Crop factor Vs. Teleconverter. Advice needed

doczahi · Jun 12, 2017

Hi

Which combination will result the best photos?

1. Nikon D7100 (crop) with Nikon 200-500mm lens

2. Nikon D750 (FF) with Nikon 200-500mm lens with TC1.4E teleconverter

3. Nikon D750 (FF) with Nikon 200-500mm lens with NO teleconverter and only crop using lightroom...

Thank you

Zahi

Entropius · Jun 12, 2017

I'll assume you are at the 500mm end of the lens, since your questions seem to be those of someone trying to get extra reach to shoot little birdies and wanting to retain as much detail as possible. (I'm often in the same boat.)

#1, *unless* you are working with extreme dynamic range situations (not necessarily super high ISO's) where you will need to lift shadows in post and the D7100's banding issues in deep shadows become a problem. If you're after more reach, go DX.

#2 involves using optics to spread the image from the 200-500 out over a wider area. (That's what teleconverters do.) Instead of a smaller image illuminating 24 million small pixels, you're using optics to spread that image out to illuminate 24 million big pixels instead. If your lens and teleconverter are both optically perfect, you'll wind up with basically the same picture either way. There's no point in doing this: you'll have about the same total amount of light hitting the sensor, and the increase in image quality inherent in the big FX pixels will be canceled by the higher ISO you'll need to use, since you're now at f/8. This assumes your optics are perfect, though; real teleconverters cause aberrations on their own (independent of magnifying aberrations caused by the lens, which gets canceled by the bigger FX pixels). The TC-14 is good but it's not perfect.

#3 is objectively worse than #1: Suppose you shoot an image on a D750, and then crop it by 1.5x on each side to match the "level of zoom" that you'd get from the D7100. You now have the light from a DX-sized patch on your sensor spread over 11 million pixels. Wouldn't you rather spread that over 24 million pixels and get more detail? That's what the D7100 does for you.

bflood · Jun 12, 2017

I agree with Entropius, but I'll add one more idea - how large do you print your images?

The D750 will have a distinct advantage in low light, but using the TC gives away much of that advantage. A cropped D750 image can still yield high quality detail and will have the advantage of the D750's low light abilities (compared to the D7100) and shooting at f5.6 (compared to using the 1.4X TC), but will not make as large a print (image quality issues) as a full 24 mp image. Does that matter to you?

It doesn't to me. Rather than cover the walls in my home with poster size prints, I intermittently design and have printed a "coffee table book" of my stuff, and that means my images are generally limited to about 11x13 inches. I shoot with a 300 mm f4 lens and sometimes a 1.7X TC, which isn't as good as the 1.4X. Enlarging a 1.7X shot too much will reveal its limitations, and yet, I have images in a couple of my books that I am very happy with that are 510 mm shots (using the TC) cropped to a 700 mm field of view.

It can be done if you don't have ambitions to make large prints.

SkvLTD · Jun 12, 2017

Quite honestly, if you want reach, go DX+TC and then use the TC as needs be. Once you want that reach, no length will be enough once you outgrow the 300/450 bounds.

Leonard Shepherd · Jun 13, 2017

SkvLTD said:
Quite honestly, if you want reach, go DX+TC and then use the TC as needs be.

Generally + 1.

The only general limitation of a TC is slower AF and not so bright a viewfinder. Occasionally, though not often in my experience, this can make the difference between good focus and missed focus.

Rolleix · Jun 13, 2017

DX+ 1.4 TC lll and cropp in LR. I get a lot of what "I" call keppers.

Esquilo · Jun 13, 2017

doczahi said:
1. Nikon D7100 (crop) with Nikon 200-500mm lens

This will produce the best results under most conditions.

doczahi said:
2. Nikon D750 (FF) with Nikon 200-500mm lens with TC1.4E teleconverter

Any advantage in dynamic range etc that a FX-camera have will be reverted by the extra stop the TC applies to the apperture. Only if you can allow shutter times long enough to shoot as base ISO you will have an advantage in DR, but you will still have the disadvantages of slower AF.

doczahi said:
3. Nikon D750 (FF) with Nikon 200-500mm lens with NO teleconverter and only crop using lightroom...

Same disadvantages as 2 but you will also loose resolution (11 Mpix instead of 24).

Geomaticsman · Jun 13, 2017

You might be interested in Steve Perry's musings.

Alex Permit · Jun 13, 2017

Geomaticsman said:
You might be interested in Steve Perry's musings.

--
Gary -- Some Nikon stuff -- and a preference for wildlife in natural light
www.flickr.com/photos/garyirwin/

Thanks for the link.

Everyone's comments in this thread are consistent with my (FF+TC) vrs DX experience. I have a D5 and D500. The D500 is superior to a cropped D5 (less pixels) as well as a D5+TC (more aberration). In addition, the D500 gives a full view in the viewfinder, as compared to using the D5 in cropped mode.

I am increasingly using the D500 for all my telephoto needs.

Entropius · Jun 13, 2017

Alex Permit said:
I am increasingly using the D500 for all my telephoto needs.

This is one reason I don't understand Nikon's unwillingness to fully support DX. I shot Four Thirds for a while, and wound up going Nikon not because the sensors are too small (they're not) but because the lens I wanted (a 300 f/4) didn't exist for Four Thirds at the time. 4/3 and DX are formats capable of producing great images with lenses bright enough and capable of resolving well enough to deal with the smaller pixels.

Alex Permit · Jun 13, 2017

Entropius said:
Entropius said:

I am increasingly using the D500 for all my telephoto needs.

Click to expand...

This is one reason I don't understand Nikon's unwillingness to fully support DX. I shot Four Thirds for a while, and wound up going Nikon not because the sensors are too small (they're not) but because the lens I wanted (a 300 f/4) didn't exist for Four Thirds at the time. 4/3 and DX are formats capable of producing great images with lenses bright enough and capable of resolving well enough to deal with the smaller pixels.

I agree. I'm glad they did release the D500, as well as the AF-P 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G and 16-80mm f/2.8-4E ED VR.

The 300mm f/4E is a very sweet 450mm (effective) lens in DX.

Entropius · Jun 13, 2017

Alex Permit said:
Entropius said:

Alex Permit said:

I am increasingly using the D500 for all my telephoto needs.

Click to expand...

This is one reason I don't understand Nikon's unwillingness to fully support DX. I shot Four Thirds for a while, and wound up going Nikon not because the sensors are too small (they're not) but because the lens I wanted (a 300 f/4) didn't exist for Four Thirds at the time. 4/3 and DX are formats capable of producing great images with lenses bright enough and capable of resolving well enough to deal with the smaller pixels.

Click to expand...

I agree. I'm glad they did release the D500, as well as the AF-P 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G and 16-80mm f/2.8-4E ED VR.

The 300mm f/4E is a very sweet 450mm (effective) lens in DX.

The 300 f/4E is an *amazing* lens, and is awfully nice with a 1.4x teleconverter as well. I'm sure you could tell the difference in lab tests in the quality, but in practical use in the field, I don't notice any difference.

Alex Permit · Jun 13, 2017

Entropius said:
Alex Permit said:

Entropius said:

Entropius said:

I am increasingly using the D500 for all my telephoto needs.

Click to expand...

This is one reason I don't understand Nikon's unwillingness to fully support DX. I shot Four Thirds for a while, and wound up going Nikon not because the sensors are too small (they're not) but because the lens I wanted (a 300 f/4) didn't exist for Four Thirds at the time. 4/3 and DX are formats capable of producing great images with lenses bright enough and capable of resolving well enough to deal with the smaller pixels.

Click to expand...

I agree. I'm glad they did release the D500, as well as the AF-P 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G and 16-80mm f/2.8-4E ED VR.

The 300mm f/4E is a very sweet 450mm (effective) lens in DX.

Click to expand...

The 300 f/4E is an *amazing* lens, and is awfully nice with a 1.4x teleconverter as well. I'm sure you could tell the difference in lab tests in the quality, but in practical use in the field, I don't notice any difference.

Thanks for that. I've been debating getting the 300+ tc against getting the 200-500. The 300 plus tc is so light. Do ou think it would perform as well as the zoom at 450?

Ferguson · Jun 13, 2017

Leonard Shepherd said:
SkvLTD said:

Quite honestly, if you want reach, go DX+TC and then use the TC as needs be.

Click to expand...

Generally + 1.

The only general limitation of a TC is slower AF and not so bright a viewfinder. Occasionally, though not often in my experience, this can make the difference between good focus and missed focus.

Well, and they work better on some lenses than others. Notably they are really good optically on long primes, but not nearly as good on many of the zooms (e.g. the 70-200 with a 2x TC is not a terribly good 140-400, but the 400/2.8 is a darn fine 800). I do not know the 200-500 at all, but I would not start with the assumption that "all" a 1.4 does is add a stop and magnification. Sometimes it softens things up, then you read someone saying "stop down a stop" and you end up at F11. Maybe not -- maybe it is really good in this case - just saying check, don't assume.

It's also interesting to note a TC is most friendly to a low resolution sensor. On a high res sensor you already have more ability to crop, and on a high res sensor you can see the degradation from the TC more. On a low res sensor the magnification really helps, and the lower pixel density hides more of the flaws of the added glass. I am NOT saying not to use TC's on high resolution sensors, just that if you have high res sensors AND glass not friendly to TC's, you will find yourself saying "I get better results just cropping".

All that said, the 1.4x is not known for degrading images significantly in most cases, even on the zooms.

Entropius · Jun 13, 2017

Alex Permit said:
Entropius said:

Alex Permit said:

Entropius said:

Alex Permit said:

I am increasingly using the D500 for all my telephoto needs.

Click to expand...

This is one reason I don't understand Nikon's unwillingness to fully support DX. I shot Four Thirds for a while, and wound up going Nikon not because the sensors are too small (they're not) but because the lens I wanted (a 300 f/4) didn't exist for Four Thirds at the time. 4/3 and DX are formats capable of producing great images with lenses bright enough and capable of resolving well enough to deal with the smaller pixels.

Click to expand...

I agree. I'm glad they did release the D500, as well as the AF-P 70-300mm f/4.5-6.3G and 16-80mm f/2.8-4E ED VR.

The 300mm f/4E is a very sweet 450mm (effective) lens in DX.

Click to expand...

The 300 f/4E is an *amazing* lens, and is awfully nice with a 1.4x teleconverter as well. I'm sure you could tell the difference in lab tests in the quality, but in practical use in the field, I don't notice any difference.

Click to expand...

Thanks for that. I've been debating getting the 300+ tc against getting the 200-500. The 300 plus tc is so light. Do ou think it would perform as well as the zoom at 450?

The 300 is going to be more expensive (I found a used one for $1500). My guess is that at 450mm, the optics will be quite similar. I certainly don't have any complaints about the 300/4 with teleconverter as far as image quality -- it consistently spits out sharp, aberration-free images.

There might be some small advantage in bokeh and in AF speed for the 300/4, but small differences in optics don't matter much in the field. I've never used a 200-500, but people seem to like it. I certainly like my 300/4. So it really comes down to things like price, weight, zoom, minimum focus distance, and the ability to take the TC off and get f/4 from the prime.

doczahi · Jun 14, 2017

Entropius said:
I'll assume you are at the 500mm end of the lens, since your questions seem to be those of someone trying to get extra reach to shoot little birdies and wanting to retain as much detail as possible. (I'm often in the same boat.)

#1, *unless* you are working with extreme dynamic range situations (not necessarily super high ISO's) where you will need to lift shadows in post and the D7100's banding issues in deep shadows become a problem. If you're after more reach, go DX.

#2 involves using optics to spread the image from the 200-500 out over a wider area. (That's what teleconverters do.) Instead of a smaller image illuminating 24 million small pixels, you're using optics to spread that image out to illuminate 24 million big pixels instead. If your lens and teleconverter are both optically perfect, you'll wind up with basically the same picture either way. There's no point in doing this: you'll have about the same total amount of light hitting the sensor, and the increase in image quality inherent in the big FX pixels will be canceled by the higher ISO you'll need to use, since you're now at f/8. This assumes your optics are perfect, though; real teleconverters cause aberrations on their own (independent of magnifying aberrations caused by the lens, which gets canceled by the bigger FX pixels). The TC-14 is good but it's not perfect.

#3 is objectively worse than #1: Suppose you shoot an image on a D750, and then crop it by 1.5x on each side to match the "level of zoom" that you'd get from the D7100. You now have the light from a DX-sized patch on your sensor spread over 11 million pixels. Wouldn't you rather spread that over 24 million pixels and get more detail? That's what the D7100 does for you.

thank you. I learned a lot from your answer

doczahi · Jun 14, 2017

bflood said:
I agree with Entropius, but I'll add one more idea - how large do you print your images?

The D750 will have a distinct advantage in low light, but using the TC gives away much of that advantage. A cropped D750 image can still yield high quality detail and will have the advantage of the D750's low light abilities (compared to the D7100) and shooting at f5.6 (compared to using the 1.4X TC), but will not make as large a print (image quality issues) as a full 24 mp image. Does that matter to you?

It doesn't to me. Rather than cover the walls in my home with poster size prints, I intermittently design and have printed a "coffee table book" of my stuff, and that means my images are generally limited to about 11x13 inches. I shoot with a 300 mm f4 lens and sometimes a 1.7X TC, which isn't as good as the 1.4X. Enlarging a 1.7X shot too much will reveal its limitations, and yet, I have images in a couple of my books that I am very happy with that are 510 mm shots (using the TC) cropped to a 700 mm field of view.

It can be done if you don't have ambitions to make large prints.

Thank you.

I actually do not print... Usually I use screen to show my photos

calson · Jun 16, 2017

DX camera will do better than FX crop. The D750 at DX crop produces a 10.3MP size file and so there is a big loss in image quality with cropping.

Teleconverter actually magnifies the image and the III versions do so with negligible impact on the quality of the images produced.

The 200-500mm on a DX camera provides the angle of view of a 300-750mm lens and you are likely to find 300mm too limiting at times for large subjects or ones close to the camera.

Kostaseg · Jun 16, 2017

Lenses like Nikon 200-500 aren't for using with teleconverter. You know the AF at aperture closer than f5.6 has problem at the older bodies and isn't fast at newer as it is D750. So when you start with F8 it is a problem.

D7100 at normal situations (shooting with sky background) will give you more detailed shots than extremely cropped from D750, BUT we don't shoot every time with good light. Birds love shadows and when you are with 1/2000 or 1/2500 and f5.6 or f8 some times when you need sharper shot (ar Nikon 200-500), a DX sensor will give worst results from D750 because of ISO and DR. You will have more pixels but no better quality.

D7100 has also a very small buffer and you will have problem to use it on BIF. So if birds photography is your first priority try to buy D500 with Nikon 200-500mm and also think about Tamron 150-600 G2 .

See my shot to have an idea what can give you D750 with f8 and ISO 6400.

Crop factor Vs. Teleconverter. Advice needed

New member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Leading Member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Leading Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

Senior Member

New member

New member

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts