Ray Hennessy: Are Teleconverters Necessary for Wildlife Photography

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).

Member's gallery
RikWriter said:
Don't care what he says. I'm using them anyway.
Click to expand...
I think that what we've gotten out of this post. Some like using the TC's and others don't fit various reasons.

I don't think the video or this thread was ever meant to change anyone's mind but to give people insight as to why people use or didn't use the TC's
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
The Canon RF 1.4x is very expensive. It has limited compatibility to the RF lenses (won't fit my 100L macro and hobbles the 100-500L). I would expect image quality to be good, and cropping also gives good results. The greatest benefit of the 1.4x might be more accurate (albeit slower) AF of distant subjects. Not sure a difference would be noticeable except under perfect conditions. Maybe I'll get one, but so far I haven't.
 
Member's gallery
A 1.4x or 2x TC or a crop of the bare lens to match the 1.4x or 2x TC may be a wash in many instances. Cropping too much on a lower MP body may not be possible, hence why TC's were more of a benefit in the D700 days and why we had a 1.7x TC but probably won't see one again. However, if you need to crop and use the 1.4x or 2x TC, then you may run out of pixels and why using one may be of benefit.
 
Member's gallery
EricKlees said:
Odd. With my D500+500PF I would crop as much as 100% and retain better IQ then adding the 1.4x III TC. You couldn't pay me to use the TC and lose the light and IQ. Keep in mind that the D500 20.9mp APS-C has the pixel density of a FF 48.5mp sensor.

Now the 500PF adapted to my Z9 with the 1.4x III TC was pretty amazing. I had a hard time seeing and loss in IQ with it without the TC even with both situations cropping in 100% but for me it's still the about the loss of light and AF speed. But that could easily be explained by the have the AF come directly off the sensor and it's much more consistent getting critical focus then having to AF fine tune lenses on DSLRs. I wasn't happy when i borrowed a friends Z1.4x TC with my 800PF lens. The AF was a bit jumpy even with a Bald Eagle with a clear blue sky
Click to expand...
Now that's interesting. With my D500 + 500pf I'd take the 1.4 III TC over equivalent cropping any day of the week for IQ. I found that combination quite sharp.

Now, putting the 1.4 on that combo severely degrades AF, but I had no concerns about IQ. On some very bright days with larger birds I had some BIF shots using the TC I really liked as well.

To each his own!
 
Member's gallery
MLB01 said:
Have been considering adding the Nikon 1.4x tele for extended reach on my 400 f/4.5 lens. Came upon interesting video from Ray Hennessy, in his opinion teleconverters on high resolution cameras such as the Nikon Z8/Z9 do not offer much of an advantage vs cropping as far as image quality is concerned.

Summary of his opinion at 10:29 mark in video.

Thoughts??


Click to expand...
Very interesting! Has anyone done a similar analysis of just switching formats in camera (from full frame to DX in my Z9)? Basically looking at the same difference (45MP to 20something MP).
 
Member's gallery
simplynature said:
Very interesting! Has anyone done a similar analysis of just switching formats in camera (from full frame to DX in my Z9)? Basically looking at the same difference (45MP to 20something MP).
Click to expand...
I only use DX mode when the subject is smaller in the EVF and the AF is bouncing back and forth from a single SD at box to the multiple small af boxes meaning the camera is not f recognizing the subject as a bird. Switching to DX would allow the camera to recognize the subject and even lock up the head or eye.

Also the DX Raw file is 19.2mp
 
Member's gallery
Cameron T said:
I'd really love to one day understand why people think switching to dx mode is any different than cropping in post (wrt image quality) to the same size.
Click to expand...
I think it's probably got to do with the fact that there is this silly and extremely misleading convention, even among people who fully understand how it really works, of talking about DX/APS-C bodies as having "more reach." Lots of people who are inexperienced or less knowledgeable about photography see discussions all the time where people talk about DX having "more reach" and even people who don't like the usage just go with it and don't say anything because it's so ubiquitous that there's no point in trying to "correct" it every time you see it.
 
Member's gallery
MLB01 said:
Have been considering adding the Nikon 1.4x tele for extended reach on my 400 f/4.5 lens. Came upon interesting video from Ray Hennessy, in his opinion teleconverters on high resolution cameras such as the Nikon Z8/Z9 do not offer much of an advantage vs cropping as far as image quality is concerned.

Summary of his opinion at 10:29 mark in video.

Thoughts??


Click to expand...

For this one you might take a look at the review for the Z teleconverters at Photographylife that also includes some comparisons around this topic.
I found this quite interesting, because it shows that the drop in resolution that you typically get from any TC is only one side of the medal.
But again this all depends on which level you are hunting for IQ :). And all this fits nicely together with what @Steve told us in terms of "Cropping ? Better drop your ISO". At least for me I can say that this proved to be right, although admitteldy I didn't perform tests on an high "academic" level. It was the reason to take the old TC-17E II out of the draw where it spent a couple of years now, because it was known not to work well with my old AF-S 500 f4 G , mainly because of AF issues on the DSLRs. But with the Z8 the AF limitations are much, much smaller, so that I can now benefit from additional focal length rather than cropping. The only reason for not using Z TC's yet is that I haven't got Z lenses in my lineup that are fast enough. Using a 1,4 would mean ending up at f8 with the 100-400 or even f9 with the 180-600 and that is nothing I would like to use on a regular basis.
 
Member's gallery
fcotterill said:
I find this guy's argument wrong headed for several reasons.

A few factors to consider, based on many articles as well as my experience with many telephotos and both the Z and F TCs.... including 400 f2.8E, 800 PF, 800 f5.6E, 300 PF and 500 PF, which pair very well with TCs.

1. For starters, the attributes of the internal TCs in high priced exotics (400 f2.8S TC in this video) do not equate to those of External TCs. One unknown factor is Nikon likely uses different proprietary glass elements in these Exotics in addition to fluorite, which is suspected to justify the 5 figure prices (I base this argument on what is known about the optical elements in the 58 f0.95 NeoNoct.) in addition, the 400 TC and 600 TC benefit from NANO and ARNEO lens coatings to minimize flare;

2. Together with the 180-400 f4E TC14 (my primary "Mammal lens"), the integral TC in 400 and 600 Z primes are bespoke optics. Besides being designed as an optimal unified optical instrument; a skilled technician hand calibrates and tests each TC and its individual lens as a unit... Hence the integral high quality of these Exotics stands out in noticably better high image quality compared to more affordable telephotos, especially dealing with flare, backlighting etc;

3. Above all, their key advantage is the speed to "change" the internal Teleconverter;

4. A TC is used with respect for its limitations. A cropped TC image stands out in loss of quality;

5. Image quality tends to drop off over longer subject distances using a Teleconverter; in as much one can control for compounding impacts of negative atmospherics. The internal TCs are possibly less susceptible to the Distance penalty, but I haven't seen this tested rigorously. So cropping without a TC may in fact be preferable in such cases.... If the subject permits, try both methods;

6. There are indeed some lenses that perform poorly with an external TC, so cropping is the best available compromise to capture the image;

7. Finally, Pixels/Duck matter.... Opposite to cropping, a TC puts more pixels on the subject. Period
Click to expand...
TY for point 7. If one can afford a $15K+ lens, then I suppose one can maintain the vehement anti-TC position. Otherwise, for the rest of us, a TC can be used wisely to great effect. Certainly true in the Z glass era.

Les
 
Member's gallery
Woodpecker said:
For this one you might take a look at the review for the Z teleconverters at Photographylife that also includes some comparisons around this topic.
I found this quite interesting, because it shows that the drop in resolution that you typically get from any TC is only one side of the medal.
But again this all depends on which level you are hunting for IQ :). And all this fits nicely together with what @Steve told us in terms of "Cropping ? Better drop your ISO". At least for me I can say that this proved to be right, although admitteldy I didn't perform tests on an high "academic" level. It was the reason to take the old TC-17E II out of the draw where it spent a couple of years now, because it was known not to work well with my old AF-S 500 f4 G , mainly because of AF issues on the DSLRs. But with the Z8 the AF limitations are much, much smaller, so that I can now benefit from additional focal length rather than cropping. The only reason for not using Z TC's yet is that I haven't got Z lenses in my lineup that are fast enough. Using a 1,4 would mean ending up at f8 with the 100-400 or even f9 with the 180-600 and that is nothing I would like to use on a regular basis.
Click to expand...
I cureently have the Z 400 f4.5, and the reports are that the 1.4x tele perform well with this lens.
 
One has only to try it for oneself to verify that AF improves in crop mode. I experimented on my R5 and found it did help.
 
Member's gallery
ajrmd said:
Because there are (unverified) claims that it assists the AF and results in more in focus images.
Click to expand...
@Cameron T is correct. There is no difference between cropping in post and shooting in Dx mode. However, shooting in Dx mode at a distant subject substantially enhances the chances of obtaining a sharp photo. I for one will use Dx mode on my Z9 for precisely that reason and, after shooting nearly every day in Yellowstone for the past year, I can attest that my chances of getting a focus lock on a distant subject is much improved by the use of it over attempting a lock on a distant subject in Fx mode. The larger the subject in the EVF the greater the chance the AF system will see and identify the animal and perhaps even pick up the eye. When that doesn't work, I remain in Dx mode but switch to single point to focus on the eye.
 
Member's gallery
ajrmd said:
Because there are (unverified) claims that it assists the AF and results in more in focus images.
Click to expand...
There is no question it helps the AF system. When the bird or subject is at our close to the limitor it just has a harder time with locking up the eye, switching to DX the AF box snaps directly to the eye. Back to FX and you see the AF box webpage and go to the head or body. Switch back to DX ava it snaps baby to directly to the eye

I'm not sure if this is the case with with other camera brand not this works for the Z9 and Z8. Likely due to the fact the 2 camera pulls the AF works directly off the EVF with the dual pipe tech. The larger the subject in the EVF, the easier the subject detection can recognize the subject and the eye.

This is easily reproducable and obvious in what's happening.
 
Member's gallery
Articles I have read claim you will in most cases get better IQ with a TC vs cropping to the equivalent size. Steve has convinced me to go for larger images in the frame whenever possible so I don’t hesitate to add a TC if it will get me closer when no other option is available. I use the 400 f4.5 and the 600pf and on both lenses I use the 1.4tc assuming there is adequate light. You are at f9 with the 600pf and the 1.4tc but in decent light it works fine and the IQ is still excellent. The 2x is more difficult to get tack sharp images so I would use it but only as a last resort. Before I had the 600pf i would use the 400 with the 2x and was surprised how good some of the shots came out in spite of the combo having relatively poor performance and nasty CA. Now I have the 600of with the 1.4 which is better. I do like more pixels on the subject. The z cameras are so much better at subject acquisition that only in dim light do I have much problem. I rarely need to use DX mode but will use it in dense conditions going after a small subject.
 
Member's gallery
Cameron T said:
That has nothing to do with my point. Cropping (and shooting in DX) all else being equal is no different. That's the point. If you want to discuss other points, that's fine, but you're ignoring what I said in the process.
Click to expand...
It's precisely the point with respect to critical AF and that's the only reason I would shoot in DX (or maybe if I didn't have memory space). Yes, all things being equal, there is no difference whether one crops in camera versus post. ;)
 
Member's gallery
ajrmd said:
It's precisely the point with respect to critical AF and that's the only reason I would shoot in DX (or maybe if I didn't have memory space). Yes, all things being equal, there is no difference whether one crops in camera versus post. ;)
Click to expand...
You're right. The point that I took Cameron to be referring to is that there are a lot of people who think that there IS a difference.

When I am out shooting, I will try to stay in FX mode and I know in that case that I have some room to crop. When a subject is far enough away I may go into DX mode to either help the AF or just because it helps me to get a better sense of whether or not a longer range photo is worth taking to see it in DX mode and what it looks like there. However, I also know that when I am in DX mode that I really can't expect to be able to crop much after so the photo really needs to look about right in the viewfinder.

Reading lots of forums and social media there are a lot of people who understand things differently and think that there is some kind of practical difference in terms of resolution or croppability or something whether they shoot in DX mode or crop after. Now I wouldn't say it's always consistent: I've seen it go both ways. I've seen people that think that staying in FX mode will mean that the final photo will look better if they crop down to DX size as compared to if they went to DX mode in camera. I've also seen people who think that if they shoot something in FX mode and then crop to a given size that it will look worse than if they shoot in DX mode and crop it to the same size from there, since in DX mode they'll be "cropping less."

Now although I said I've seen it both ways, I think the latter is more common and that's why I said I think part of the issue is the way people talk about DX cameras as having "more reach." Whether because of that convention or for some other reason there are a definite group of people who seem to be under the impression that DX mode is like some kind of "digital zoom" or some other kind of technological sorcery that gives you more zoom on the image but still fills the whole sensor or something.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top