RF extender experiences with RF 100-500 1.4x vs 2.0? Locked

highdesertmesa wrote:

1.4x with the 100-500 on the R6 is great – zero loss of sharpness that I can tell. 700mm with a mild crop is about perfect for distances of 15-30' for small birds. Beyond that, you're going to be cropping uncomfortably far with the R6. I've not tried the 2x, but given the high IQ of the 1.4x, I'd guess the 2x is probably not that bad. Of all the 100-500 + 2x talk I've read, it's been only conjecture or anecdotal without examples.

Most TC-experience comments do not reveal the method of comparison, either.

Many people don't normalize the subject size; they normalize the entire image frame size or 1:1 pixels on the screen, with no regard to how wildly different in size the subject is on the monitor with different pixel sizes, focal lengths, teleconversions, etc, and focus on noise dots in OOF areas, and pixel level sharpness of in-focus areas, at this completely arbitrary subject magnification.  It is epidemic; I've met experienced photographers who are or were scientists and university professors who think that way.

The 100% pixel view, especially, has a hypnotic power over many photographers.  This directs their logic: "if you need to magnify the subject more than 100%, you are in artificial territory".  Really? if you want you bird to be 14 inches long on the monitor, and it is only 9 inches long at 1:1, 14 inches is artificial?  "If you have to downsample an image for it to get as clean or as sharp as a capture with less pixels-on-subject, what is the point?".  This kind of illogic boggles my mind.