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

frostybe3r wrote:

Yeah that's fair but if I owned a RF 100-500, I'd preferably use it without the extender knowing the amount of noise added at high ISO levels in darker environments despite people's saying the R5/6 are great in low light, sure the image maybe good in nicely lit areas however if it was the choice between 7.1 with less noise and 10+ with more noise, I'd choose the 7.1 but I just couldn't justify £550 on an extender for the lens. Just my opinion, people can use what they want.

You are still using your flawed paradigm where ISO, f-ratios, and exposure directly affect final image outcome.

If you are out in the cold, and I offer you a choice of two different pairs of hand-warmers for your pocket ; one pair 20 degrees warmer than the environment, and the other, 30 degrees warmer, which would you choose? You should choose neither, until you know their total thermal capacity. In this case, the +20 degree warmers may have been 5x the mass of the +30 degree ones, and stayed warm longer. It is the same way with f-ratios, ISOs, and exposures; their practical photographic meaning is not directly tied to those numbers; they must be factored by area used on the sensor to mean anything. When you vary only f-ratio, you vary exposure or actual ISO index, and subject noise; no question. That is only guaranteed, however, because you have not also changed magnification.