Patent: Canon EF 300-600 f/5.6 w/1.4x TC

[jrista]

The wide aperture affects AF speed and AF point precision and capability. Remember, particularly in the 61pt AF system, there are f/2.8 double cross type points, f/4 cross type points, f/5.6 line points, and the center expansion f/8 points. With an f/4 lens, you ALWAYS AF at f/4, no matter what you stop down to for actual shooting. The extra stop of light allows the AF system to operate more quickly and more accurately. When f/4 AF points are used, they tend to be more precise than f/5.6 points, which need larger pixels in order to sense as well as f/4 pixels.

The point of an f/4 lens isn't that you always shoot wide open (although in the evening, it isn't uncommon...I tend to be around f/8 aperture for shooting during daytime, and f/4-5.6 for shooting around sunset, for wildlife.) It's that you ALWAYS AF wide open (by design.) And yes, with an f/4 lens, when you slap on a 1.4x TC, you still AF at f/5.6, which is still better than AF at f/8, no question.

Jrista, thank you.
I actually completely forgot about the difference between f4 AF points and f5.6 ones. The high precision f2.8 AF points are referenced so much I guess I clumped all the others into the same group. (After reading multiple articles detailing all the AF points, and watching the entire B&H Canon AF seminar [ ww.youtube.com/watch?v=iAx86nblZ2g ][great video BTW], you would think that someone would remember something like that. I guess a guy can only fill his head with so much.)
That changes my perception of the TCs quite a bit. I've been assuming that you get "worse AF" when using a TC because of a combination of optical performance and some kind of interference in the circuitry, if on the other hand it's actually just due to the change in the type of AF points used, then the 600f4+1.4xTC is actually going to AF exactly the same as the 800f5.6. I was assuming the latter would have an advantage.
Indeed that does make a very good case for the 600f4, and makes the 300f2.8 more appealing now that I know it's not some mystical interference from the teleconverter making AF worse at 600mm.

IMO a teleconverter, no mater how good it is ( and how sharp the lens is ) degrades the image.

I don't think it is quite as simple as that. Yes, adding more optical elements has an impact, however those additional optical elements also enlarge the subject. Optical elements tend to be pixel-level issues...the two primary ones are increased distortion (which primarily affects the corners), and increased CA. CA, while it usually shows up and looks bad in ISO 12280 test charts, is a PIXEL-LEVEL issue, and those ISO 12280 test charts are shot at consistent framing, so the benefit of increased subject size is LOST.

In a real-world situation, the theory here does not actually demonstrate actuality all that well. The subject increases by a factor of (840/600)^2, or 1.4x squared, two fold. In the case of a 2x teleconverter, the subject increases by a factor of four. That puts a LOT more pixels onto the subject. They may be slightly softer pixels with a little more CA...but it is still FOUR TIMES the pixels on subject. Assuming a normalized comparison scenario, one could crop the 600mm image and downsample the 840mm image to the same cropped dimensions, and the 840mm image will always win in terms of IQ. CA can be removed easily (if it even shows up as a problem.)

And that also has an effect on AF accuracy and speed. As well as the loss of 1 or two stops of light.
I would love to see a auto-focus test using the 600 II with a 1.4 against the bare 800 F/5.6 lens. With the same camera it is my guess! The 800 would win. Not only being faster ( though very slightly ) but more important more accurate. Looking at the MTF charts of the two lenses it would be a very close race for sure.

Yeah, I would agree, a AF at a lenses native maximum aperture is probably going to perform a bit better than AF with a TC attached. I think there is a bit of a myth about Canon TCs intentionally slowing down AF, but only in comparison to the likes of third party TCs like Kenko. The problem with a Kenko TC is they effectively cheat. They trick the body into thinking the attached lens has a different maximum aperture. For example, with my 600+1.4x Kenko, the camera thinks the maximum aperture is still f/4. That is generally what leads to the sometimes funky behavior of AF with a third-party TC, it attempts to utilize AF points that MAY not have enough light to operate properly. You would get roughly the same kind of quirky behavior if you pin-taped a Canon 14x TC. Canon TCs report everything properly, so the AF system doesn't even try to use f/4 AF points when the relative aperture is actually f/5.6.

Look at this link 1.4 tc III on the 200 f/2.8 lens. http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1367/cat/62

And here for the 2.0tc III: http://slrgear.com/reviews/showproduct.php/product/1366/cat/62

Looking at that data. Pretty much clears things up for me when using a t.c. I wish these guys would test the 600 II and 500 II using T.C.'s.

But even if that is true. I would much rather have a 600 II with a teleconverter any day... ;D

Again, as I mentioned before...these tests are done for identical framing. Of course that will put any lens with a teleconverter attached at a disadvantage, because you are basically ignoring the improvement in reach. It would be like switching from a 300mm f/2.8 to a 300mm f/2.8 + 2x TC, then doubling your distance to the subject by getting up and walking farther away from it. No one does that. You use a longer lens from the same vantage point.

Standardized test charts only exhibit the worst qualities of a lens or teleconverter, but never demonstrate their benefits. IMO, the proper way to demonstrate the true qualities of a lens in a visual, standardized lens test would be to shoot the test scene with A) identical framing and then B) at an identical subject distance, focusing the central point on the same location then sampling the results to the same final image dimensions. (i.e., in the test charts from the reviews you linked above, the little circular Proportional Scale ruler would be an IDEAL test case for standard distance comparisons.)

In every case, the longer lens, used at the same subject distance, will always resolve more detail and increase magnification. Unless you are using a TC with cheap plastic lenses that don't even qualify as optical grade, I cannot imagine that attaching a TC would ever result in lower final output IQ than using a lens without a TC. You either put fewer pixels on the subject and crop, or put more pixels on the subject and don't crop. More pixels on the subject, even if some of them have more CA, is almost always going to be preferable. It's really just a bummer that standardized tests never demonstrate that.

 

[garyknrd]

Good points.

Looking at the MTF charts for my two Canon lenses it follows what you say to a tee. I have to agree also with what I have found with my two lenses.
The bare lens is reet. Beautiful flat field wide open. Stopped down with a 1.4 T.C = a flat field, and a sharp enough image. For me the 2.0x is a no fly zone.

My two Canon lenses perform so good with out a t.c. I don't worry about my settings other than correct exposure. All the pressure is off. And I just enjoy the hobby.

Great thread.

 

[jrista]

Good points.

Looking at the MTF charts for my two Canon lenses it follows what you say to a tee. I have to agree also with what I have found with my two lenses.
The bare lens is reet. Beautiful flat field wide open. Stopped down with a 1.4 T.C = a flat field, and a sharp enough image. For me the 2.0x is a no fly zone.

My two Canon lenses perform so good with out a t.c. I don't worry about my settings other than correct exposure. All the pressure is off. And I just enjoy the hobby.

Great thread.

Just to demonstrate how a 600mm f/4 with a 2x TC can and does produce stellar IQ. Here is Art Morris discussing his IQ with the 1200mm combo:

http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2013/12/10/three-lenses-and-the-power-of-twelve/

Half way down, under the section "The Power of Twelve Hundred Millimeters":

[quote author=Art Morris]"To create the relatively large-in-the-frame vertical image above I went with the 600II/2X III combo. Though many state openly that it is not possible to create critically sharp images with a 2X teleconverter I do just that consistently. "[/quote]

By "I do just that consistently", he means he creates "critically sharp images" with a 2x TC on a consistent basis. His work truly demonstrates that fact. It is ALWAYS "critically sharp", as he would never accept anything less. For many people, they simply cannot accept that fact, and will only use lenses without teleconverters, at any cost. That is certainly an OK personal choice, I understand the desire for maximizing IQ. Real world results speak for themselves, though...and a good lens with a 2x TC IS indeed capable of producing critical sharpness.

 

[jrista]

Here are a bunch more shots by Art Morris with the 600/4 II + 2x TC:

http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2013/11/29/your-goose-is-cooked/

Every single one of them is amazingly sharp. If it wasn't for Art's REAL WORLD examples, I might also think that the 2x TC was an IQ guzzler that produced nothing but soft, unusable images. On the contrary, I honestly can't wait to get my hands on a 5D III so I can put my 600/4 + 2x TC to good use.

 

[Eldar]

Here are a bunch more shots by Art Morris with the 600/4 II + 2x TC:

http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2013/11/29/your-goose-is-cooked/

Every single one of them is amazingly sharp. If it wasn't for Art's REAL WORLD examples, I might also think that the 2x TC was an IQ guzzler that produced nothing but soft, unusable images. On the contrary, I honestly can't wait to get my hands on a 5D III so I can put my 600/4 + 2x TC to good use.

As long as you have a fairly stable object, where you can position the focus point, ref. the attached link, you get excellent quality images. But to try to find a moving object in the viewer at 1200mm and then follow it and get focus right ... clearly beyond my capabilities.

 

[jrista]

Here are a bunch more shots by Art Morris with the 600/4 II + 2x TC:

http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2013/11/29/your-goose-is-cooked/

Every single one of them is amazingly sharp. If it wasn't for Art's REAL WORLD examples, I might also think that the 2x TC was an IQ guzzler that produced nothing but soft, unusable images. On the contrary, I honestly can't wait to get my hands on a 5D III so I can put my 600/4 + 2x TC to good use.

As long as you have a fairly stable object, where you can position the focus point, ref. the attached link, you get excellent quality images. But to try to find a moving object in the viewer at 1200mm and then follow it and get focus right ... clearly beyond my capabilities.

Sure, but as I've mentioned many times before...no one would even bother trying to frame a bird in flight at 1200mm! Few people would even bother at 800/840mm. It is natural and expected that you would use a shorter focal length. For one, the kinds of birds we usually photograph in flight are larger than the average bird you would use 1200mm for (shorebirds, songbirds, etc.) So they are probably going to clip the frame at 1200mm anyway. At 800mm they are going to fill the frame, but because of the instability of your hands, they are rarely going to be center frame. It simply isn't logical to even consider BIF at such long focal lengths. At 600mm on the 7D, framing is still too tight, however 600mm on FF is almost just right (500mm is actually better.)

I know the argument is continually brought up, that no one BIFs at f/8, but its a naive point to make. Of course not! But BIF is actually a smaller part of bird photography as a whole...a considerably more significant amount of bird photography is of stationary birds. That makes the discussion of f/8 AF and high focal lengths like 840mm and 1200mm entirely relevant. And the fundamental argument I was making...that the 2x TC does NOT degrade IQ to unusable levels, is true regardless.

 

[Don Haines]

For birds, which is also what I mostly do, 840mm is enough if you know how to get close, and 600mm on FF is enough if you have exceptional sneaking skills. ;P Cropping is just as much an artistic factor as it is sometimes a necessity. Personally, I find that completely filling the frame with a bird limits your ability to fix composition errors in post, so I try to leave some space around my subjects. Reduces pixels on subject, but it gives you the option of fixing rotation, using crop to shift the subject toward one side to improve composition, or if you print on canvas like I do, gives you that extra bit of necessary room for the wrapped edges in gallery wraps. The only reason I would likely use 1200mm f/8 on a 5D III would be to give the birds more space, instead of crowding them (although it entirely depends on the bird and the environment whether that improves their behavior or not...many birds don't care about proximity, some care very much, but only in certain circumstances or times of the year.)

Nice insight on the canvas printing. I've done it, but not yet mounted them, that's worth bearing in mind, thanks

As far as birds are concerned, I dunno. Maybe it's me. Maybe it's the birds. Some are very confiding, of course, but in that case you can get incredible detail at 1000mm near the minimum focus distance. Many species, in most circumstances, see you and skedaddle. In open situations, like beaches or beside open water, it can be very difficult indeed (I do have a portable hide, perhaps I should start using it more - but that seems rather extreme most of the time). Either way, having the focal length is better than not; if I get closer to the birds, I can always take off the teleconverter.

Birds take patience, and maybe some camo clothing (but NOT a hide, unless you have somewhere to hide the hide...if it stands out in the open, birds will take notice and stay clear.) My closest shots always come about an hour after I head out. I tend to stay low, usually laying in the sand, with my tripod set up such that the legs are collapsed and angled flat, so I get the lowest clearance from the ground possible. I wear a camo jacket and this cheap camo net overlay to pull over my pants. Then I just wait. Shorebirds, for example, move up and down and back up the shore. If you set yourself up with the sun behind you, it is really just a matter of time before the birds come wading right up to you, then past you, then back again. In between encounters, you can shift your position, or creep in closer by a few feet at a time. Eventually you can get so close that you'll take the TC off!

I bring along a folding chair and a good book.... after a while they seem to forget about you and then you can get down to business... until someone comes past walking their dog

 

[Eldar]

Sure, but as I've mentioned many times before...no one would even bother trying to frame a bird in flight at 1200mm! Few people would even bother at 800/840mm. It is natural and expected that you would use a shorter focal length.

At 1200mm I find it close to impossible, but at 840mm it can be done. This one is 840mm, f6.3, 1/800s handheld.

 

[jrista]

For birds, which is also what I mostly do, 840mm is enough if you know how to get close, and 600mm on FF is enough if you have exceptional sneaking skills. ;P Cropping is just as much an artistic factor as it is sometimes a necessity. Personally, I find that completely filling the frame with a bird limits your ability to fix composition errors in post, so I try to leave some space around my subjects. Reduces pixels on subject, but it gives you the option of fixing rotation, using crop to shift the subject toward one side to improve composition, or if you print on canvas like I do, gives you that extra bit of necessary room for the wrapped edges in gallery wraps. The only reason I would likely use 1200mm f/8 on a 5D III would be to give the birds more space, instead of crowding them (although it entirely depends on the bird and the environment whether that improves their behavior or not...many birds don't care about proximity, some care very much, but only in certain circumstances or times of the year.)

Nice insight on the canvas printing. I've done it, but not yet mounted them, that's worth bearing in mind, thanks

As far as birds are concerned, I dunno. Maybe it's me. Maybe it's the birds. Some are very confiding, of course, but in that case you can get incredible detail at 1000mm near the minimum focus distance. Many species, in most circumstances, see you and skedaddle. In open situations, like beaches or beside open water, it can be very difficult indeed (I do have a portable hide, perhaps I should start using it more - but that seems rather extreme most of the time). Either way, having the focal length is better than not; if I get closer to the birds, I can always take off the teleconverter.

Birds take patience, and maybe some camo clothing (but NOT a hide, unless you have somewhere to hide the hide...if it stands out in the open, birds will take notice and stay clear.) My closest shots always come about an hour after I head out. I tend to stay low, usually laying in the sand, with my tripod set up such that the legs are collapsed and angled flat, so I get the lowest clearance from the ground possible. I wear a camo jacket and this cheap camo net overlay to pull over my pants. Then I just wait. Shorebirds, for example, move up and down and back up the shore. If you set yourself up with the sun behind you, it is really just a matter of time before the birds come wading right up to you, then past you, then back again. In between encounters, you can shift your position, or creep in closer by a few feet at a time. Eventually you can get so close that you'll take the TC off!

I bring along a folding chair and a good book.... after a while they seem to forget about you and then you can get down to business... until someone comes past walking their dog

LOL! OMG, you have no idea how relevant that is to just about EVERY bird photography outing I've ever been on. Even today...I was trying to photograph this beautiful little Kestrel...and this old lady with her dog just kept going back and forth along the same path, and EVERY time she scared the little hawk off. Too me forever to finally get it to think I was just a noisy bush and get some good shots. (I'll try to post them once I get them processed...just got back home from that little photo trip, and haven't even imported them yet.)

 

[jrista]

Sure, but as I've mentioned many times before...no one would even bother trying to frame a bird in flight at 1200mm! Few people would even bother at 800/840mm. It is natural and expected that you would use a shorter focal length.

At 1200mm I find it close to impossible, but at 840mm it can be done. This one is 840mm, f6.3, 1/800s handheld.

I use 840mm when it feels appropriate. I actually just photographed a hawk that was hunting overhead today. I have not yet imported the photos, but I'll post some when I do. I think my exposures were 840mm f/8 and f/9 at various shutter speeds, all hand held. (Was a real PITA, too...the bird kept flying directly overhead, and the sun was just off to the side...so there's me, gigantic lens pointed STRAIT UP...bleh....)

 

[garyknrd]

Good points.

Looking at the MTF charts for my two Canon lenses it follows what you say to a tee. I have to agree also with what I have found with my two lenses.
The bare lens is reet. Beautiful flat field wide open. Stopped down with a 1.4 T.C = a flat field, and a sharp enough image. For me the 2.0x is a no fly zone.

My two Canon lenses perform so good with out a t.c. I don't worry about my settings other than correct exposure. All the pressure is off. And I just enjoy the hobby.

Great thread.

Just to demonstrate how a 600mm f/4 with a 2x TC can and does produce stellar IQ. Here is Art Morris discussing his IQ with the 1200mm combo:

http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2013/12/10/three-lenses-and-the-power-of-twelve/

Half way down, under the section "The Power of Twelve Hundred Millimeters":

[quote author=Art Morris]"To create the relatively large-in-the-frame vertical image above I went with the 600II/2X III combo. Though many state openly that it is not possible to create critically sharp images with a 2X teleconverter I do just that consistently. "

By "I do just that consistently", he means he creates "critically sharp images" with a 2x TC on a consistent basis. His work truly demonstrates that fact. It is ALWAYS "critically sharp", as he would never accept anything less. For many people, they simply cannot accept that fact, and will only use lenses without teleconverters, at any cost. That is certainly an OK personal choice, I understand the desire for maximizing IQ. Real world results speak for themselves, though...and a good lens with a 2x TC IS indeed capable of producing critical sharpness.
[/quote]

Yep, he does it consistently. A nice guy also.
Still a no go zone for me though. At this point anyway.
I'm bowing out. Heading out for some photography in the sticks...

 

[jrista]

Good points.

Looking at the MTF charts for my two Canon lenses it follows what you say to a tee. I have to agree also with what I have found with my two lenses.
The bare lens is reet. Beautiful flat field wide open. Stopped down with a 1.4 T.C = a flat field, and a sharp enough image. For me the 2.0x is a no fly zone.

My two Canon lenses perform so good with out a t.c. I don't worry about my settings other than correct exposure. All the pressure is off. And I just enjoy the hobby.

Great thread.

Just to demonstrate how a 600mm f/4 with a 2x TC can and does produce stellar IQ. Here is Art Morris discussing his IQ with the 1200mm combo:

http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2013/12/10/three-lenses-and-the-power-of-twelve/

Half way down, under the section "The Power of Twelve Hundred Millimeters":

[quote author=Art Morris]"To create the relatively large-in-the-frame vertical image above I went with the 600II/2X III combo. Though many state openly that it is not possible to create critically sharp images with a 2X teleconverter I do just that consistently. "

By "I do just that consistently", he means he creates "critically sharp images" with a 2x TC on a consistent basis. His work truly demonstrates that fact. It is ALWAYS "critically sharp", as he would never accept anything less. For many people, they simply cannot accept that fact, and will only use lenses without teleconverters, at any cost. That is certainly an OK personal choice, I understand the desire for maximizing IQ. Real world results speak for themselves, though...and a good lens with a 2x TC IS indeed capable of producing critical sharpness.

Yep, he does it consistently. A nice guy also.
Still a no go zone for me though. At this point anyway.
I'm bowing out. Heading out for some photography in the sticks...
[/quote]

Have fun! Bring back the critically sharp!

 

[CarlTN]

You still didn’t tell me if you were in servo mode for the bittern shot. I assume you were. 12 pounds...so this was the series 1 600mm lens?

AI Servo mode.

I have the 600/4L IS II lens. It weighs 8.6 lbs by itself. I'm not sure why some people seem to think that because a lens is big and expensive, it can record images all by itself. Carl, please don't tell me you're like dilbert, who thinks that lenses are cameras... The 1D X is ~3.4 lbs (so in fact, the 1D X + 2xIII + 600 II combo comes to ~12.7 lbs).

My mistake, I thought you were referring to the lens alone being 12 pounds. However, it is kind of the way you worded it that made me think that way. If that makes me like Dilbert to you, so be it! In any case, you should have used a monopod.

 

[CarlTN]

Yes I would be all over a 1.7x TC too. But I guess since Nikon has had one for a decade, Canon needs to wait another couple of decades before they bring one to market. You know, just to make sure they get it right!

Oh, you mean like ultrasonic motors (Canon: 1987, Nikon: 1998)?
Or image stabilization in 35mm lenses (Canon: 1995, Nikon: 2000)?
Or electromagnetic aperture mechanisms (Canon: 1987, Nikon: 2008)?
How about full frame digital sensors (Canon: 2002, Nikon: 2007)?
Or CMOS sensors for DSLRs (Canon: 2000, Nikon: 2004)?
Built in teleconverter (Canon: 1984 [2012 for AF], Nikon: never)?

Yeah, like those.

I know I have cherry-picked a few examples, but you can't possibly think that Nikon is a substantially faster-moving and more innovative company overall. And that 1.7x TC you desire, there are two versions for Nikon: 1) that works only with AF-S and AF-I lenses, and 2) a version that is manual focus only for all lenses. Own an nice AF 300mm f/2.8 or 80-200mm f/2.8D? Tough luck, no AF for you (not that Nikon AF lenses are fast by anyone's definition).

Grass still greener?

Yes, yes I do think Nikon is the faster, more innovative company! And I'll meet you on the field of battle if you say otherwise!!!

Get over yourself here dude...how about the 200-400 zoom? Nikon brought theirs out when? 2003? How about the Nikon D4 vs. 1DX rollout? How come the general public couldn't buy the 1DX in any significant quantity until the summer that year, where the D4 could be bought by anyone by what, February?

How about a 14-24 f/2.8 zoom?? Which company has one of those again?

Why does Nikon have to announce a D300S replacement before Canon would even consider a development announcement of a 7D2?? Why do they need to get their little leakers to leak that there just may not be a 7D2?? Silly games on Canon's part...

See? I can cherry pick too!

Of course I'm being sarcastic, I know Nikon is the less innovative company, but they do tend to do things first. They just don't do them best...except of course for their dynamic range under ISO 1000. Hopefully that will come to an end in 2014, but it just may not! What then???

I stand by my word, that Canon will bring a 1.7x TC to market. It will be announced in the fall of 2112, and will be available at authorized dealers a century later, if not sooner!!

 

[jrista]

Yes I would be all over a 1.7x TC too. But I guess since Nikon has had one for a decade, Canon needs to wait another couple of decades before they bring one to market. You know, just to make sure they get it right!

Oh, you mean like ultrasonic motors (Canon: 1987, Nikon: 1998)?
Or image stabilization in 35mm lenses (Canon: 1995, Nikon: 2000)?
Or electromagnetic aperture mechanisms (Canon: 1987, Nikon: 2008)?
How about full frame digital sensors (Canon: 2002, Nikon: 2007)?
Or CMOS sensors for DSLRs (Canon: 2000, Nikon: 2004)?
Built in teleconverter (Canon: 1984 [2012 for AF], Nikon: never)?

Yeah, like those.

I know I have cherry-picked a few examples, but you can't possibly think that Nikon is a substantially faster-moving and more innovative company overall. And that 1.7x TC you desire, there are two versions for Nikon: 1) that works only with AF-S and AF-I lenses, and 2) a version that is manual focus only for all lenses. Own an nice AF 300mm f/2.8 or 80-200mm f/2.8D? Tough luck, no AF for you (not that Nikon AF lenses are fast by anyone's definition).

Grass still greener?

Yes, yes I do think Nikon is the faster, more innovative company! And I'll meet you on the field of battle if you say otherwise!!!

Get over yourself here dude...how about the 200-400 zoom? Nikon brought theirs out when? 2003? How about the Nikon D4 vs. 1DX rollout? How come the general public couldn't buy the 1DX in any significant quantity until the summer that year, where the D4 could be bought by anyone by what, February?

How about a 14-24 f/2.8 zoom?? Which company has one of those again?

Why does Nikon have to announce a D300S replacement before Canon would even consider a development announcement of a 7D2?? Why do they need to get their little leakers to leak that there just may not be a 7D2?? Silly games on Canon's part...

See? I can cherry pick too!

Of course I'm being sarcastic, I know Nikon is the less innovative company, but they do tend to do things first. They just don't do them best...except of course for their dynamic range under ISO 1000. Hopefully that will come to an end in 2014, but it just may not! What then???

I stand by my word, that Canon will bring a 1.7x TC to market. It will be announced in the fall of 2112, and will be available at authorized dealers a century later, if not sooner!!

Technically speaking, Sony did ISO 100 DR...Nikon only used their innovation. Canon also pioneered the use of large artificially grown fluorite lens elements, UD glass elements, diffractive optics, and a whole host of other true innovations in the photographic industry. Canon is particularly innovative on the optical side of things, but they have still been plenty innovative on the digital technology side of things as well.

The thing about Nikon is their business is built on alliance, rather than innovation. That approach allows them to be faster, but it is also fragile...the failure of an alliance can have a devastating impact on Nikon. I would also point out that Nikon is a little schizophrenic when it comes to their management and marketing policies. The best example of that is the naming of their camera models...does ANYONE understand the logic behind Nikon camera names? It seems to change every few years, sometimes a Dxxx means something specific, but then the next time a similar camera rolls around, it suddenly has a Dxxxx designation, then you have the D800 and D600, both of which interfere with potential future naming for the successors of the D300 line, so on and so forth.

Nikon may be quick to market, but that is quite simply BECAUSE they are not as innovative. They don't have to spend as much time researching and designing new products and new technology from the ground up...they simply have to find the right parts, buy them, and assembly a new product. Oh, and maybe throw in a little bit of innovation here and there...a true RGB metering sensor, then a reticular AF sensor....maybe, just MAYBE, something else. But for the most part, Nikon assembles parts, rather than designing cameras.

It should come as no surprise that the 1D X, therefor, took longer to hit the shelves. The single most critically important thing for Canon's reputation with the 1D X was the AF sensor. It was a completely new AF unit design, with a completely new AF sensor designed from scratch, paired with a unique new processor that intertwined metering, the RGB image the meter recorded, and the AF system with special logic to produce the most accurate AF system the world has ever seen. It was absolutely CRITICAL, especially after the issues with their prior AF units in 1D bodies, that the AF system worked perfectly out the gate. It was wise for Canon to withhold the product until the early issues were worked out. There is no question that Canon's 61pt AF system is faster, more consistent, more accurate, and more precise while concurrently covering a much broader area of the frame than anything available from Nikon. Nikon may have been first with a reticular AF unit, but Canon did it WAY better.

 

[scyrene]

Hmm....I'm not sure it is possible for a 2x TC, even a bad one, to cancel out the benefit of the extra focal length. Subject size in the frame is the square of the ratio of the focal lengths. In your case, you went from 500mm to 1000mm, so your subject quadrupled in size in the frame ((1000/500)^2 = 4). There is no way that the TC is introducing so much CA that it is overpowering having FOUR TIMES as many pixels on subject...that would mean your CA was like 13µm in size...which I simply don't believe. Not to mention that CA adds color fringing, which can be corrected, and the overall general softening due to the 2x TC III is relatively low. I mean, it definitely has an impact, but it isn't entirely canceling the benefit of having twice the focal length.

I meant 1000mm vs 700mm, sorry to be ambiguous. There is definitely an advantage over the bare lens; the difference between the two extenders is less obvious, but in general I prefer more focal length whenever possible (but the loss of nearly 2 stops (as I stop down to f/10 with the 2x, whilst leaving the 1.4x at f/5.6) means the longer combination is not usable in poor light). It has to be said though (and this is probably partly due to my 2x extender being the mark II, whereas my 1.4x is the III), the 700mm combination behaves like a single lens, whereas at 1000mm it doesn't.

 

[scyrene]

For birds, which is also what I mostly do, 840mm is enough if you know how to get close, and 600mm on FF is enough if you have exceptional sneaking skills. ;P Cropping is just as much an artistic factor as it is sometimes a necessity. Personally, I find that completely filling the frame with a bird limits your ability to fix composition errors in post, so I try to leave some space around my subjects. Reduces pixels on subject, but it gives you the option of fixing rotation, using crop to shift the subject toward one side to improve composition, or if you print on canvas like I do, gives you that extra bit of necessary room for the wrapped edges in gallery wraps. The only reason I would likely use 1200mm f/8 on a 5D III would be to give the birds more space, instead of crowding them (although it entirely depends on the bird and the environment whether that improves their behavior or not...many birds don't care about proximity, some care very much, but only in certain circumstances or times of the year.)

Nice insight on the canvas printing. I've done it, but not yet mounted them, that's worth bearing in mind, thanks

As far as birds are concerned, I dunno. Maybe it's me. Maybe it's the birds. Some are very confiding, of course, but in that case you can get incredible detail at 1000mm near the minimum focus distance. Many species, in most circumstances, see you and skedaddle. In open situations, like beaches or beside open water, it can be very difficult indeed (I do have a portable hide, perhaps I should start using it more - but that seems rather extreme most of the time). Either way, having the focal length is better than not; if I get closer to the birds, I can always take off the teleconverter.

Birds take patience, and maybe some camo clothing (but NOT a hide, unless you have somewhere to hide the hide...if it stands out in the open, birds will take notice and stay clear.) My closest shots always come about an hour after I head out. I tend to stay low, usually laying in the sand, with my tripod set up such that the legs are collapsed and angled flat, so I get the lowest clearance from the ground possible. I wear a camo jacket and this cheap camo net overlay to pull over my pants. Then I just wait. Shorebirds, for example, move up and down and back up the shore. If you set yourself up with the sun behind you, it is really just a matter of time before the birds come wading right up to you, then past you, then back again. In between encounters, you can shift your position, or creep in closer by a few feet at a time. Eventually you can get so close that you'll take the TC off!

I bring along a folding chair and a good book.... after a while they seem to forget about you and then you can get down to business... until someone comes past walking their dog

LOL! OMG, you have no idea how relevant that is to just about EVERY bird photography outing I've ever been on. Even today...I was trying to photograph this beautiful little Kestrel...and this old lady with her dog just kept going back and forth along the same path, and EVERY time she scared the little hawk off. Too me forever to finally get it to think I was just a noisy bush and get some good shots. (I'll try to post them once I get them processed...just got back home from that little photo trip, and haven't even imported them yet.)

Dog walkers are the enemy of bird photographers, I agree! I get VERY frustrated with them, almost every time.

 

[scyrene]

Mind if I ask, why did you stick with f/8? I always stop down the 500+2x to f/10 as I find it gives a little extra sharpness. The only exception would be in extreme low light.

I was in a hurry... :-[ I looked over as the bird took flight, raised the camera and shot. It was in standby mode, but when birding I walk around with it in my BIF mode (C3), which is 1/1600 s, f/6.3, Auto ISO. That's set for the bare 600 or with the 1.4xIII, so it defaulted to the wide open f/8 with the 2xIII attached.

Understandable. You are forgiven!

 

[CarlTN]

Yes I would be all over a 1.7x TC too. But I guess since Nikon has had one for a decade, Canon needs to wait another couple of decades before they bring one to market. You know, just to make sure they get it right!

Oh, you mean like ultrasonic motors (Canon: 1987, Nikon: 1998)?
Or image stabilization in 35mm lenses (Canon: 1995, Nikon: 2000)?
Or electromagnetic aperture mechanisms (Canon: 1987, Nikon: 2008)?
How about full frame digital sensors (Canon: 2002, Nikon: 2007)?
Or CMOS sensors for DSLRs (Canon: 2000, Nikon: 2004)?
Built in teleconverter (Canon: 1984 [2012 for AF], Nikon: never)?

Yeah, like those.

I know I have cherry-picked a few examples, but you can't possibly think that Nikon is a substantially faster-moving and more innovative company overall. And that 1.7x TC you desire, there are two versions for Nikon: 1) that works only with AF-S and AF-I lenses, and 2) a version that is manual focus only for all lenses. Own an nice AF 300mm f/2.8 or 80-200mm f/2.8D? Tough luck, no AF for you (not that Nikon AF lenses are fast by anyone's definition).

Grass still greener?

Yes, yes I do think Nikon is the faster, more innovative company! And I'll meet you on the field of battle if you say otherwise!!!

Get over yourself here dude...how about the 200-400 zoom? Nikon brought theirs out when? 2003? How about the Nikon D4 vs. 1DX rollout? How come the general public couldn't buy the 1DX in any significant quantity until the summer that year, where the D4 could be bought by anyone by what, February?

How about a 14-24 f/2.8 zoom?? Which company has one of those again?

Why does Nikon have to announce a D300S replacement before Canon would even consider a development announcement of a 7D2?? Why do they need to get their little leakers to leak that there just may not be a 7D2?? Silly games on Canon's part...

See? I can cherry pick too!

Of course I'm being sarcastic, I know Nikon is the less innovative company, but they do tend to do things first. They just don't do them best...except of course for their dynamic range under ISO 1000. Hopefully that will come to an end in 2014, but it just may not! What then???

I stand by my word, that Canon will bring a 1.7x TC to market. It will be announced in the fall of 2112, and will be available at authorized dealers a century later, if not sooner!!

Technically speaking, Sony did ISO 100 DR...Nikon only used their innovation. Canon also pioneered the use of large artificially grown fluorite lens elements, UD glass elements, diffractive optics, and a whole host of other true innovations in the photographic industry. Canon is particularly innovative on the optical side of things, but they have still been plenty innovative on the digital technology side of things as well.

The thing about Nikon is their business is built on alliance, rather than innovation. That approach allows them to be faster, but it is also fragile...the failure of an alliance can have a devastating impact on Nikon. I would also point out that Nikon is a little schizophrenic when it comes to their management and marketing policies. The best example of that is the naming of their camera models...does ANYONE understand the logic behind Nikon camera names? It seems to change every few years, sometimes a Dxxx means something specific, but then the next time a similar camera rolls around, it suddenly has a Dxxxx designation, then you have the D800 and D600, both of which interfere with potential future naming for the successors of the D300 line, so on and so forth.

Nikon may be quick to market, but that is quite simply BECAUSE they are not as innovative. They don't have to spend as much time researching and designing new products and new technology from the ground up...they simply have to find the right parts, buy them, and assembly a new product. Oh, and maybe throw in a little bit of innovation here and there...a true RGB metering sensor, then a reticular AF sensor....maybe, just MAYBE, something else. But for the most part, Nikon assembles parts, rather than designing cameras.

It should come as no surprise that the 1D X, therefor, took longer to hit the shelves. The single most critically important thing for Canon's reputation with the 1D X was the AF sensor. It was a completely new AF unit design, with a completely new AF sensor designed from scratch, paired with a unique new processor that intertwined metering, the RGB image the meter recorded, and the AF system with special logic to produce the most accurate AF system the world has ever seen. It was absolutely CRITICAL, especially after the issues with their prior AF units in 1D bodies, that the AF system worked perfectly out the gate. It was wise for Canon to withhold the product until the early issues were worked out. There is no question that Canon's 61pt AF system is faster, more consistent, more accurate, and more precise while concurrently covering a much broader area of the frame than anything available from Nikon. Nikon may have been first with a reticular AF unit, but Canon did it WAY better.

Thank you for expounding on and helping to prove my point! Very interesting tidbits...especially regarding the Nikon reticular AF. I had known that but didn't articulate it. Thanks again!

However, the delay of the 1DX past the spring of that year, had more to do with production issues than with development...as early units displayed at the previous fall launch were the same camera as those sold the next summer. If I am wrong, please help to clarify. There were indeed certain privileged pros who were able to purchase their 1DX's at the same time that the D4 became available (January or February?), but everyone else had to wait months later into, July wasn't it?

 

[jrista]

However, the delay of the 1DX past the spring of that year, had more to do with production issues than with development...as early units displayed at the previous fall launch were the same camera as those sold the next summer. If I am wrong, please help to clarify. There were indeed certain privileged pros who were able to purchase their 1DX's at the same time that the D4 became available (January or February?), but everyone else had to wait months later into, July wasn't it?

There were definitely AF unit issues with the 1D X. That was the primary reason for it's delay. We aren't talking about the f/8 stuff, there were apparently other AF issues that had to be delt with. As far as I understand, for the "early release" models, they were actually prototypes that were effectively loaned out to those privileged pros until the final production models were really ready...at which time the loaners had to be turned in. The 1D X released officially just a few weeks before the Olympics got rolling, IIRC, and those who had loaners and were already packed up and shipped out for the Olympics were allowed to keep those models until the Olympics were over. Similarly, there were quite a number of 200-400mm TC lenses loaned out for the Olympics as well.