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).

M

MLB01

Member
Member's gallery
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??


 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
For me, they aren't necessary at all. I prefer to crop to retain higher IQ, AF speed and the light. Those far outweigh keeping all my pixels. Unless you fully filling the frame for close ups , the action shots much further out isn't going to reveal the highest level of detail anyway. I also prefer to rely on my field craft as well.

Edit. I should have mentioned in talking about an external TC. The built in TC's are optically matched and are technically is part of the entire optical formula of the entire lens element range. So i agree the 14k ava 15.5k leaves the TC's are very very good. Just would use an external TC
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
In today's world of photography, noise really isn't much a point of concern with all the Denoising software and the high ISO performance is today's sensors.

The only time I end up with an image that is truly unusable is if the size of the noise is wider or larger that the detail. At that point no software will Denoise and retain the detail.

I regularly crop in as much at 100% with my Z9+800PF with no issue retaining high a high level of feather detail with noise removed and printing upwards of 24x36 and higher occasionally and retaining very high quality detail
 
Member's gallery
Necessary is a bit harsh. True…with a high MP camera ypu can crop but as Steve has shown that increases noise. A TC can decrease IQ zoomed in LR but not necessarily at output resolution…but what the TC does give you is my old standby POD for pixels on duck…and more pixels on the subject increases detail which is always a good thing. With the Z lenses and TCs…and probably with the newer Sony and Canon ones as well…using the 1.4 doesn’t really hurt IQ much and even the 2.0 is usable in bright enough light and situations where you just can’t get closer. But…Ray is technically correct as for any display purposes and most printing purposes 19…or even 12…MP is really more than sufficient…but in some cases even with using a TC one must crop because getting closer isn’t feasible, and in those cases more POD is a good thing. The alternative is to always carry an 800PF…and besides the cost impact of taking a lens that is too much for many situations…it severely limits whatever else you might take for a weight on the hike limit or a space in the backpack to get on the plane limit.

OTOH…Simon makes a lot of good points relative to getting better photos…but overall…at least with primes or zooms that take the RC well and with todays software for me the first option is more POD which means the TC in good light, particularly if it helps AF performance…but also consider the better is the enemy of good enough principle which is my second option. Amd sometimes…just widening out and shooting environmental comp instead of a portrait is what you gotta do.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
The question that comes to my mind is - With the teleconverter making the subject appear bigger on camera sensor does it not help better subject tracking than without one for relatively far away subjects? Yes, it slows down the AF speed; however, with fast prime lenses that problem may not be as noticeable. Saying that my motto in bird in flight photography is to nail the shots for close-up birds than trying to get photos for far away bird with a TC - I hardly ever use them for that reason.
 
Member's gallery
Listened to Rays argument (love his style BTW) and his - single - example but ……….. pixels.

We are absolutely spoiled today with cameras like the Z8/9s and the Canon, Sony equivalents. I often shoot my Z8 in DX mode (yeah, I know) or use the crop tool (amazing how often my crops take 45MP down to about 20MP).

But …… if I had the 400mm 2.8 TC - I don’t but I’m not really that envious with my beautiful 600mm 6.3 - if I had that lens, I would absolutely use the TC, as often as necessary. Then possibly crop further if necessary.

My second wildlife/bird kit is my OM1 + 150-400mm 4.5 TC combo (300mm - 1000mm ffe). Oly doesn’t give me the luxury of pixels. IQ is already lower than my Nikon gear and when I crop, well, the quality quickly falls off, especially in lower light. So my TC lever gets flipped often. Why? To retain pixels. Love the combo and the portability of M43 for wildlife, nature, travel and street photos but the compromise of IQ is there.

So, sorry to disagree Ray, but ………. pixels count.
 
Last edited:
Member's gallery
I plan on trying a TC eventually but I can say this as someone who hasn't tried one yet: I see a lot of photos from Steve (and others) which use a TC and look far, far better in terms of IQ and detail than anything I've generally been able to get by cropping by an amount equivalent to the TC magnification and to the same general subject size.
 
Member's gallery
SCoombs said:
I plan on trying a TC eventually but I can say this as someone who hasn't tried one yet: I see a lot of photos from Steve (and others) which use a TC and look far, far better in terms of IQ and detail than anything I've generally been able to get by cropping by an amount equivalent to the TC magnification and to the same general subject size.
Click to expand...
Of course, that's a bit like indicating that Michelangelo used different scaffolding than you do when painting ceilings... ;)
 
Member's gallery
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
 
Member's gallery
All considered, it is very hard to condemn the sharpness of a modern Telephoto when comparing the current choices for Nikon. Comparisons and tyre kicking exercises try and establish how the different models differ. Field tests give more reliable and representative answers than MTF charts and close up images of test charts.

These candidates include certain well known Teleconverter Pairings eg the TC14 III with 500 f5.6E PF, 300 f2.8G, 400 f2.8E are examples besides several others, including Z System Pairings with the ZTC14

Brad Hill's exhaustive tests have begun: 180-600, 600PF, 150-500

It seems to me that we can get caught up in reviews and second guess the performance of a lens we love. We are looking for the affirmation the we made a smart purchase. I see that in a lot of forums. At this point I find reviews interesting and informative but I usually try to read those before...
bcgforums.com bcgforums.com

Converters with z9

I’m also curious about Thom’s comment not to sell the 500pf for a 400+TC. Compared to the F-mount 500mm f/5.6E PF, the 400mm f/4.5 VR S with a 1.4x teleconverter (560mm, so not perfectly comparable) seems to do slightly worse in the center, slightly better in the corners. For most telephoto...
bcgforums.com bcgforums.com
 
Member's gallery
I agree that like a lot of stuff it depends on several things including the lens you might slap a TC onto, the camera in use both in terms of resolution (how much cropping headroom in a pixel sense) and AF performance when using a TC and the scenario; as in trying to span longer distances with a TC followed by heavy cropping for a large subject vs using a TC or cropping to deliver a larger subject size in frame for a relatively small but closer subject.

In addition to the links above, @Steve looked at this a while ago and though the net conclusion is that it depends and either choice can work depending on the situation and the gear, from a pure IQ standpoint at moderate test distances TCs had a slight advantage and since then the quality of TCs has only improved:

backcountrygallery.com

Use A Teleconverter Or Crop The Image? - Backcountry Gallery

Think fast! You’re out searching for wildlife – your camera in hand – when you spot some critter you’ve always wanted to bag off in the distance. Sadly, you know that your lens is just not going to be quite long enough to get the shot you want on its own. So, here’s the question – […]
backcountrygallery.com backcountrygallery.com

FWIW, I often use a TC with my 600mm f/4, 500mm PF or 300mm PF lenses(and a TC can be awesome on the 105mm F mount macro lens) but if things are happening fast I have no hesitation to just shoot and depend on cropping (in camera or in post) when I don't want to fiddle with a TC or lose time mounting one especially when shooting the Z8 or Z9. If I ever scrape up the cash to upgrade to one of the lenses with integrated TCs that might change but cropping to say DX crop factor or thereabouts is something I'll do without hesitation if I'm shooting the bare lens and don't think I have time to mount the TC or just don't have it with me for some reason.

Bottom line, folks are capturing fantastic high quality images relying on cropping or utilizing TCs so there's no single right or wrong answer. Use what works for you.
 
The IQ loss when using a TC varies from one lens/TC combination to another so I would not make any broad generalizations about TC use.

In my experience: the IQ of the Sony 100-400 GM suffers when adding the Sony 1.4x TC, with the 600 GM the IQ loss is barely perceptible, and with the 300 GM not at all.
With the Sony 2x TC and the 300 GM the IQ loss is negligible; for this lens/TC combination and for the 600 GM/1.4x TC, I favor pixels per duck. YMMV.
 
Member's gallery
The 1.4x teleconverter provides a 40% increase in image magnification. Cropping may work if image quality is not particularly important or having sharp focus on a small subject or the eyes of a subject. Cropping takes time and I quickly learned when shooting two to three thousand images at a wedding that it was far better to crop in the camera and avoid spending the time doing so manually in post processing.

It is why I loved the Nikon 5:4 crop introduced with the D3 and sadly eliminated for the Z9 camera. I could batch process image files for 8x10 prints for clients with no direct involvement needed.

Smarter to use DX mode if one plans to crop an image which works well if the subject is not in motion. For BIF the DX field of view is to restrictive and it is extremely difficult to get the subject in the best location in the frame. It is why after using the D500 I was glad to upgrade to the full frame D850 camera.
 
Member's gallery
Calson said:
The 1.4x teleconverter provides a 40% increase in image magnification. Cropping may work if image quality is not particularly important or having sharp focus on a small subject or the eyes of a subject. Cropping takes time and I quickly learned when shooting two to three thousand images at a wedding that it was far better to crop in the camera and avoid spending the time doing so manually in post processing.

It is why I loved the Nikon 5:4 crop introduced with the D3 and sadly eliminated for the Z9 camera. I could batch process image files for 8x10 prints for clients with no direct involvement needed.

Smarter to use DX mode if one plans to crop an image which works well if the subject is not in motion. For BIF the DX field of view is to restrictive and it is extremely difficult to get the subject in the best location in the frame. It is why after using the D500 I was glad to upgrade to the full frame D850 camera.
Click to expand...
I see what you're saying, but to me cropping is the fastest part of editing and I think it saves far, far more time to take a few seconds to crop each image than to spend a much, much longer amount fixing a handful of images that wind up having been cut off in the wrong place - especially any shots involving action or movement (in a wedding environment I can think of all sorts of such shots) where there's some unpredictability and you can do everything right but still have something spill just outside of the frame.
 
Member's gallery
Totally agree that it depends on the TC vs. lens (and vs. the camera resolution) combination: my 400E FL works VERY well with 1.4x and 2x (100% crops no problem, and I confess I am a heavy pixel peeper). No way cropping can provide the same details, i.e. 1 pixel thick hairs are still clearly visible in the TC'd image.
My 500 pf takes the 1.4x TC very well but with the 2x TC diffraction clearly softens the image more than just cropping. This might be different with a 24 MP camera (where diffraction kicks in later) but I use the Z8 with its 45 MP.
I also had a Tamron 150-600 G2 on a 45MP Z7 where it was way too soft at 600mm already without a TC. So adding any TC would be wrong no matter how good the TC is. Maybe on a 6MP camera one could even add the 2x TC on this lens..? So it all depends on quite a few factors, camera resolution and lens quality being the largest factors..
 
Member's gallery
Chris K said:
My 500PF shows more resolution with a 1.4x than it does without. And my output format for wildlife is generally 8x10.

I crop and use a TC. The alternative is an 800PF, and I don’t want to spend the money, carry the weight, or cram my backpack to do that.
Click to expand...
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
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top