Steve DeMott Loc: St. Louis, Missouri (Oakville area)

Currently I have a FF camera body, 2 lenses that will reach 300mm and 1 with a 500mm reach. I only print up to 13x19 and don't need billboard size images (yet).

Which would be better?:

1. A x1.4 extender will provide a 420mm reach on the 300mm lens with a 1 stop lose of light.
or
2. Setting the FF to Crop mode will provide 450mm reach on the 300mm lens without light lose, but a lose of pixels.
or
3. Shooting at FF and cropping to the same proportions as in crop mode.

I can test 2 and 3, but I don't want to spend several hundred dollars for a teleconverter.

Thanks

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Always, you want the subject covering the most (highest number) pixels of the sensor. There are only two options: magnify the image circle via an extender / teleconverter creating a larger image focused onto the same sensor. Or, increase the pixel resolution of the sensor where the image is focused. Combining both options works too. Option 1 or option 4, buy a new and higher MP camera, are the two options that implement this 'always' aspect of digital photography.

larryepage Loc: North Texas area

In my experience, the answer to your question is "It depends."

It depends on what camera you have...what its focusing capabilities are and what its resolution is.
It depends on whether you are shooting in well-lit areas or with limited lighting.
It depends (sometimes) on the typical distance to your subjects.
It depends on whether your subjects are moving or not, and if so, whether toward/away from you or laterally to you.
It depends on whether your lenses are capable of working with an extender.

Not trying to be a smart mouth here, but there are several things to think about in order to find the answer to your question.

Quixdraw Loc: x

First suggestion get closer - I know, often impossible due to obstacles or property rights, or easily spooked critters, but first choice. Zooming with Feet!

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Another valid option 5, if applicable.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

If you are only printing to 13X19 then optimize your native IQ, get as close as you can, and CROP - within reason of course.

If printing larger than 13X19, then you need to start thinking about more magnification. Cheapest and somewhat easiest and maybe "better" in lower light is optimizing your native IQ and CROP - AND, use pixel enlargement software to restore good pixel counts for printing. Adobe default Bicubic smoother is one pixel enlargement option in - 10% increments. Another solution is to use a 1.4X extender - there is minimal degradation - and - maybe more important, some (1-stop) light LOSS. This light loss negatively affects your AF and ISO.

Another popular option is just using a high MP crop sensor camera !

And, finally, there is the option of using a 1.4X extender AND cropping and using pixel enlargement - and this will require very good stabilization techniques to mitigate blurring posibilities at the large magnification levels involved.
The sad reality is ALL magnification leads to IQ degradation and your exact courses of action will be dictated by your tolerance for these degradations.
.

joer Loc: Colorado/Illinois

You will have light loss and image degradation with the extender...why would you want to pay for that. Just shoot in native sensor mode adjust and crop to improve the composition. The only reason to shoot full frame in crop mode is to speed the buffer, there is no other advantage. Don't limit yourself to crop mode proportions...there is always Gigapixel if needed.

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

Buy a lens long enough to make you happy!! Extenders, I hate them!

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

IF, you have a newer FF body the negative AF and ISO affects of the extender will be minimized vs an older model ......
.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

There are only 2 good ways to get high magnification, expensive lens or mega-zoom bridge camera. That dilemma is why many settle for a less expensive alternative, a moderate tele with a 1.4 extender, but it has its shortcomings. The least expensive is crop with loss of resolution.

Gene51 Loc: Yonkers, NY, now in LSD (LowerSlowerDelaware)

First let me address some "photohmythology." Bigger prints, usually viewed at greater distances, do not require greater resolution. Images from 12mp phone cameras are routinely used on billboards. For a crisp-looking 40x60, which is typically viewed at around 9 ft distance, you only "need" about 32 ppi, and if you expect people to be viewing portions of the image up close, then 64 ppi would be good.

1. A lens with an extender can be quite good - and probably a great solution. But you'd need to have a fast, high quality lens to pair it with. Forget about prime lenses that are max F5.6 or F6.3, or zooms that have similar max apertures at max zooms. I've used a 200mm F2 lens with a 2X extender, and it was at least as good as the Nikkor 200-400 (the older version). The newer version comes with a 1.4X converter built in, and there is no difference in image quality, since the converter is already part of the optical formula. So if you have a 300 F2.8 - which is a very crisp lens to start out with, adding a 1.4X extender will only slightly diminish image quality, and slightly diminish focus acquisition speed and tracking. For all intents and purposes, you could leave the extender on and not worry about it. The quality and speed of a lens needs to be top shelf to get the best results.

2. Crop in camera = crop in print, with one exception. Finding a target in a wider viewfinder is easier when you are using the full sensor.

3. already covered in #2.

This image is one of a set that I shot using a 600mmF4 with a 1.4X TC and a D800, 1/400 sec, F8, ISO 200. It was tripod mounted, and the crop was substantial. The metadata shows a focal length of 850mm. It should read 840mm. The distance to the nest was about 500 ft, measured using a golf rangefinder.

The first image is unedited or cropped.

I did take a few without the extender, and a couple more with a 2X extender, and was not happy with the results - the 1.4X was a reasonable compromise. It allowed reasonably precise and fast focusing, and I only lost one stop of light. The 600mmF4 is a very sharp lens, but I think the 300mmF2.8 may be a little sharper, so it should work fine with a 1.4X. If you have a 200-500 F5.6 or a 500mmF5.6 the 500 prime will be a better choice with a TC, though it won't be ideal. Again, best TC results are achieved with fast sharp lenses. The one exception would be the Canon 100-400 F4.5-F5.6 II which is incredibly sharp and works well with a 1.4X TC.

(Download)


(Download)

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

Magnificent 💫💫💛💫💫

Steve DeMott Loc: St. Louis, Missouri (Oakville area)

I have a Nikon D750, 24mp, and the NEF is 6018x4018 pixels
I don't think the lighting would matter, except in low light with teleconverter auto focus may not work. I think noise would be a bigger problem.
and the last three I agree with.

Steve DeMott Loc: St. Louis, Missouri (Oakville area)

Unfortunately, a new camera is beyond my budget, so that leaves only 3 options
Thanks for your comment.

Steve DeMott Loc: St. Louis, Missouri (Oakville area)