Canon officially announces the EOS R1 and EOS R5 Mark II
- Thread starter Canon Rumors
- Start date
Upvote
0
Living in the gloomy UK the 1.4 extender on my 600mm f4 is hopeless 50% of the year and the 2X mkiii is inoperative all the time and that's not a weather issue. Having now owned two 2X mkiii now due to listening to all the great stuff paid influencers said about it on YouTube (idiots have no clue) I thought well I must have a bad copy, nope both were just as poor as each other.
Actually, I ran some tests on the extenders this summer and found the images were just as good, if not better without extenders, the subject was a water tower about a mile from my home.
The attached image shows the results, the right image is not scaled, the other two I enlarged in CS4 to match the same size as the 1200mm image.
As you can see there is no point in having extenders when upscaling images taken without an extender gives better results than with extenders.
The camera I used for this particular test was a low res but very capable 18mp Canon 1DX.
Due to the results of this test, I have sold my 2x extender as it confirmed what I thought for some time, its gimmick giving no benefit in today’s modern world of computer editing. Extenders had their day in the film camera days when upscaling was not an option for most photographers but those times have long gone.
Attachments
Last edited:
Upvote
0
I blow hot and cold about extenders and agree that they often make no difference and can make things worse, and upscaling can be as good. But, that depends on what images you are taking and under what conditions. If the image doesn't have detail in it that would be resolved by increasing resolution by 40% (1.4x TC) or 100% (2xTC) then the extenders won't increase detail. However, if they do have details on the verge of being resolved, then an extender can give very nice results. I have many examples from chart and £10 tests, some posted here over the years, with different lenses showing that they can give extra resolution (eg https://www.canonrumors.com/forum/t...-100-500mm-rf-800mm-and-ef-400mm-do-ii.40550/). Here is an example from real life taken last week, using the RF 2xTC on the RF 100-500mm and R5. It is of a Blue Dasher Dragonfly. Top, the image without the TC at 500mm upscaled 2x with Topaz. It's a very nice image but the lenses on the eye are not resolved. Below, the 2xTC resolves the lenses. (Upscaling can give artefacts for poorly resolved detail and won't reveal details that are not resolved and is not a universal panacea).
500mm x 2 in Topaz
500mm + 2xTC @1000mm
Upvote
0
A perfect general purpose extender will do no more than magnify the lens' image. Any issues with the lens are magnified as well. In reality, they almost always add their own problems because there's no such thing as a perfect lens and they are another lens.
A lens-specific extender, one that actually is made as part of the optical formula of the base lens, can actually do better since it is tuned to that one specific lens and can actually correct issue but those are rare, at best, because they're then usually pretty awful on any other lens and too few people want an extender for one lens to justify planning and building and inventorying one for that small niche audience.
Upvote
0
MikeGalos - although everything you say is technically correct ("no lens is perfect") ... my experience is that the Canon RF
extenders are -very- good and they solve problems that birding/wildlife photographers have ("reach").
And they don't introduce enough problems to be avoided. I'm sure there are times/situations where an extender isn't
needed or isn't any better than simply scaling the image in post ... but so far I haven't found a reason to do that for birds.
Someone (JPOC?) said he didn't like the 'f-stop penalty' of extenders and that living in the UK made them less than
useful. My experience is just the opposite - and I live in the PNW with similar light availability issues.
I have even used my 1.4 for bird shots "in under a mangrove swamp" and gotten successful images that, without the
extender, would have been less successful (at least to/for me).
I'm not trying to be argumentative - just sharing a different experience/point of view.
extenders are -very- good and they solve problems that birding/wildlife photographers have ("reach").
And they don't introduce enough problems to be avoided. I'm sure there are times/situations where an extender isn't
needed or isn't any better than simply scaling the image in post ... but so far I haven't found a reason to do that for birds.
Someone (JPOC?) said he didn't like the 'f-stop penalty' of extenders and that living in the UK made them less than
useful. My experience is just the opposite - and I live in the PNW with similar light availability issues.
I have even used my 1.4 for bird shots "in under a mangrove swamp" and gotten successful images that, without the
extender, would have been less successful (at least to/for me).
I'm not trying to be argumentative - just sharing a different experience/point of view.
Upvote
0
BTW - in birding the alternative to extenders is "large prime lenses" ... which are much heavier and much larger - and that
makes you want to also carry around a tripod and gimbal. (And I'm not even discussing the cost.)
makes you want to also carry around a tripod and gimbal. (And I'm not even discussing the cost.)
Upvote
0
Exactly. It's always about trade-offs. My point was that, with rare lens specific extenders, there will be costs that have to be weighed against the benefits. I've seen too many people over the years think that a tc is magic.
Upvote
0
I wouldn’t call it an ‘alternative’ for me. I have a large prime lens for birding, and >90% of my shots with the EF 600/4 II are with the 1.4xIII behind it.
I do have a good tripod and gimbal that I use for winter raptors when I am standing in one spot for long periods of time, but the majority of my use with that combo is either on a monopod or handheld.
I also frequently use the RF 1.4x with my ‘large zoom lens’ (100-300/2.8) as a 140-420mm f/4 is great for field sports.
Upvote
0
It’s worth repeating as we have both pointed out over the years that the lower the Mpx of the sensor the more the usefulness of extenders. In fact, as Mpx get higher and higher, the additional resolution from extenders tends to zero.
Upvote
0
Also worth noting that lenses and extenders don’t perform the same at all subject distances. Unless your typical subjects are at distances of a mile (and maybe @JPOC’s are), I’d be reluctant to draw conclusions about extender performance based on a test at that distance.
Upvote
0
I was scrolling through the R1 specs and I realized that I may need to cancel my pre-order.
“Spot metering: Centre spot metering (Approx. 5% screen at centre) AF point-linked spot metering not provided.”
Why, Canon, why?
Seriously, though, I suspect that ‘Detect priority AE while AF’ (which the R5II has and presumably the R1, too) might be functionally equivalent. Looking forward to some feedback on how that performs, since an area is not specified as a fraction of the field, and I have no idea how it will perform relative to subject borders or subjects with contrasting features (white numbers on a dark jersey, a Canada goose head, etc.).
“Spot metering: Centre spot metering (Approx. 5% screen at centre) AF point-linked spot metering not provided.”
Why, Canon, why?
Seriously, though, I suspect that ‘Detect priority AE while AF’ (which the R5II has and presumably the R1, too) might be functionally equivalent. Looking forward to some feedback on how that performs, since an area is not specified as a fraction of the field, and I have no idea how it will perform relative to subject borders or subjects with contrasting features (white numbers on a dark jersey, a Canada goose head, etc.).
Upvote
0
It's not quite functionally equivalent. It does a better job of metering than with the option off IMO, but spot metering with the same object within the spot definitely brightens up very dark objects, darkens light objects etc to a greater extent.
Not sure why Canon isn't providing AF point linked spot metering even on a 1-series.
Upvote
0
I'm using the R5m2 and it does not have problems with spot metering. Sorry, I don't remember
what settings I'm using with respect to that aspect. There are SO many settings I can't begin to
keep track of which I have set which way. :-(
what settings I'm using with respect to that aspect. There are SO many settings I can't begin to
keep track of which I have set which way. :-(
Upvote
0
Thanks for the feedback. Yes, for DSLRs it was a feature only of the 1-series. No idea why Canon dropped it, I used it frequently on my 1D X. Disappointed that it won’t be in the R1.
Upvote
0
