DPReview.com is closing April 10th - Find out more

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

Started Oct 16, 2020 | Discussions thread
This thread is locked.
John Sheehy Forum Pro • Posts: 26,688
Re: RF extender experiences with RF 100-500 1.4x vs 2.0?

frostybe3r wrote:

Zeee wrote:

frostybe3r wrote:

I mean I wouldn't personally use Sony but sometimes I wonder...

Since I was dumping EF I alI had a hard time deciding between the A9II and 200-600 and Canon. I did at the time an R and RF24-105 which wasn't a big factor.

But EF lenses are still uncontended in wildlife photography/videography, sure the new RF lenses are great for other stuff but until RF mount has a big white and 1DX R1, as suggested, I'm not switching to EF for that aspect, even when the RF whites come out, there won't be a need to change unless the sensors increase to 90mp.

People are continuously trying to say you can just use higher ISO, the aperture doesn't matter, eh, yeah it does for subject separation and shutter speeds whilst trying to avoid potential noise in your image.

No, it doesn't.  F-numbers do not show up in images.  Apertures do, but what you're calling aperture is actually f-number or f-ratio.

The apertures of 400/5.6, 500/7.1, 700/10, and 1000/14 are all the same aperture, and from the same distance, give the same DOF on the subject, the same diffraction blur size relative to the subject, and the same total light coming from the subject per millisecond.

Post (hide subjects) Posted by
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow