator
Supporting Member
I'm not sure I'm really getting the distinction being discussed. The TC changes the angle of view with a cost of at least a little IQ and the penalty in exposure. Thats pretty much the whole story. When to use it or not just depends on what other options are available.
To me the distinction is subtle and mostly a matter of personal perspective.

Back when Doug and I were sharing blinds down in South Texas I used to teach a lot of classes and one thing I'd tell folks is that I have a personal rule of thumb that I won't mount up a TC on my 600mm lens for subjects much larger than a basketball. Realistically it's probably larger than that as in not using a TC on my longest lens for subjects much larger than a beer cooler. I was also shooting APS-C cameras back in those days (D2X, D200) which means I was already shooting with some crop compared to today's FF cameras.

That guideline comes from leading a lot of photo classes and park tours and shooting up in the Tetons and Yellowstone where I'd see folks slap a TC on a 600mm lens to shoot Bison at several hundred yards. In my experience the resulting photos aren't worth much when shooting over those kinds of distances through so much atmosphere and dust even in good conditions without a lot of thermal distortion. Basically if you need a really long lens and a TC for subjects the size of a small vehicle then you're shooting from awfully far away and sometimes it's just better to enjoy the view rather than push optics and distance in hopes of miracle photos. Of course if it's the first Bison they've ever seen then it's natural to shoot away but since these were in the context of photography workshops we'd try to teach folks how to improve image quality whenever possible.

Sure if Bigfoot comes strolling out of the woods at half a mile I'll use all the optics I have to try to get a shot but I wouldn't expect much in terms of IQ. And yeah there are exceptions like shooting frame filling moon images with all the lens at my disposal but for wildlife work I tend to think about TCs as a way to increase the effective focal length of a lens for smaller subjects that aren't all that far away and not as a way to reach out across long distances to fill the frame with larger wildlife when I'm already shooting a long lens.

These days with super deep cropping being more of the norm than the exception AND being able to slap 1.4x and 2x TCs on long lenses I see even more of this use of tools to try to cross vast distances and fill the frame with subjects that are just too far away. I haven't taught any classes since Covid hit but I still shoot up in the parks and see folks reaching for their TCs and talking about how they'll crop it up to size for common wildlife at ridiculous distances. It's their journey and who knows maybe they captured killer shots in those situations but on these boards with very active photographers and folks coming here to learn field techniques it does seem worthwhile to discuss the possible shortcomings of various tools and how many of these tools won't work miracles.

I can't speak for @Steve and the intent behind his comments but to me both TCs and cropping are tools that can be used well or can sometimes be used poorly and for folks just getting started can feel like easy shortcuts when they might be better served by learning how to get closer to their subjects.
 

Steve

Admin
Staff member
Supporting Member
To me the distinction is subtle and mostly a matter of personal perspective.

Back when Doug and I were sharing blinds down in South Texas I used to teach a lot of classes and one thing I'd tell folks is that I have a personal rule of thumb that I won't mount up a TC on my 600mm lens for subjects much larger than a basketball. Realistically it's probably larger than that as in not using a TC on my longest lens for subjects much larger than a beer cooler. I was also shooting APS-C cameras back in those days (D2X, D200) which means I was already shooting with some crop compared to today's FF cameras.

That guideline comes from leading a lot of photo classes and park tours and shooting up in the Tetons and Yellowstone where I'd see folks slap a TC on a 600mm lens to shoot Bison at several hundred yards. In my experience the resulting photos aren't worth much when shooting over those kinds of distances through so much atmosphere and dust even in good conditions without a lot of thermal distortion. Basically if you need a really long lens and a TC for subjects the size of a small vehicle then you're shooting from awfully far away and sometimes it's just better to enjoy the view rather than push optics and distance in hopes of miracle photos. Of course if it's the first Bison they've ever seen then it's natural to shoot away but since these were in the context of photography workshops we'd try to teach folks how to improve image quality whenever possible.

Sure if Bigfoot comes strolling out of the woods at half a mile I'll use all the optics I have to try to get a shot but I wouldn't expect much in terms of IQ. And yeah there are exceptions like shooting frame filling moon images with all the lens at my disposal but for wildlife work I tend to think about TCs as a way to increase the effective focal length of a lens for smaller subjects that aren't all that far away and not as a way to reach out across long distances to fill the frame with larger wildlife when I'm already shooting a long lens.

These days with super deep cropping being more of the norm than the exception AND being able to slap 1.4x and 2x TCs on long lenses I see even more of this use of tools to try to cross vast distances and fill the frame with subjects that are just too far away. I haven't taught any classes since Covid hit but I still shoot up in the parks and see folks reaching for their TCs and talking about how they'll crop it up to size for common wildlife at ridiculous distances. It's their journey and who knows maybe they captured killer shots in those situations but on these boards with very active photographers and folks coming here to learn field techniques it does seem worthwhile to discuss the possible shortcomings of various tools and how many of these tools won't work miracles.

I can't speak for @Steve and the intent behind his comments but to me both TCs and cropping are tools that can be used well or can sometimes be used poorly and for folks just getting started can feel like easy shortcuts when they might be better served by learning how to get closer to their subjects.

LOL -actually, it looks like you can speak for me - I couldn't have explained that any better :)
 

bleirer

Well-known member
Supporting Member
To me the distinction is subtle and mostly a matter of personal perspective.

Back when Doug and I were sharing blinds down in South Texas I used to teach a lot of classes and one thing I'd tell folks is that I have a personal rule of thumb that I won't mount up a TC on my 600mm lens for subjects much larger than a basketball. Realistically it's probably larger than that as in not using a TC on my longest lens for subjects much larger than a beer cooler. I was also shooting APS-C cameras back in those days (D2X, D200) which means I was already shooting with some crop compared to today's FF cameras.

That guideline comes from leading a lot of photo classes and park tours and shooting up in the Tetons and Yellowstone where I'd see folks slap a TC on a 600mm lens to shoot Bison at several hundred yards. In my experience the resulting photos aren't worth much when shooting over those kinds of distances through so much atmosphere and dust even in good conditions without a lot of thermal distortion. Basically if you need a really long lens and a TC for subjects the size of a small vehicle then you're shooting from awfully far away and sometimes it's just better to enjoy the view rather than push optics and distance in hopes of miracle photos. Of course if it's the first Bison they've ever seen then it's natural to shoot away but since these were in the context of photography workshops we'd try to teach folks how to improve image quality whenever possible.

Sure if Bigfoot comes strolling out of the woods at half a mile I'll use all the optics I have to try to get a shot but I wouldn't expect much in terms of IQ. And yeah there are exceptions like shooting frame filling moon images with all the lens at my disposal but for wildlife work I tend to think about TCs as a way to increase the effective focal length of a lens for smaller subjects that aren't all that far away and not as a way to reach out across long distances to fill the frame with larger wildlife when I'm already shooting a long lens.

These days with super deep cropping being more of the norm than the exception AND being able to slap 1.4x and 2x TCs on long lenses I see even more of this use of tools to try to cross vast distances and fill the frame with subjects that are just too far away. I haven't taught any classes since Covid hit but I still shoot up in the parks and see folks reaching for their TCs and talking about how they'll crop it up to size for common wildlife at ridiculous distances. It's their journey and who knows maybe they captured killer shots in those situations but on these boards with very active photographers and folks coming here to learn field techniques it does seem worthwhile to discuss the possible shortcomings of various tools and how many of these tools won't work miracles.

I can't speak for @Steve and the intent behind his comments but to me both TCs and cropping are tools that can be used well or can sometimes be used poorly and for folks just getting started can feel like easy shortcuts when they might be better served by learning how to get closer to their subjects.

Well said.
 

Whiskeyman

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Thread starter
I was fortunate to shoot with our moderator Dave Ryan in south Texas several years ago. During a break in the action he made the statement to me that TC’s are not designed to bring something far away closer. They are designed to bring something close even closer. That piece of advice has stuck with me ever since.
Tjhat's a great way of stating it!
 

NaturRosi

Member
I can't speak for @Steve and the intent behind his comments but to me both TCs and cropping are tools that can be used well or can sometimes be used poorly and for folks just getting started can feel like easy shortcuts when they might be better served by learning how to get closer to their subjects.

That's the point! I often hear or read nothing is better for wildife than more focal length. My answer always is a shorter distance is the key for best image quality.
 

Calson

Well-known member
Art Wolfe has long used two 2x Canon teleconverters mated with an extension tube to get usable image sizes so it can be done although the photographer needs to operate at a much higher level to pull it off.

If I use a TC for 30% of my shots that would be a lot of pictures to not get if I left the teleconverter at home. Important to appreciate that a 1.4x teleconverter is going to result in a 40% taller and 40% wider image size which is a substantial gain. On a 500mm lens the 1.4x TC provides an image size that is twice the area of the bare lens.
 

EricBowles

Moderator
Supporting Member
Great chat - I listened to it and much enjoyed the humour and guidance.

Use of TCs -- I too prefer bare lenses - my 600/4.0 was my favourite too -- but analysing the shots I used from 4 months of African Safari - 60+% were taken with a 600mm and only 30% of these were with a TC. My 2nd favourite lens is the 400/2.8 -- 20+% for pre-dawn, dawn, sunset and post sunset action primarily with lions, leopards and their prey.
Now my favourite lens is the Z 400/2.8TC since it gives both 400/2.8 and 560/4.0 and takes external TCs as well. Yes I too would have prefered a Z600mm f/4.0 TC -- but that is not likely to arrive until the end of the year.

It "used" to be the case that using TC's on a DSLR materially impacted the Autofocus points one could use on Nikon cameras - often only having the central point and/or a few more if the combination of TC and lens pushed the widest aperture to f/8 or more. Now with the Z9 the issue of giving the sensor as much light as one can (wide open, +ve exposure bias even ETTR, slightly elevated ISO settings) and a larger enough subject that the camera's AF can "find" the eyes seems really rather important to securing sharp shots.

I am in the camp who prefers to move closer or adding a TC (but normally only the TC14III or ZTC14) rather than sacrifice pixels by switching to an in camera crop, particularly when this takes a few key-strokes/button presses (rather than simply assigning it to a button). Going from 45.7 to 20mp is a significant loss of real estate and bearing the risk the subject moves rapidly out of frame.
In the case of the Island Female (2 year old leopard) in Mala Mala all we had to do was wait and she walked right passed us.
Lovely image.

I love frame filling shots, but if a subject is not significant in the frame without cropping, I frequently look for added context of the environment. This image of the leopard is a great example. Sure - you could have filled the frame with the cat. But the context of the cat, the grasses, the road, and the light produces something I find to be better related to the place in which the leopard lives. Of course - nothing wrong with both shots.
 

Drbobcameraguy

Active member
Supporting Member
To me the distinction is subtle and mostly a matter of personal perspective.

Back when Doug and I were sharing blinds down in South Texas I used to teach a lot of classes and one thing I'd tell folks is that I have a personal rule of thumb that I won't mount up a TC on my 600mm lens for subjects much larger than a basketball. Realistically it's probably larger than that as in not using a TC on my longest lens for subjects much larger than a beer cooler. I was also shooting APS-C cameras back in those days (D2X, D200) which means I was already shooting with some crop compared to today's FF cameras.

That guideline comes from leading a lot of photo classes and park tours and shooting up in the Tetons and Yellowstone where I'd see folks slap a TC on a 600mm lens to shoot Bison at several hundred yards. In my experience the resulting photos aren't worth much when shooting over those kinds of distances through so much atmosphere and dust even in good conditions without a lot of thermal distortion. Basically if you need a really long lens and a TC for subjects the size of a small vehicle then you're shooting from awfully far away and sometimes it's just better to enjoy the view rather than push optics and distance in hopes of miracle photos. Of course if it's the first Bison they've ever seen then it's natural to shoot away but since these were in the context of photography workshops we'd try to teach folks how to improve image quality whenever possible.

Sure if Bigfoot comes strolling out of the woods at half a mile I'll use all the optics I have to try to get a shot but I wouldn't expect much in terms of IQ. And yeah there are exceptions like shooting frame filling moon images with all the lens at my disposal but for wildlife work I tend to think about TCs as a way to increase the effective focal length of a lens for smaller subjects that aren't all that far away and not as a way to reach out across long distances to fill the frame with larger wildlife when I'm already shooting a long lens.

These days with super deep cropping being more of the norm than the exception AND being able to slap 1.4x and 2x TCs on long lenses I see even more of this use of tools to try to cross vast distances and fill the frame with subjects that are just too far away. I haven't taught any classes since Covid hit but I still shoot up in the parks and see folks reaching for their TCs and talking about how they'll crop it up to size for common wildlife at ridiculous distances. It's their journey and who knows maybe they captured killer shots in those situations but on these boards with very active photographers and folks coming here to learn field techniques it does seem worthwhile to discuss the possible shortcomings of various tools and how many of these tools won't work miracles.

I can't speak for @Steve and the intent behind his comments but to me both TCs and cropping are tools that can be used well or can sometimes be used poorly and for folks just getting started can feel like easy shortcuts when they might be better served by learning how to get closer to their subjects.
My only issue with your excellent explanation is the comparison of the beer cooler. You would not be able to get a picture of my beer cooler with a 600mm lens unless you were at least a half a mile away if you wanted a pic of the entire cooler. Lol lol. Get explanation!! Just my attempt at a small amount of humor. Lol
 

DRwyoming

Moderator
Supporting Member
My only issue with your excellent explanation is the comparison of the beer cooler. You would not be able to get a picture of my beer cooler with a 600mm lens unless you were at least a half a mile away if you wanted a pic of the entire cooler. Lol lol. Get explanation!! Just my attempt at a small amount of humor. Lol
Yeah, I guess it depends on whether your beer coolers are more the small playmate size or the big tailgate party size with the roller wheels :)
 

RichF

Well-known member
Supporting Member
To me the distinction is subtle and mostly a matter of personal perspective.

Back when Doug and I were sharing blinds down in South Texas I used to teach a lot of classes and one thing I'd tell folks is that I have a personal rule of thumb that I won't mount up a TC on my 600mm lens for subjects much larger than a basketball. Realistically it's probably larger than that as in not using a TC on my longest lens for subjects much larger than a beer cooler. I was also shooting APS-C cameras back in those days (D2X, D200) which means I was already shooting with some crop compared to today's FF cameras.

That guideline comes from leading a lot of photo classes and park tours and shooting up in the Tetons and Yellowstone where I'd see folks slap a TC on a 600mm lens to shoot Bison at several hundred yards. In my experience the resulting photos aren't worth much when shooting over those kinds of distances through so much atmosphere and dust even in good conditions without a lot of thermal distortion. Basically if you need a really long lens and a TC for subjects the size of a small vehicle then you're shooting from awfully far away and sometimes it's just better to enjoy the view rather than push optics and distance in hopes of miracle photos. Of course if it's the first Bison they've ever seen then it's natural to shoot away but since these were in the context of photography workshops we'd try to teach folks how to improve image quality whenever possible.

Sure if Bigfoot comes strolling out of the woods at half a mile I'll use all the optics I have to try to get a shot but I wouldn't expect much in terms of IQ. And yeah there are exceptions like shooting frame filling moon images with all the lens at my disposal but for wildlife work I tend to think about TCs as a way to increase the effective focal length of a lens for smaller subjects that aren't all that far away and not as a way to reach out across long distances to fill the frame with larger wildlife when I'm already shooting a long lens.

These days with super deep cropping being more of the norm than the exception AND being able to slap 1.4x and 2x TCs on long lenses I see even more of this use of tools to try to cross vast distances and fill the frame with subjects that are just too far away. I haven't taught any classes since Covid hit but I still shoot up in the parks and see folks reaching for their TCs and talking about how they'll crop it up to size for common wildlife at ridiculous distances. It's their journey and who knows maybe they captured killer shots in those situations but on these boards with very active photographers and folks coming here to learn field techniques it does seem worthwhile to discuss the possible shortcomings of various tools and how many of these tools won't work miracles.

I can't speak for @Steve and the intent behind his comments but to me both TCs and cropping are tools that can be used well or can sometimes be used poorly and for folks just getting started can feel like easy shortcuts when they might be better served by learning how to get closer to their subjects.
wonder if we will ever see an AI ap that cleans up (at least partially) atmospheric haze, dust, heat lines, ...
 

Whiskeyman

Well-known member
Supporting Member
Thread starter
My only issue with your excellent explanation is the comparison of the beer cooler. You would not be able to get a picture of my beer cooler with a 600mm lens unless you were at least a half a mile away if you wanted a pic of the entire cooler. Lol lol. Get explanation!! Just my attempt at a small amount of humor. Lol
What time does social hour start!? ;)
 

Roy

Well-known member
First of all, Steve was hosted on a Youtube.com livestream today by Vahagraphy, and it was a great presentation. If you didn't get to watch it, here is a link. Well, it's also a link to it even if you did get to watch it.:)

During the livestream, Steve offered a point about teleconverter (TC) use and how many photograpers use them outside of their best method of use . Instead of using a TC to increase the size of a subject that is very small in the frame a bit so that the amount of cropping is decreased but still significant, Steve talked about using TCs to completely fill the frame with a subject that was already significant in the viewfinder and how that is the best use of TCs.

I hadn't really thought about that before, but now that I do, I have to agree with him on this point. (Like on nearly every other subject he discusses. Don't most of us?) I think back on some of the shots where I had a TC connected to my camera and lens and the times where I needed to back away from the subject produced much better photos than the ones where I still needed to get much closer to the subject. In other words, a TC won't rescue a bad shot most of the time, but can help improve some of them in the right conditions. This changes how I plan to primarily use TCs from now on.
I've always carried TCs but rarely use them - second worst compromise next to cropping - Getting the lens/distance right or using a Zoom lens instead of a prime suits me better.🦘
 
Top