Canon 2x and 1.4x mk3 extenders

[AlanF]

Just for fun: Kenko 3x TC (live view focusing only) on a 70-300L f/4 (900mm equiv.) on a 6D

Here is yours cropped and lightened (top) compared with a Powershot SX50 at nominal 1200mm (in fact 215mm real) bottom. I think the $350 camera has the edge!

 

[Skulker]

Just for fun: Kenko 3x TC (live view focusing only) on a 70-300L f/4 (900mm equiv.) on a 6D

Here is yours cropped and lightened (top) compared with a Powershot SX50 at nominal 1200mm (in fact 215mm real) bottom. I think the $350 camera has the edge!

I wouldn't be happy with either of those shots, as they are presented here.

The "Kenco" one looks as if it has been ruined by being lightened much more than nessasery to equal the SX50 shot, on my monitor at any rate.

If it was me and I wanted a comparison I would start with an exposure I was happy with, and that would mean exposed to the right in this case, from both cameras. Then I would go to a "magnification" that produced a reasonable image.

If I thought I could not get a better image than I could get out of a $350 camera I would be very happy.
Unfortunatly I see much better results with my more expensive kit. So unfortunatly I have to spend more than you. I envery you your satisfaction. ;D

 

[AlanF]

Just for fun: Kenko 3x TC (live view focusing only) on a 70-300L f/4 (900mm equiv.) on a 6D

Here is yours cropped and lightened (top) compared with a Powershot SX50 at nominal 1200mm (in fact 215mm real) bottom. I think the $350 camera has the edge!

I wouldn't be happy with either of those shots, as they are presented here.

The "Kenco" one looks as if it has been ruined by being lightened much more than nessasery to equal the SX50 shot, on my monitor at any rate.

If it was me and I wanted a comparison I would start with an exposure I was happy with, and that would mean exposed to the right in this case, from both cameras. Then I would go to a "magnification" that produced a reasonable image.

If I thought I could not get a better image than I could get out of a $350 camera I would be very happy.
Unfortunatly I see much better results with my more expensive kit. So unfortunatly I have to spend more than you. I envery you your satisfaction. ;D

Please look at the previous page and you will a shot of the moon taken with my 5DIII and f/2.8 300mm II with a 2xTC III. The $10,000 of gear is indeed somewhat better than with my $350 camera. But, irrespective of the degree of lightening of the image taken with a Kenco 3xTC and the 70-300L, the $350 camera performs much better - the 3xTC is not kind to IQ. As extensively shown in another thread, the $350 camera compares well with a 5DIII + 100-400mm (which I also own, so I am not biased). I am happy with both my expensive kit and my bargain priced SX50.

 

[Skulker]

Please look at the previous page and you will a shot of the moon taken with my 5DIII and f/2.8 300mm II with a 2xTC III. The $10,000 of gear is indeed somewhat better than with my $350 camera. But, irrespective of the degree of lightening of the image taken with a Kenco 3xTC and the 70-300L, the $350 camera performs much better - the 3xTC is not kind to IQ. As extensively shown in another thread, the $350 camera compares well with a 5DIII + 100-400mm (which I also own, so I am not biased). I am happy with both my expensive kit and my bargain priced SX50.

I'd seen that shot. I have exactly the same kit and that is what I get and I'm quite happy with it. I also own a 100-400mm and can't agree with your assessment of the $350 camera comparing well with it. I also don't agree with your assessment that the SX50 comparison above shows the SX50 being much better. For the reasons I stated above. But if your happy with it that's fine by me, I'm happy that you are happy.

 

[AlanF]

Have you used a 3xTC? If so, what is the IQ like - I would not like to miss an easy way of getting 900mm from the 300mm f/2.8?