DX Mode Versus Teleconverter?

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).

Feiertag

Well-known member
Good day. My question is, what are the differences between using a 1.5 teleconverter vs. dx mode?
A 500mm lens = 750mm in both incidences. Is there a good reason as to why people buy one, rather than use the DX camera mode?
I would do the experiment to find out the result(s) but I do not own a teleconverter.
 
DX is simple a digital magnification - you can lose detail in pixelation for example, while a teleconverter is an actual image magnification as seen through the lens.


 
DX is simple a digital magnification - you can lose detail in pixelation for example, while a teleconverter is an actual image magnification as seen through the lens.


Thank you, Patrick.
 
A DX camera with a 500mm lens mounted has an equivalent focal length of 750mm.
An FX camera with the same lens mounted has a focal length of 500mm.
Two ways of getting the FX camera to 750mm, is, as you say, to either put the FX camera into DX mode or to fit a teleconverter. Most teleconverters are actually 1.4X, not 1.5X. Using a 1.4X converter gets the FX camera to 700mm, not 750mm.

If you put a 24MP FX camera into DX crop mode you crop away more than half of the pixels, leaving you with roughly 10MP. Such a severe crop does not leave many pixels with which one can print a large image, so I never use DX mode in my 24MP Nikon Z6II. Enlarging such a low pixel image to print size results in severe image degradation. This is why I rather put a teleconverter on the lens so that I can get to 700mm and still have all my pixels available for post processing. The upside of using a teleconverter on this specific camera is that there is very little image degradation caused by the teleconverter so the final image quality is still very good. The downside is the loss of light through the converter. It turns my F/5.6 lens to an F/8 combo, which is not very suitable for low light situations.

Using a high pixel FX camera, say one with a 46MP sensor, changes the equation. A 46MP camera set to DX mode crops the image down to roughly 20MP, which is still sufficient for enlarging to a fair print size. The choice whether to use the DX crop mode or use a teleconverter in this case is therefore harder to make. The more a final image has to be enlarged for final output though, the more the IQ is degraded. Using a teleconverter in my opinion will always result in better image quality than cropping the image.

I trust some of our friends using high pixel cameras will add their thoughts here.
 
A DX camera with a 500mm lens mounted has an equivalent focal length of 750mm.
An FX camera with the same lens mounted has a focal length of 500mm.
Two ways of getting the FX camera to 750mm, is, as you say, to either put the FX camera into DX mode or to fit a teleconverter. Most teleconverters are actually 1.4X, not 1.5X. Using a 1.4X converter gets the FX camera to 700mm, not 750mm.

If you put a 24MP FX camera into DX crop mode you crop away more than half of the pixels, leaving you with roughly 10MP. Such a severe crop does not leave many pixels with which one can print a large image, so I never use DX mode in my 24MP Nikon Z6II. Enlarging such a low pixel image to print size results in severe image degradation. This is why I rather put a teleconverter on the lens so that I can get to 700mm and still have all my pixels available for post processing. The upside of using a teleconverter on this specific camera is that there is very little image degradation caused by the teleconverter so the final image quality is still very good. The downside is the loss of light through the converter. It turns my F/5.6 lens to an F/8 combo, which is not very suitable for low light situations.

Using a high pixel FX camera, say one with a 46MP sensor, changes the equation. A 46MP camera set to DX mode crops the image down to roughly 20MP, which is still sufficient for enlarging to a fair print size. The choice whether to use the DX crop mode or use a teleconverter in this case is therefore harder to make. The more a final image has to be enlarged for final output though, the more the IQ is degraded. Using a teleconverter in my opinion will always result in better image quality than cropping the image.

I trust some of our friends using high pixel cameras will add their thoughts here.
Thank you for your informative comment. I should have added that I do own a 46MP sensor FX camera.
 
A 500 mm lens is always a 500mm lens. It does not become a 750mm lens by cropping. A teleconverter does add a magnifying element that does turn the 500 mm lens into a 700 mm lens.

When you switch to DX it is still the same lens, just cropped with exactly the same results as you would get by cropping later on the computer. Imagine viewing an 8x10 print at arms length, then getting scissors and cutting out a 4x5 print from the middle. If you still held it at arms length there obviously would be no difference since it is exactly the same print. However once you hold it closer to match the 8 x10 size or had the crop print enlarged to 8x10 you might notice the noise more and it won't seem as sharp, and it won't seem to have as much depth of field. On a screen you notice the same thing. Obviously it is the same since it is exactly the same image, until you resize it to match the full frame (or downsize the full frame to match the crop). Then you notice it is noisier, not as sharp, and not as much depth of field.

The teleconverter adds an extra glass element that magnifies the 500 mm lens, so you could say with a 1.4 for all purposes it is a 700 mm lens. The 1.4 eats one stop of light, and the extra glass can never improve the image quality of the original lens, but a good one doesn't impact it very much.
 
Last edited:
I used to love and abuse TCs.
Now I rarely use them.
I just prefer the final image I get (and the consistency of AF) from my bare lenses and I feel that a crop of my bare lens image to the same FOV as what a TC would have given me ends up being about equal and I even sometimes prefer the cropped image over the TC image.
Most of my preferences are from just in the field results. But I've also setup controlled scenarios to try and test. I did find that there is a tip over point when you have cropped the bare lens too much and then the TC shot wins. However, in the field when I'm shooting moving subjects handheld, I find the AF from the bare lens and the contrast from the bare lens makes it my choice. It also forces me to wait for subjects that are closer and I think that helps with atmospherics that come into play if I reach out with TCs to subjects that are too far for the given day's atmosphere at distance.
 
DX is simple a digital magnification - you can lose detail in pixelation for example, while a teleconverter is an actual image magnification as seen through the lens.


I’d be curious if Steve has changed his opinion at all. The video is 6 years old, more MP cameras now and new camera mounts have much better glass and TC now than what we had 6 years ago.
 
I’d be curious if Steve has changed his opinion at all. The video is 6 years old, more MP cameras now and new camera mounts have much better glass and TC now than what we had 6 years ago.
I’d bet he has altered his view over that period … I hadn‘t realised it was so old!@Steve looks so young 😂😂
thee big mp cameras do make a difference when they can be cropped and still have 24 MPs.
 
I’d be curious if Steve has changed his opinion at all. The video is 6 years old, more MP cameras now and new camera mounts have much better glass and TC now than what we had 6 years ago.
@DavidT +1 and a fortiori on Nikon optics that embed the converter directly in the lens.
 
Last edited:
I use both, but tend to use crop mode most often because I can easily change to it (and back) without removing the lens, and I also don't lose a stop of light. With a 46mp sensor you still get plenty of resolution. I have a function button set on my D850 and Z7 to change the mode, so it is quick and easy to go back and forth and I don't miss shots removing the lens to install or remove the TC, which has happened to me.
 
I’d bet he has altered his view over that period … I hadn‘t realised it was so old!@Steve looks so young 😂😂
thee big mp cameras do make a difference when they can be cropped and still have 24 MPs.
Yeah I suspect you’re right. The D850 started the two cameras in one. Now mirrorless high MP cameras have taken that to the next level.
 
Good day. My question is, what are the differences between using a 1.5 teleconverter vs. dx mode?
A 500mm lens = 750mm in both incidences. Is there a good reason as to why people buy one, rather than use the DX camera mode?
I would do the experiment to find out the result(s) but I do not own a teleconverter.
Switching your camera to DX or putting on a DX lens won't change your fstop...a teleconverter will. Generally speaking and everything else being equal, low light will force you to higher ISO sooner with a TC on your camera. I think any other difference would be just a matter of what you are trying to do and how you like doing it the most.
 
Switching your camera to DX or putting on a DX lens won't change your fstop...a teleconverter will. Generally speaking and everything else being equal, low light will force you to higher ISO sooner with a TC on your camera. I think any other difference would be just a matter of what you are trying to do and how you like doing it the most.

That's true, but cropping has the effect of raising ISO, so there is some offset. And adding a teleconverter increases the effective focal length changing the DOF calculation, but also increases the aperture so effective DOF is greater and you need to raise ISO to maintain shutter speed.

Add to all this that the newest teleconverters are very good with the newest lenses.
 
I’d be curious if Steve has changed his opinion at all. The video is 6 years old, more MP cameras now and new camera mounts have much better glass and TC now than what we had 6 years ago.
Nope. Good lenses and good TCs used properly work are still better than cropping IMO. Plus, you lose subject isolation when you crop vs using a TC.

However, it's also a case by case basis. As Geoff mentions, AF accuracy isn't as good with TCs attached so for tougher, more active subjects, it's sometimes better to crop. Especially if we're talking a 2X. I find that 2X TCs are only OK for action and I have much better success with them when the animal and I are stationary (you know, more or less LOL) :)
 
Nope. Good lenses and good TCs used properly work are still better than cropping IMO. Plus, you lose subject isolation when you crop vs using a TC.

However, it's also a case by case basis. As Geoff mentions, AF accuracy isn't as good with TCs attached so for tougher, more active subjects, it's sometimes better to crop. Especially if we're talking a 2X. I find that 2X TCs are only OK for action and I have much better success with them when the animal and I are stationary (you know, more or less LOL) :)
For whatever it's worth I think you are absolutely correct about the good lenses and good TCs being the proper solution. At the moment even though I own almost every Z system lens sold except the Noct and some of the wide angles and the super long lenses that I just don't have a use for. A 2x TC and 100-400 is cool enough in my world so I am tracking with you on that ultimately being the best solution. To me the 100-400 is the most perfect photography tool I have ever touched and a TC does absolutely nothing to degrade the experience except when the light gets low and even then it's just a matter of letting the Z9 computer go to work and start using electronic high ISO tricks to deal with the light issue.

My brain wasn't shifted into Z terms when I first responded and I wasn't thinking about how few of the Z lens even work with a teleconverter. Two lenses in my case, a 100-400 and a 70-200 and to me makes no sense to attach to a 2x converter to a 70-200 when there is a 100-400 sitting right next to it.

My cropping preference remarks kind of reflect the fact that I have the F3 button on my Z9 set to switch between FX and DX fields of view should I want to reduce the framing of what I am seeing in the EVF while composing. It works really well for me as a cropping in the field tool as opposed to pruning in post.

I should also have included one other key difference between Z teleconverters and using the DX option...$500 dollar per TC for a total of $1000 for the pair. $600 if you don't buy them at Christmas time on sale;) Enough money to buy an ordinary amateur photographer a pretty cool Z lens for their camera that he or she could use every day or put towards the price of the proper telephoto lens that better meets their needs. With most of the Z lenses I use DX as the better option because it's the only option beyond using an FTZ contraption.

Here's a personal solution that sort of fits the original question that may also apply to at least a few others in the group who don't make their living shooting critters from a hundred of yards away every day. I shoot a Z FC DX body that weighs less than a pound. Often with the Z 100-400 and Z 70-200 lenses, sometimes with the 2X TC, and it is a perfectly balanced camera and lens combination that makes me happy that I left the Z9 at home on days when I can live without all the Z9 bell and whistle computing power and 2.5 extra pounds of weight;) I bought the Z FC because slinging the Z9 around all day hanging from the fingers of my right hand was taking a major toll on my shoulder and elbow. The improved weight balance alone makes for reduced motion blur from shaking hands. With the FC and 100-400 the center of mass is in the center of the zoom ring and it balances perfectly cradled in my left palm even with the TC on the lens. When using the Z9 the center of mass is 2.5 pounds greater and centered over the camera battery in the body pulling the aft end downwards and it feels clumsy and awkward.

And if FC ends up not being enough camera for what I am trying to accomplish I break out either the Z7II or Z9, switch to full frame and take it from there. It's my opinion that very few people on the planet can see with the naked eye the difference between properly exposed and properly composed images from any Z body without seeing the data so I worry less about which body I am using and just have fun concentrating on taking pictures correctly with what's in my hand at the moment.

That way I'm still having fun, my photographs don't usually suck too bad and the photo world stays in perfect harmony;) Happy shooting everybody.
 
As Geoff mentions, AF accuracy isn't as good with TCs attached so for tougher, more active subjects, it's sometimes better to crop.
How is this shaping up with the 600 TC Steve, compared to the FL with TC 1.4 attached? Any more noticeable delay in AF when transitioning between 600 and 840?
 
Back
Top