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

On some lenses, like the Canon 300mm F2.8, 200mm F2, 400mm F2.8 - and the Nikon counterparts, there is no question that even when used with a 2XTC is going to provide a cleaner image. If you aren't convinced, look at Regis Tolbert's eagle images - I'm pretty sure he uses a 300 F2.8 and TCs.

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

On this we are in total agreement. But for those times when it is not possible to get closer . . .

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

So, Gene - just exactly what is "cleaner" - and is it relevant and does it matter ?? - I am NOT convinced !

I have done the testing of the 300mm f2.8 Canon lens with a 2XII against the lens alone with 2X CIZ - have you ?? And the subject matter was not some street sign but a Redbellied WP !

The loss of 2 f-stops of light puts the TC at a disadvantage right from the start !!

Sorry folks, I do not share your facination with Tolbert's images - I especially dislike how his processing affects the final results - making them look worse than a CIZ image - IMO.
.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Yes, WHAT about those times ????
.

hassighedgehog Loc: Corona, CA

I have always disabled any digital zoom on every camera I've had. Prefer to make my own crops.

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

To be fair, I don't a Canon 300mm F2.8 and a full frame Sony, so I can't compare. But I have seen some amazing work, like Laura Meyers - https://www.flickr.com/photos/laurameyers/with/49032699638/- and others who use the 300 with 1.4X and 2X converters and there is absolutely nothing to complain about. However, what I have seen anecdotally with Sony A6300 and Sony lenses leads me to my conclusion. The big difference is the inability to make the kinds of image adjustments to jpegs that you can make in raw, and the fact that CIZ relies heavily on microcontrast adjustments to provide the appearance of sharpness - which just like programs like On1 Resize and other resizing applications - does not do anything for fine detail capture. Interpolation, even assisted by AI, is not a good solution for my eyes, and the CIZ artifacts are quite easy to spot. When I get to be your age, I may have a different opinion on this.

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

I am agreeing with you - I think I already said that. Why are you being so defensive?

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

I'd love to see the woodpecker shot!

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

I have done amazing work with the Canon 300 2.8 and 2XII !! ......But, after doing the comparison, ( on a 20MP crop frame body) I decided to go with SONY, a smaller lens (Sigma 100-300 f4) and CIZ instead. This was no small decision for me - I have NOT regretted it ! So, you see I do have experience with the best lens on the planet and I do know what quality images look like ! The comparison was done 5 years ago - and yes, my eyes were probably better then than now .....

Please keep in mind, that ALL digital imaging comes by way of interpolation !! and it is all far from perfect - but it WORKS and people seem to LIKE it ! - just as they should AI enhanced images.
.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

So, what are the options ? ...... 1. getting closer. 2. bigger heavier more expensive lens. 3. using a camera with high pixel density to facilitate cropping without loosing pixels. 4. using a tele-converter/extender - loosing some definition and LIGHT - some can be expensive (in my world) and there is always the compatibility issues - and the trouble of mounting and dismounting to use and the added weight and mass. 5. Crop and use pixel enlargement - either in camera ( CIZ - simple, quick and EASY) or in post (buy more software and spend time).
.

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

Well, in your world your 5 options make sense.

But in response to your 5 options . . .

1. & 2. Getting closer with a sharp, long lens is my first priority. I always get the best results that way, and I wouldn't have it any other way but sometimes I can't.

3. When shooting birds, particularly small ones, cropping is almost always part of the workflow. Cropping always involves losing pixels, but a full frame camera with at least 36 mp or higher will record the fine detail that can hold up under considerable cropping.

Heavily cropped Carolina Wren shot with a Sigma Sport:

_DSC3215-NIKON D810-3007990-(28-04-19)-Edit by Gene Lugo, on Flickr


Heavily cropped Painted Bunting, 600mm F4 at minimum focus distance:

_DSC7179 by Gene Lugo, on Flickr

4. Teleconverters - with certain lenses, when it is physically impossible to get close enough the combination is a great Plan B choice, especially if you use primes or zooms that are top-shelf-sharp to begin with. Putting a TC on a slow (F5.6 or slower) lens can work, like in the case of the Canon 100-400 II without giving away much image quality. In fact, the Canon 100-400 is as sharp or sharper with the 1.4TC than the 200-500 Nikkor, and the first round of 150-600s from Tamron and Sigma.

Heavily cropped nesting Herons with a D800 and 600mm+1.4X - distance was about 500 meters.

_DSC2409-Edit-2 by Gene Lugo, on Flickr

Slightly cropped Immature Night Heron, D300, 600mmF4 and 1.4X TC

_DSC6630-Edit-Edit by Gene Lugo, on Flickr

In general, for depth of field considerations, I am rarely impacted by the loss of one stop of light, and in most cases I am shooting at F7.1 or small actual aperture anyway. With an F2.8 300mm there is still a lot of room, even with the 2X TC, to still close the lens down one stop. A good camera with lots of pixels together with shooting raw and some simple recipes for noise, contrast and sharpening make child's play to get image quality that exceeds jpegs shot with CIZ. But you wouldn't have any first-hand experience with that.

5. Up-rezzing, or what you refer to as "pixel enlargement" is a last choice for many subjects that I shoot since it NEVER replaces fine detail not in the original capture - whether it is done in camera or with resizing software. Resizing in this manner provides a slight improvement over simple software resizing as is found in most editing applications (not dedicated apps like ON1 Resize). It works best when looking at larger prints or projected images, but for up close scrutiny, like an 8x12 print, resizing/interpolating doesn't hold up. "Pixel enlargement" is misleading - these applications do not change the size of any pixels, they just stretch the dimensions by first adding space between the original pixels, then just adding more pixels in the spaces, looking at adjacent ones and "predicting" what "should" be there. This is where a resized image starts to fall apart for me. Sometimes the added pixels just look awful, in the form of artifacts. You are not likely to see the artifacts or fine details or texture when you are looking at a 24x36 image or bigger - no one's eyes can see the small stuff - but up close - eww!

And FWIW, it is nearly impossible to do an image quality comparison between CIZ and TCs - using a live subject. Too many variables. So it is suffice to shoot a sign, preferably with some texture - which removes most of the variables - subject movement, changes in subject distance to camera, etc. If you have 2 bodies and two lenses with radio triggers firing both cameras simultaneously, maybe. But still, achieving focus at the same time with both cameras would be challenging.

As you can tell, I am neither a fan of CIZ NOR On1 Resize (and otherapps like it) - because of the quality loss and addition of artifacts. Trust me, if I could get an improvement with resizing, it would have become an integral part of my workflow long ago, when it was an independent product known as Genuine Fractals. It's good for what it does, but it does not replace good lenses and high mp cameras - ever.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Well, I see you are feeding your ego here again ........... All I can say folks is I DID the testing and I am very happy with CIZ - easy and simple ! Those who want to fool around with raw and super software, spend big money and carry heavy lenses/extenders and try to impress people - I say more power to you !
.

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

When you make it personal, and double down on your claims, it means you have run out of rational arguments to defend your position. This is not about power, it's about presenting a balanced, fair and open-minded opinion - and since we are photographers, visuals help. No ego here - I have zero to prove other than you use hyperbole and misconstrued arguments to trash talk a perfectly legitimate approach. Talk is cheap, but when you can support a point of view with an image or two, it helps drive it home.

BTW, I do accept your compliments on my images. :)

Even at this late stage in the world of digital photography you still hold on to some questionable ideas - spending big money, carrying heavy lenses/extenders and that somehow this is not about photography but rather to impress people. You might consider editing raw files "fooling around" but there are many on this and other forums who actually understand and leverage the benefits to produce excellent images - with a lot less bother than trying to do it with jpegs. I am not sure what you mean by "super software" - at the low end you can use Faststone Image Viewer which will allow you to edit raw files and uses DCraw - an open source raw editor - as its raw conversion engine. And it's free. At the other end you have the heavy hitters like ACR, DXO, On1, Capture One etc - which are generally embraced in the professional community and enjoy wide popularity.

Larry, we've had this discussion before, and I know your story and I know that you're stickin' to it. That's fine. And you know my story with the same deal. Just admit you have zero knowledge about raw processing, and just as I was honest in stating that I had no first hand experience with your test bench with a 300mm F2.8 Canon and both 1.4 and 2.0 extenders and the necessary adapters to test on a Sony body, you should do the same and admit you are not really qualified to comment on the cost, complexities or difficulties of a raw workflow - which to you at this point must still be one big mystery.

We can keep this argument going for another 12 pages, but I have neither the energy nor the motivation to do so. I think I've offered a good counterpoint to your ideas, and you have clearly presented your particular bias and the rationale behind it - so going further would be pointless. Don't you agree?

But I am sure you will seek to have the last word. You have never strayed from that behavior and I don't expect 2020 will bring any changes or surprises.

imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

mmmm, seems YOU are having all the last words ( and pictures) here ......LOL

MDI Mainer

For those who are reluctant to shoot with CIZ because it's limited to the JPEG format, Topaz has a JPEG to Raw AI converter.

Does anyone have any experience with this program? There is a 30 day free trial period to experiment with the program.

Here are some reviews (I'm sure there are others):

https://www.andybellphotography.com/blog/2019/01/28/topaz-jpeg-to-raw-ai-first-looks/

https://scottwyden.com/jpeg-to-raw-ai/

https://theonlinephotographer.typepad.com/the_online_photographer/2019/10/review-topaz-labs-jpeg-to-raw-ai.html

https://www.photographyaxis.com/post-processing/topaz-jpeg-to-raw-ai-review/