I do exactly this (with Z8 and 1.4 Z tele). Decision in the field is based on light, how fast the subject is moving and if getting closer is a possibility. I use a combo of crop or 1.4 Z tele or both if that is the only way. I would not give up my 1.4Z tele nor would I want a fixed 600mm as often it is too close and when the 400mm isn't close enough I have the above options (which do result in great images mostly unless bad light) and or the wider view reminds that often some environment context makes for a better image/story. I LOVE the 400mm f4.5. Being a f4.5 it really gives that prime lens pop, focusing accuracy and is so easy to handhold all day. If a subject is so far away that an 800mm is needed it will rarely be anything more than a record shot anyway due to magnification of everything including the quality of air between the lens and subject, unless rare circumstance like its bright sun straight after rain and the view is crisp. People forget the air itself is a lens and its quality varies a lot.
I love the 1.4x Teleconverter on my 100-400mm. The Z100-400mm F4.5-6.3 lens is great. I have used the 2.0x Teleconverter on it as well. It definitely impacted focusing on my Z6II. I have not used it on with my Z8
On my Z70-200/2.8, I bought the 1.4x as I knew it was excellent. The 2x I was always curious about, for Christmas break I ended up renting the 2x and a Zfc. Came to find out that the 2x was also awesome on the Z6 and Zfc. Compared to my F mount Tamron 100-400, the Tamron may very slightly eek it out in the center, but just very slightly. However across the whole frame the 2x on the Z70-200/2.8 was far better on both Z6 and Zfc than the Tamron 100-400. The VR was also night and day superior to the Tamron (especially for video which is nearly unusable). In the end I kept both the Zfc and the 2x. I should probably sell the Tamron 100-400.
It's lens resolving ability versus sensor pixel density. Having sharp shot means you're asking the lens to resolve as many pixels as the sensor has. When you add a 1.4 or 2x you're asking that cropped area of the lens to resolve enough pixels to meat that of the sensor. At some point you're asking the lens to resolve more than it can. Lowering the pixel density of the sensor by going to a 24mp body reduces the requirements for the lens+tele combo, making it a 2x might be possible. I shoot a sony a1 with a 600 f4 and just recently got the 1.4x. I'm not seeing a drop in quality. If I went with the 2x I think I would have, and probably would need to switch to an a9 to get acceptably sharp images. That's my theory.
That would make sense and thanks for the explanation, I just haven't seen anyone say they are better with lower MP cameras. But guess most wildlife photographers use expensive cameras
Love the 2x on my 70-200 f/2.8 S, still remain at f/5.6 with the TC. Don't really see too much image degrade like what they used to in DSLR days. Amazing product
I played with the 400mm 2.8z with the built in TC at the NEC and wow for me that’s the best option. TCs are great if you know you need that focal length. It’s not a bad solution to save money but you’ve hit the nail on the head you’re better off cropping if you’ve got the MPs
The whole point of teleconverters is to keep the resolution the opposite of cropping. That's how one knows the quality and optimization of a particular teleconverter. The higher the pixel pitch the more difficult it is to keep that quality. It also reflects or magnifies the quality or lack of quality of a lens. Even the the old f mount teleconverters that were less capable than the new Z mount ones, worked almost flawlessly with my 200f2 and 300 f2.8 lenses, certainly the 1.4 and 1.7 teles did...
You should get the 1.4 Teleconverter for the 400 4.5 S lens. The IQ is better than the 2X converter - nearly no loss. Then you will have a 560 F.6.3 lens that is still quite sharp. -PD
The (one) reason teleconverters degrade an image is the f-stop increase. Larger f-stop, more diffraction. However, this is only an issue when the diffraction airy disk size is bigger than your sensor pixel size. Every sensor has an f-stop where the diffraction limit exceeds the sensor resolution. The f2.8 70-200 with 2x tele is significantly sharper on my Z7Ii and Z9 than the equivalent digital zoom. The f6.3 160-600 with 2x is slightly worse than digital zoom on my Z7II and Z9 and slightly better on my lower resolution Z6II. All of this measured in lab conditions with test charts.
I often use the Z 600mm f4 with the TC2.0 and the built-in TC1.4. I am very satisfied with the quality. Unfortunately, warm or unclean air has a major influence on the quality of images with a focal length of 1680mm or 1200mm.
This is exactly what I feel gets overlooked. That air between lens and subject is its own lens and some days its god awful and some days its great and everything in between. This is what keeps the anomalies coming and the debate continuing re teles. I make decisions in the field based on the air/light distance of subject if to tele or crop. Preserving widest aperture takes priority (therefore crop) whenever I feel the image is going to be challenge with poor light, focusing challenges, haze and bad air. It is only with good light and air that preserving resolution wins and providing that the circumstance are within capabilities of focus tracking with a tele on. For me there is no de facto “better option” only which is the best option for the scene I am looking at today.
Good point, I think in England we don't have those humidity issues? But good point, longer lenses will have a tough time. Maybe even the 600 6.3 won't be as good in reality of shooting
@@russandloz I am in England and absolutely I would say we have very varied air/light quality. We have haze on a hot day, we can have a lot of dust particles in the air, wind lifts a lot of particles up and also low light is not uncommon. I find the answer to the conundrum of tele or crop is only applicable to each circumstance as you see it. Cropping is better when the subject and air quality is poor and low light as having the lower iso, wider aperture and better focusing for a moving subject will provide the best chance of an image worth editing while great light lends itself to the tele and preserving the resolution, just pointless if focusing is inhibited with poor light or dark shaded subject that is also moving at speed. The debate continues for this exact reason, there is not a "best" answer only the best option for the scene in front of you in that moment. The trick is to learn which option to take in each scene. It will not always be the tele and it will not always be crop. I recommend the 1.4 Z tele as an option in your kit, not so much the 2x.
Exactly. Circumstances are always different even if I perceive them to be the same today and tomorrow. When a cool ground is slowly warmed by the sun, flickering is a sure thing. Often my eyes don't even notice it. Only the photo shows the truth. I photographed hen harriers this winter, unfortunately I always had more and sometimes less aerial flickers. I photographed the black woodpecker absolutely cleanly at 1680mm in the same season. The difference is visible, the black woodpecker is sharper and cleaner.
Thanks for this confusing video LOL !! .. I did get something out of it. 1) Editing the crop is worse than editing the TC image. .. 2) TC 2x is a bit too weak/much I think for my set up ( 180-600 ) so it will be the TC1.4 for me if I do get one. 3) I hope they make a TC1.7 like they did for the Fmount. I use that with the 80-400 4) Happy with my ZF. plus future TC... PS : thanks ..
Have the 1.4 converter and use it on Z8 with the 70-200 and 400 I find it fine but I am not looking at the images at 200%. Have just purchased a ZF going to Bempton cliffs in May will try the ZF with the 70-200 and 1.4 converter and Z8 with the 400 and see if there is any differences.
@@russandloz Overall, i’m pleased with it. I choose it mainly for it versatility, and also for its compact size and weight. (It seemed not much heavier in the hand compared to the 400 f4.5). I also liked the 100-400’s much closer minimum focus distance. I use it for some landscape type photography, as i don't have the 70-200 and we don't have a quality 70-300, the latter of which would have been my preference for landscape work. I got the 1.4TC to get a bit more reach for birds, but that does seem to degrade image quality a bit. I am still hoping Nikon will give us a Z50ii so i could use it with that and have a compact birding kit. If Nikon were to offer a quality 70-300, I'd probably get that (for lighter weight), and then get something like a 500 for the limited amount of bird photography I do. Hope that helps.
Ok so to be fair the 2x tele is a big ask, it will impact 2x on ISO and aperture and in lower light there will be a price to pay in IQ and focusing tracking that is very noticeable despite the new Z tele's being of brilliant quality and design. Try the 1.4 Z tele with the 400 f4.5 because this is a smaller leap and the results are outstanding with the Z8. I have this combo. Nonetheless if the light is low I will crop rather than use the tele as I want optimum focusing/tracking as number one requirement as the image is for the bin if it isn't sharp. So I use a mix of tele and crop with my Z8 and 400mm f4.5 I did promise myself I would never buy a 2x tele for the above reasons following my debacle with he Nikon F mount 2x tele v3. And I am sticking to that promise. And that for me is as definitive as I can be on the matter. 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Thanks for your advise, just seen Photography life's assessment, not sure the 1.4 is even good enough photographylife.com/reviews/nikor-z-400mm-f-4-5-vr-s/3
@@russandloz The 1.4 Z tele is very good. I use it with my 70-200 f2.8 (and cry if while it is on I zoom out to 200 or less!!) and with my 400 f4.5 and Z8 camera. Some scenes are better to crop and keep the wider aperture lower ISO and some scenes are better with the 1.4 tele and greater resolution. It really is that simple, the trick is to read the light, scene, subject size/distance, air quality, focusing requirements and determine which Compromise offers the best chance of the better image. It will not always be the same answer. Once this is accepted as reality the debate is over and it’s down to judgement and experience of reading the scene. I know I’m right 😊
I think I would just save the $600 U.S. price of the 2x teleconverter and set it aside to help pay for the 180-600 5.6-6.3 zoom. I have not tried that zoom yet, but I hear it makes a nice lens for wildlife. I'm not quite sure why someone would get a teleconverter that has the potential of degrading image quality by magnetifying the limitations of a lens and by losing a stop or so of light. I'd rather go with a non-S lens that can get me to 400 or farther natively. I'd almost rather get a APS-C camera and use the full-frame zoom on it to get a little more "reach" if needed. Hopefully Nikon will produce a great APS-C body soon. I'm sure that a teleconverter is useful for some and in many situations and I'm glad it's available, but it just does not fit in with my current workflow. Thanks for the review.
Yeah I get your point, I liked the idea of having a very light 400 and fast 4.5, then adding to it when needed making a better setup than the big heavy 180-600. I see some reviews show the 400 with the 1.4 is the same as the 180-600.
Very confusing video, I couldn't make out what he was on about. I use the 2xTC on my 160 - 600 zoom lens, and on my 70-200 zoom. It's brilliant, and I've had no problems with it.
I'm a bit surprised at why you're confused. In most photos, the TC looked better than the crop. Even if sharpness was not that different, certainly the grain in the cropped photos was not that attractive. I also think that having the magnified image in the viewfinder is a real advantage when shooting, both for the camera's AF, and for composing shots. So, on balance, the TC is significantly useful.
Yeah I had a hard time deciding which was better, it seemed to change from one setup to another. I just didn't like the lowering of image quality using the TC. Seemed to waster such good lenses.
Teleconvertors are old tech and unuseful for hi rez camera vs cropping and upscaling with a quality upscaler. Russ , Id say look into upscaling and denoising deep crops that will let you resharpen without it becoming crunchy vs tcs
@@russandloz That is my favorite method. Generally the trick is to not sharpen lw res crops until after upscaling to an acceptable size. The sharpening algorithms then have an easier time of it making the sharpening blend better.
Have you tried running the images through something like Dxo PureRAW which does lens and camera optimisation. I like PureRAW but Topaz Photo does similar.
I enjoy your videos, but I need to warn you that you are making all the newbie mistakes of someone getting seduced by wildlife and birds. I know. I've made all of them. You need to decide whether you are interested in wildlife or birds. They need different lenses. The Z8 can do both very well, but you can't do both with the same lens. You will try and end up not really liking the results. With wildlife, your 400 will be fine. But for birds, skip the teleconverter and get the 800mm. You are going to end up there sooner or later. The 500mm pf is a great lens on the Z8. With birds, you never have enough length. Bird photography BTW is much more expensive than wildlife. And much more difficult. Finding the bird with 800mm? Use the camera/lens like a binocular. Look at the bird and bring the camera to your eye. I do look forward to your videos. Keep'em coming.
You make a good point, I realise birds are the only wildlife here in the UK that I can see of interest! Still hoping the 400 4.5 with 1.4tc will be good enough for me.
Наука
May be the best solution is ... the 1,4x teleconverter! With the 400mm and the DX mode you can reach 840mm. Not bad!
Will the quality loss os the 1.4 mean it's the same cropping in? I'll find out...
@@russandloz Nice. I can't wait! The 400mm is wonderful and light but I feel that it may be not enough for wild life purposes.
@@luispacheco9683 It's sometimes amazing at 4.5, so light and portable it's so good to use. But sure it needs to be longer sometimes
@@russandlozI have 400 4.5 and 1.4TC, can send you some samples and stuff ❤️
I do exactly this (with Z8 and 1.4 Z tele). Decision in the field is based on light, how fast the subject is moving and if getting closer is a possibility. I use a combo of crop or 1.4 Z tele or both if that is the only way. I would not give up my 1.4Z tele nor would I want a fixed 600mm as often it is too close and when the 400mm isn't close enough I have the above options (which do result in great images mostly unless bad light) and or the wider view reminds that often some environment context makes for a better image/story. I LOVE the 400mm f4.5. Being a f4.5 it really gives that prime lens pop, focusing accuracy and is so easy to handhold all day. If a subject is so far away that an 800mm is needed it will rarely be anything more than a record shot anyway due to magnification of everything including the quality of air between the lens and subject, unless rare circumstance like its bright sun straight after rain and the view is crisp. People forget the air itself is a lens and its quality varies a lot.
I love the 1.4x Teleconverter on my 100-400mm. The Z100-400mm F4.5-6.3 lens is great. I have used the 2.0x Teleconverter on it as well. It definitely impacted focusing on my Z6II. I have not used it on with my Z8
I'm going to get the 1.4 to try hope for better results. Strange how it's not great on the 400.
had same experience as you William
Any reason why you haven’t used it on your Z8?
On my Z70-200/2.8, I bought the 1.4x as I knew it was excellent. The 2x I was always curious about, for Christmas break I ended up renting the 2x and a Zfc. Came to find out that the 2x was also awesome on the Z6 and Zfc. Compared to my F mount Tamron 100-400, the Tamron may very slightly eek it out in the center, but just very slightly. However across the whole frame the 2x on the Z70-200/2.8 was far better on both Z6 and Zfc than the Tamron 100-400. The VR was also night and day superior to the Tamron (especially for video which is nearly unusable). In the end I kept both the Zfc and the 2x. I should probably sell the Tamron 100-400.
Yes it would seem so, glad you found the smaller megapixel cameras do well with the 2xtc, I haven't seen that before.
It's lens resolving ability versus sensor pixel density. Having sharp shot means you're asking the lens to resolve as many pixels as the sensor has. When you add a 1.4 or 2x you're asking that cropped area of the lens to resolve enough pixels to meat that of the sensor. At some point you're asking the lens to resolve more than it can. Lowering the pixel density of the sensor by going to a 24mp body reduces the requirements for the lens+tele combo, making it a 2x might be possible.
I shoot a sony a1 with a 600 f4 and just recently got the 1.4x. I'm not seeing a drop in quality. If I went with the 2x I think I would have, and probably would need to switch to an a9 to get acceptably sharp images.
That's my theory.
That would make sense and thanks for the explanation, I just haven't seen anyone say they are better with lower MP cameras. But guess most wildlife photographers use expensive cameras
Love the 2x on my 70-200 f/2.8 S, still remain at f/5.6 with the TC. Don't really see too much image degrade like what they used to in DSLR days. Amazing product
Is that with z8?
@@russandloz on my Zf and Z6ii
I played with the 400mm 2.8z with the built in TC at the NEC and wow for me that’s the best option. TCs are great if you know you need that focal length. It’s not a bad solution to save money but you’ve hit the nail on the head you’re better off cropping if you’ve got the MPs
I also did the same at the Photography show! Fell in love with it! One day i'll hopefully get one if I can afford it
The whole point of teleconverters is to keep the resolution the opposite of cropping. That's how one knows the quality and optimization of a particular teleconverter. The higher the pixel pitch the more difficult it is to keep that quality. It also reflects or magnifies the quality or lack of quality of a lens. Even the the old f mount teleconverters that were less capable than the new Z mount ones, worked almost flawlessly with my 200f2 and 300 f2.8 lenses, certainly the 1.4 and 1.7 teles did...
Yes it does seem very lens dependant. Though my 400 4.5 is great without it. Strange how the tele can’t make the most of that
You should get the 1.4 Teleconverter for the 400 4.5 S lens. The IQ is better than the 2X converter - nearly no loss. Then you will have a 560 F.6.3 lens that is still quite sharp.
-PD
That's what I'm hoping for, be interesting to see how it will compare to using dx mode and cropping in
that's what I'm seeing too - great lightweight combo!
Thanks for this. Really excellent real world review. I'm looking to get the Z6III when it comes out, and will probably get the 100-400, and the 1.4TC.
Hopefully I'll try and like the 1.4, hopefully loz will get the 100-400 as it'll be interesting to see it compare to the 400 4.5
@@russandloz would love to see that comparison
@@russandloz😮
just got my own Z TC-20 today which I intend to use with the Z8 and Z 800mm Pf. The TC-14 works like a charm so I hope the TC-20 will too
Will have to let us know
@@russandloz what I can say is, that after using the 2x on the 800mm f6.3 pf was like opening Pandoras box. It is incredibly sharp, I'm blown away.
@@johnnyb4011 So that’s a 1600mm F12.6 !?
@@russandloz yes, f13 to be exact. Not really a problem if you're on a tripod. Shoot at 1/250 in bad light. The IBIS synchro works wonders 😃
I have the 1.4 that i use with the 180-600.. Nothing but great results thus far.
Good to hear. On a z8?
The (one) reason teleconverters degrade an image is the f-stop increase. Larger f-stop, more diffraction. However, this is only an issue when the diffraction airy disk size is bigger than your sensor pixel size. Every sensor has an f-stop where the diffraction limit exceeds the sensor resolution. The f2.8 70-200 with 2x tele is significantly sharper on my Z7Ii and Z9 than the equivalent digital zoom. The f6.3 160-600 with 2x is slightly worse than digital zoom on my Z7II and Z9 and slightly better on my lower resolution Z6II. All of this measured in lab conditions with test charts.
Yes good points there. On test charts it doesn’t show the reality of shooting.
the other reason is it distorts the light.
I prefer the 1.4 teleconverter for the Z system, images are closer and perfect.
That’s what I’m hoping. On z8?
I often use the Z 600mm f4 with the TC2.0 and the built-in TC1.4. I am very satisfied with the quality. Unfortunately, warm or unclean air has a major influence on the quality of images with a focal length of 1680mm or 1200mm.
This is exactly what I feel gets overlooked. That air between lens and subject is its own lens and some days its god awful and some days its great and everything in between. This is what keeps the anomalies coming and the debate continuing re teles. I make decisions in the field based on the air/light distance of subject if to tele or crop. Preserving widest aperture takes priority (therefore crop) whenever I feel the image is going to be challenge with poor light, focusing challenges, haze and bad air. It is only with good light and air that preserving resolution wins and providing that the circumstance are within capabilities of focus tracking with a tele on.
For me there is no de facto “better option” only which is the best option for the scene I am looking at today.
Good point, I think in England we don't have those humidity issues? But good point, longer lenses will have a tough time. Maybe even the 600 6.3 won't be as good in reality of shooting
@@russandloz I am in England and absolutely I would say we have very varied air/light quality. We have haze on a hot day, we can have a lot of dust particles in the air, wind lifts a lot of particles up and also low light is not uncommon. I find the answer to the conundrum of tele or crop is only applicable to each circumstance as you see it. Cropping is better when the subject and air quality is poor and low light as having the lower iso, wider aperture and better focusing for a moving subject will provide the best chance of an image worth editing while great light lends itself to the tele and preserving the resolution, just pointless if focusing is inhibited with poor light or dark shaded subject that is also moving at speed. The debate continues for this exact reason, there is not a "best" answer only the best option for the scene in front of you in that moment. The trick is to learn which option to take in each scene. It will not always be the tele and it will not always be crop. I recommend the 1.4 Z tele as an option in your kit, not so much the 2x.
Exactly. Circumstances are always different even if I perceive them to be the same today and tomorrow. When a cool ground is slowly warmed by the sun, flickering is a sure thing. Often my eyes don't even notice it. Only the photo shows the truth. I photographed hen harriers this winter, unfortunately I always had more and sometimes less aerial flickers. I photographed the black woodpecker absolutely cleanly at 1680mm in the same season. The difference is visible, the black woodpecker is sharper and cleaner.
Of course. The flickering air can also be seen with the 100-400mm.
converter is a tool that you have to know well and when to use... its not an always on-camera tool...
Yes that's right, but I don't think there are many times when I can as highlights and shadows are either blown out or pixellated?
Good video. Recently bought TC2.0x without watching this video lol glad its better on 24mp bodies.
With which lens?
@@russandloz z 70-200 2.8. I’m excited to try it on.
just use Dx mode and you don't have to crop in . and it will grab focus better. ;)
Yes that's what I do now, have it on a FN button to turn it off too
Thanks for this confusing video LOL !! .. I did get something out of it. 1) Editing the crop is worse than editing the TC image. .. 2) TC 2x is a bit too weak/much I think for my set up ( 180-600 ) so it will be the TC1.4 for me if I do get one. 3) I hope they make a TC1.7 like they did for the Fmount. I use that with the 80-400 4) Happy with my ZF. plus future TC... PS : thanks ..
Editing this was even more confusing, but glad it's been helpful a bit lol
Sorry about the confusion, it was very frustrating!
@@lozzom LOL only joking .. I followed all your train of thoughts .. all logical !
Have the 1.4 converter and use it on Z8 with the 70-200 and 400 I find it fine but I am not looking at the images at 200%. Have just purchased a ZF going to Bempton cliffs in May will try the ZF with the 70-200 and 1.4 converter and Z8 with the 400 and see if there is any differences.
It will be interesting to see your findings, but without cropping in they both will looks great. Issues is I can never get close enough
You are a brave man going with the 2.0 teleconverter. I went with the 1.4 and the 100-400. But i still long for the presumed fidelity of the 400 f4.5.
How do you find the 100-400? Would you pick that over the 180-600? Do you think the 400 4.5 is much different to your 100-400 then?
@@russandloz Overall, i’m pleased with it. I choose it mainly for it versatility, and also for its compact size and weight. (It seemed not much heavier in the hand compared to the 400 f4.5). I also liked the 100-400’s much closer minimum focus distance. I use it for some landscape type photography, as i don't have the 70-200 and we don't have a quality 70-300, the latter of which would have been my preference for landscape work. I got the 1.4TC to get a bit more reach for birds, but that does seem to degrade image quality a bit. I am still hoping Nikon will give us a Z50ii so i could use it with that and have a compact birding kit. If Nikon were to offer a quality 70-300, I'd probably get that (for lighter weight), and then get something like a 500 for the limited amount of bird photography I do. Hope that helps.
Ok so to be fair the 2x tele is a big ask, it will impact 2x on ISO and aperture and in lower light there will be a price to pay in IQ and focusing tracking that is very noticeable despite the new Z tele's being of brilliant quality and design. Try the 1.4 Z tele with the 400 f4.5 because this is a smaller leap and the results are outstanding with the Z8. I have this combo. Nonetheless if the light is low I will crop rather than use the tele as I want optimum focusing/tracking as number one requirement as the image is for the bin if it isn't sharp. So I use a mix of tele and crop with my Z8 and 400mm f4.5
I did promise myself I would never buy a 2x tele for the above reasons following my debacle with he Nikon F mount 2x tele v3. And I am sticking to that promise.
And that for me is as definitive as I can be on the matter.
🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣
Thanks for your advise, just seen Photography life's assessment, not sure the 1.4 is even good enough photographylife.com/reviews/nikor-z-400mm-f-4-5-vr-s/3
@@russandloz The 1.4 Z tele is very good. I use it with my 70-200 f2.8 (and cry if while it is on I zoom out to 200 or less!!) and with my 400 f4.5 and Z8 camera. Some scenes are better to crop and keep the wider aperture lower ISO and some scenes are better with the 1.4 tele and greater resolution. It really is that simple, the trick is to read the light, scene, subject size/distance, air quality, focusing requirements and determine which Compromise offers the best chance of the better image. It will not always be the same answer. Once this is accepted as reality the debate is over and it’s down to judgement and experience of reading the scene. I know I’m right 😊
I think I would just save the $600 U.S. price of the 2x teleconverter and set it aside to help pay for the 180-600 5.6-6.3 zoom. I have not tried that zoom yet, but I hear it makes a nice lens for wildlife.
I'm not quite sure why someone would get a teleconverter that has the potential of degrading image quality by magnetifying the limitations of a lens and by losing a stop or so of light. I'd rather go with a non-S lens that can get me to 400 or farther natively. I'd almost rather get a APS-C camera and use the full-frame zoom on it to get a little more "reach" if needed. Hopefully Nikon will produce a great APS-C body soon.
I'm sure that a teleconverter is useful for some and in many situations and I'm glad it's available, but it just does not fit in with my current workflow.
Thanks for the review.
Yeah I get your point, I liked the idea of having a very light 400 and fast 4.5, then adding to it when needed making a better setup than the big heavy 180-600. I see some reviews show the 400 with the 1.4 is the same as the 180-600.
That’s what I’m thinking - save the money and it towards a 100-400
Very confusing video, I couldn't make out what he was on about.
I use the 2xTC on my 160 - 600 zoom lens, and on my 70-200 zoom.
It's brilliant, and I've had no problems with it.
Yes the results were confusing for me so hence the video is confusing too! lol. Is the 180-600 with the 2xtc F12.6? useable?
@@russandlozI can't answer that as I always use Auto ISO. I've had very good results using the 2XTC, but you do need reasonable light.
I had no idea what he was on about either 🤷♂️😂
I'm a bit surprised at why you're confused. In most photos, the TC looked better than the crop. Even if sharpness was not that different, certainly the grain in the cropped photos was not that attractive. I also think that having the magnified image in the viewfinder is a real advantage when shooting, both for the camera's AF, and for composing shots. So, on balance, the TC is significantly useful.
Yeah I had a hard time deciding which was better, it seemed to change from one setup to another. I just didn't like the lowering of image quality using the TC. Seemed to waster such good lenses.
Teleconvertors are old tech and unuseful for hi rez camera vs cropping and upscaling with a quality upscaler. Russ , Id say look into upscaling and denoising deep crops that will let you resharpen without it becoming crunchy vs tcs
Using photoshop enhance?
@@russandloz thats my preferred program although Gigapixel from Topaz can sometimes give great but possibly inconsistent results
@@russandloz That is my favorite method. Generally the trick is to not sharpen lw res crops until after upscaling to an acceptable size. The sharpening algorithms then have an easier time of it making the sharpening blend better.
@@johncooper9746 interesting. I’ll try that.
I wonder how it would go with the Nikon Z 105 prime micro 2,8 lens on my brand new Zf. I don't have the lens yet but am thinking about it.
I don't think the tc's are compatible with most z lenses. But Pixel shift will be great for macro
Have you tried running the images through something like Dxo PureRAW which does lens and camera optimisation. I like PureRAW but Topaz Photo does similar.
Lightroom is really good now for noise, but I would give other software a go. But really some TC issues aren't just sharpening?
The main advantage of Tc is wildlife video
Video? I guess so as you don't have to crop?
@@russandloz when u r shooting in 4k how u crop in post to match the focal length ?
I do have the 400 and the Tele converter because I’m not a big lover of bird photography I seldom use it
The 1.4 or 2x? How do you find it?
@@russandloz only have the 1.4 , really can’t make my mind up if I need it or not .
@@lolingsaraee Try taking a side by side photo with and without it, to see if there is enough difference?
my z8 and my Z600pf with a z TC 1.4 is super sharp.wide open.
Yes our 1.4 video coming soon! Do you find it peak is stepping down?
I enjoy your videos, but I need to warn you that you are making all the newbie mistakes of someone getting seduced by wildlife and birds. I know. I've made all of them. You need to decide whether you are interested in wildlife or birds. They need different lenses. The Z8 can do both very well, but you can't do both with the same lens. You will try and end up not really liking the results. With wildlife, your 400 will be fine. But for birds, skip the teleconverter and get the 800mm. You are going to end up there sooner or later. The 500mm pf is a great lens on the Z8. With birds, you never have enough length. Bird photography BTW is much more expensive than wildlife. And much more difficult.
Finding the bird with 800mm? Use the camera/lens like a binocular. Look at the bird and bring the camera to your eye.
I do look forward to your videos. Keep'em coming.
You make a good point, I realise birds are the only wildlife here in the UK that I can see of interest! Still hoping the 400 4.5 with 1.4tc will be good enough for me.