I think it also depends on what AF mode you were using. I find the larger the subject is in the viewfinder the better the new AF modes work. Also, I use iso's 6400 and above many times in the Costa Rica, because I need the shutter speed. No problems at all even with the 1.4TC. A sharp properly exposed image is the most important. I have even shot at iso 32,000 with the combo. Wildlife photography especially in the rainforests are rarely at iso's below 1250.
Interesting. In previous F mount lenses, I've noticed a definite quality loss when using TC's. I've own two 1.4'xs, a 1.6x, and the 1.7x III TC's. All had some loss of sharpness and contrast, but the 1,4x TC had the least impact. Northrop even did a test and found that using no TC and just cropping in, ended up resolving more detail. I've got a Fuji 200mm f/2 now with the matched 1,4x TC and notice no loss whatsoever, so I think they've got better. Just not long enough for birds even on a crop sensor. I've found for birds, you can never have too much focal length. They're small subjects, it takes a bunch of magnification to fill the frame with one.
Excellent video. Best I have found on this specific question. I moved from Nikon to Olympus 8 years ago as I mostly shoot birds but thinking of moving back to Z6III and either the 400mm f4.5 or as you say the 600mm f6.3. Many thanks for a very thoughtful video !
Excellent discussion. In your analysis of TC use and with some additional post cropping you seem to be ignoring the fact that cropping removes edge of frame pixels which are less sharp than more central pixels. Note that the decrease in sharpness viewed across the central axis need not be necessarily be linear. A comparison of cropped (by various amounts) and resized images against the non-cropped image would be interesting. I note also that the photos in this video were shot at very low ISOs at, perhaps, the expense of higher shutter speeds.
A great comparison and one that I’d been hoping to see for for some time. My sweet spot is defo 400 mm…I shoot birds mainly in bushes and trees in forested areas here in Colombia and I need the lower f-stop but will use the 1.4 tele when light allows. Paired with the Z8 I think I have the perfect trio for stills and video. There is the slight nuisance of having to put the tele on the camera and hope my target subject doesn’t skit ! Many reviews mention the portability of the 400 mm f/4.5 that is also a big factor for me but of course that isn’t in the scope of your comparison
Thanks for the video. I recently got the 100-400 ii L for my Canon R7 and only really getting into shooting wildlife since I’m more of a sports shooter but with the crop factor, 1.4, 1.6 and even the 0.71, I’m spoilt. A little heavy but I’ll look for a longer foot. I think the main thing is the equipment is used, we get out and enjoy the outdoors and absorb some vitamin D. Mic sounds great btw!
Isn’t that the truth! Is we get outside in nature and enjoy it then we’re doing it right! That lens is a fantastic bargain. It’s just as sharp as the rf 100-500
A very interesting video . Congratulations. I want to know your thoughts on using Nikon 300 mm F4 PF lens with TC 1.4 Nikon and with an FTZ adapter. My calculation reveal that I will be getting 630 mm F 5.6. Kindly advice. Thank you
I've had a similar experience. Good that the TC doesn't degrade the image much, But if there isn't much difference why use it? I found shooting f8 with the tc is best but then try to shoot low shutter speeds is a pain to get ISO down. I ended up getting the f mount 400 2.8E, spectacular at every combo including with the 1.7TC making it a 680mm f4.7
Hello! I also use 400 /4.5 with 1.4 TC - wildlife in Europe is much more skittish and getting close enough with naked 400 is impossible, unless shooting from the hide.
True that, in Europe (myself being in Bulgaria) birds seems to be way too shy compared with South and North America, haha. 100-400mm lens was more than challenging. I'm having difficulties even with z800mm so I'm considering the 1.4 TC for a year now but it will extremely hard to frame a flying birds :D
Ah, because of resolution. If you crop to a 600mm field of view, you’re around 20mp with the DX crop. If you use the 1.4x you’re at just under 45 mp and can crop the TC image in further or print higher res.
@@MatthewRaifman why does higher res matter if its not sharper? If the cropped dx mode had the same sharpness as the tc , Why wouldnt it still have equal sharpness at 200%? and ,It does. Does resolution matter if its not actually sharper or capturing more detail?
I wouldn’t recommend cropping beyond 100% especially if printing images. The higher resolution file is better for printing and allows you to further crop in. I think both are sharp enough, so the TC gets you a tighter field of view that can be valuable.
The comparison is troubling - adding an x2 TC costs 2 stops. This mean one either has to reduce shutter speed by 2 stops (~ to a quarter) or increase ISO the same 2 stops. When shooting small birds one needs high shutter speeds - normally 1/2000th or faster. The comparison of static subjects is simply not realistic for anyone shooting action.
Thanks for your comment. Just to clarify, at no point did I mention using at 2x TC. I did discuss adding a 1.4x teleconverter and I also shared the maximum aperture changes from f/4.5 to f/6.3 (a loss of one stop). Of course, a narrower aperture means that one has to either increase ISO or decrease shutter speed. This is a sharpness comparison, not an comprehensive exposure comparison. For this purpose, I would argue a controlled environment like this is ideal as it isolates the difference in sharpness.
Phenomenal video that answered all the questions I had about the performance of the 400mm f/4.5 + 1.4X TC. Thank you!
Thank you so much!
I think it also depends on what AF mode you were using. I find the larger the subject is in the viewfinder the better the new AF modes work. Also, I use iso's 6400 and above many times in the Costa Rica, because I need the shutter speed. No problems at all even with the 1.4TC. A sharp properly exposed image is the most important. I have even shot at iso 32,000 with the combo. Wildlife photography especially in the rainforests are rarely at iso's below 1250.
Interesting. In previous F mount lenses, I've noticed a definite quality loss when using TC's. I've own two 1.4'xs, a 1.6x, and the 1.7x III TC's. All had some loss of sharpness and contrast, but the 1,4x TC had the least impact. Northrop even did a test and found that using no TC and just cropping in, ended up resolving more detail. I've got a Fuji 200mm f/2 now with the matched 1,4x TC and notice no loss whatsoever, so I think they've got better. Just not long enough for birds even on a crop sensor. I've found for birds, you can never have too much focal length. They're small subjects, it takes a bunch of magnification to fill the frame with one.
Excellent video. Best I have found on this specific question. I moved from Nikon to Olympus 8 years ago as I mostly shoot birds but thinking of moving back to Z6III and either the 400mm f4.5 or as you say the 600mm f6.3. Many thanks for a very thoughtful video !
Clear concise, super job..Thanks for sharing.
Thank you!
Excellent discussion. In your analysis of TC use and with some additional post cropping you seem to be ignoring the fact that cropping removes edge of frame pixels which are less sharp than more central pixels. Note that the decrease in sharpness viewed across the central axis need not be necessarily be linear. A comparison of cropped (by various amounts) and resized images against the non-cropped image would be interesting. I note also that the photos in this video were shot at very low ISOs at, perhaps, the expense of higher shutter speeds.
A great comparison and one that I’d been hoping to see for for some time. My sweet spot is defo 400 mm…I shoot birds mainly in bushes and trees in forested areas here in Colombia and I need the lower f-stop but will use the 1.4 tele when light allows. Paired with the Z8 I think I have the perfect trio for stills and video. There is the slight nuisance of having to put the tele on the camera and hope my target subject doesn’t skit ! Many reviews mention the portability of the 400 mm f/4.5 that is also a big factor for me but of course that isn’t in the scope of your comparison
Thanks so much for the comment! Totally agree
Thanks for the video. I recently got the 100-400 ii L for my Canon R7 and only really getting into shooting wildlife since I’m more of a sports shooter but with the crop factor, 1.4, 1.6 and even the 0.71, I’m spoilt. A little heavy but I’ll look for a longer foot. I think the main thing is the equipment is used, we get out and enjoy the outdoors and absorb some vitamin D. Mic sounds great btw!
Isn’t that the truth! Is we get outside in nature and enjoy it then we’re doing it right! That lens is a fantastic bargain. It’s just as sharp as the rf 100-500
Great comparison. Looks like the 1.4x tc doesn't degrade the IQ that much. As a birder, I only care for the center and mid frame sharpness.
Thanks for watching. Agreed, in center and mid-frame the TC performs excellently.
A very interesting video . Congratulations.
I want to know your thoughts on using Nikon 300 mm F4 PF lens with TC 1.4 Nikon and with an FTZ adapter. My calculation reveal that I will be getting 630 mm F 5.6.
Kindly advice. Thank you
It’s just 300mm x 1.4 so that’s 420mm not 630mm.
I've had a similar experience. Good that the TC doesn't degrade the image much, But if there isn't much difference why use it? I found shooting f8 with the tc is best but then try to shoot low shutter speeds is a pain to get ISO down. I ended up getting the f mount 400 2.8E, spectacular at every combo including with the 1.7TC making it a 680mm f4.7
It’s very sharp with 1.4x tc how much more sharpened do you need.
@ Very similar to use dx mode or crop in post. Why risk degrading image rendition on top really
Very clear explanation. I will buy one.
Glad it was helpful!
Hello! I also use 400 /4.5 with 1.4 TC - wildlife in Europe is much more skittish and getting close enough with naked 400 is impossible, unless shooting from the hide.
Absolutely. I think 600-800mm is probably ideal. I’m always cropping even with the 1.4x on.
True that, in Europe (myself being in Bulgaria) birds seems to be way too shy compared with South and North America, haha. 100-400mm lens was more than challenging. I'm having difficulties even with z800mm so I'm considering the 1.4 TC for a year now but it will extremely hard to frame a flying birds :D
Exactly, unless shooting from the hide, I need around 750mm equivalent.
If cropping gives similar results.... why would use it? I didnt get the reason why
Ah, because of resolution. If you crop to a 600mm field of view, you’re around 20mp with the DX crop. If you use the 1.4x you’re at just under 45 mp and can crop the TC image in further or print higher res.
@@MatthewRaifman why does higher res matter if its not sharper? If the cropped dx mode had the same sharpness as the tc , Why wouldnt it still have equal sharpness at 200%? and ,It does. Does resolution matter if its not actually sharper or capturing more detail?
I wouldn’t recommend cropping beyond 100% especially if printing images. The higher resolution file is better for printing and allows you to further crop in. I think both are sharp enough, so the TC gets you a tighter field of view that can be valuable.
@@johncooper9746 higher resolution matters for printing and placing it on a wall. higher res will look better at all distances from viewer.
To me the test board shots with the TC looked better! Strange!
I think there are parts of the frame that might actually be sharper with the 1.4x. I read about this happening in other tests too.
The comparison is troubling - adding an x2 TC costs 2 stops. This mean one either has to reduce shutter speed by 2 stops (~ to a quarter) or increase ISO the same 2 stops.
When shooting small birds one needs high shutter speeds - normally 1/2000th or faster.
The comparison of static subjects is simply not realistic for anyone shooting action.
Thanks for your comment. Just to clarify, at no point did I mention using at 2x TC. I did discuss adding a 1.4x teleconverter and I also shared the maximum aperture changes from f/4.5 to f/6.3 (a loss of one stop). Of course, a narrower aperture means that one has to either increase ISO or decrease shutter speed. This is a sharpness comparison, not an comprehensive exposure comparison. For this purpose, I would argue a controlled environment like this is ideal as it isolates the difference in sharpness.