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

Franz Kerschbaum wrote:

A valid comparison is those of 100% pixelscale in the extender case and an upscaled version to the same pixelscale for the pic without extender. Any real additional image detail is the gain of the extender. Such a comaprison shouwed for me that the RF extender on the R5 is a clear and obvious gain of subject detail while the RF2x only marginally gives extra detail - for my now worth the field reduction which is quite critical in cases of moving targets.....

Certainly; I didn't wish to discount the benefits of a wider angle of view; I was talking about maximum possible subject quality, when everything comes together.  I feel a need to bring that out, because some people are weighing their decisions with too much weight on "IQ loss" that is not "subject quality loss".

How people wish to gamble is up to them, and is part of what defines a photographer as an individual, but using the wrong assessment of pros and cons is not helpful.  If a person believes that a TC ruins "IQ", then they will use a bare lens in many cases where a TC would actually mostly help with "subject quality", where angle of view is sufficient for the level of subject activity and for the subject size, and AF is not challenging.

I've met many people who said that they would never use a 2x, as if it is a sealed deal forever.  One person who said that to me was using a Nikon D5, which should benefit much from a 2x TC in some cases, with its relatively large pixels (20MP FF).  It is unfortunate that many people judge results at 100%, or miss the association between the compromising small/distant photo-ops and the TCs that are employed to help with them.  Same with smaller sensors with higher pixel density being chosen - they are not the cause of the diminished subject size or subject distance, in most real-world cases.