John Gerlach Loc: Island Park, Idaho

https://e667cabb-944b-4267-84ff-4c28a716d036.filesusr.com/ugd/71c73d_0d20576b85bc49aaaa4eb57830a48e06.pdf

Many of you expressed interest in my findings using this gear for wildlife photos. What I found out will radically change how I photograph wildlife going forward.

xtoothdr

Without a doubt, the most comprehensive and understandable article on the subject.
Can't wait to incorporate your recommendations. Thank you so much for sharing...

goldstar46 Loc: Tampa, Fl

==============================================

Hello John...

I also own a number of Canon EOS cameras, including the R5 and the 600mm f/4. Had my R5 since last October.

I read your URL regarding the comparison of the R5 in "crop mode" compared to using the 600mm w/ the Teleconverter... and I am puzzled... It seems to me that you are promoting using "crop" for an extension as opposed to the X1.4 converter? Is that correct

The way I read your article, you would rather use your 45 MP camera, in Crop which will result in giving you 17 MP, instead of using the prime lens with a Canon X1.4... How does that make for a better picture? I know you displayed samples,, but is that what you are saying... "Crop Sensor" and NO Teleconverter?

I have reviewed the MTF Chars for this lens with both converters and yes, there is a 'slight loss' in contrast with converters BUT, my question is: Which is worse... Losing slight contrast as displayed by Canon Tech Info (See Below URL) or is it worse to lose a total of 62% ((Gone forever)) of all your pixels of an image because you have intentionally done an internal "crop" of your sensor...

I would invite you to review the MTF charts listed on the Canon USA URL listed below
https://www.usa.canon.com/internet/portal/us/home/products/details/lenses/ef/super-telephoto/ef-600mm-f-4l-is-iii-usm

Having said the above, sometimes I will entertain myself with BIF Bird Photography, and about 1 month ago, I came across a YouTuber who had done extensive research, and he has also developed a different opinion. I have been doing Digital Photography extensively for the last 10 years, and I see a "Lot of Truth" to what is being explained in this video... I would invite you to view that information at the below URL:

Title: Canon R5 Crop Mode vs Teleconverters by a Bird Photographer
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vo7Urg0vg5M

There is NO Doubt that you are very sincere in your investigative efforts... and I get it. If you have found the "Holy Grail", I would love to really understand it, how it works, and if it will benefit me...

If what you are saying is true, I might want to consider doing my "Long-Range 600mm Landscape" shots using a technique where I shoot with my 600mm Prime but, "Crop" the sensor using only 25×16 mm" of my full-frame sensor, and when I stretch that smaller image back up to 36 x 24mm, it will give me the equal of 840mm, resulting in a 17 MP image instead of 46 MP image...?? Is that what you are suggesting?

I am actually planning such a shot a "long-range" shot on the 26th of this month, the "Rising Full Moon" over the downtown of the city where I live... I am doing the long-range, for effects of compression and the enlargement of the moon itself...

In closing, I am always eager to learn and better my "craft"... Thanks for your time and all your help.

And 1 PS: You stated the extender is an "expensive" piece of equipment... It would be my humble opinion that the cost of a $ 400 extender is "trivial" compared to $ 16,000 for the total cost of an R5 and 600mm f/4. LOL

Cheers
George Veazey
#####

John Gerlach Loc: Island Park, Idaho

Hi George,

I can tell you have considered things carefully. As stated in the article, I do use the 1.4x III teleconverter when I need to use it for really long distance shooting, but if the 1.6x crop mode does it for me, then I go with that. I am well aware of the Whistling wings video and think Ron did a good job about this discussion. But, what I am wondering, if the photo is nicely composed in the camera when it is shot and you won't need to do much cropping later or you don't need prints larger than about 13x 19, why do you need 45MP files? For everything I have done in my photo career, I have not needed larger file sizes. All of my books were printed with file sizes less than 20MP. I agree if I was in the business of selling 3 x 4 foot prints for the wall, then I would want larger file sizes, but that won't happen in my life as that way of earning money has no interest to me. Also, thinking of the video, I should point out that making the image larger in the viewfinder does not help autofocus. It does not matter if the birds eye is relatively larger in the image or less, autofocus does not rely on the size in the viewfinder according to Charles Glatzer - a Canon explorer of light. I also tested this and found that to be true. There is good and bad either way. I agree the crop mode does make it a little harder to find the subject in the viewfinder (600mm to 960 FOV), but then as I did this very morning when I photographed black-necked stilts at first light in the fog from my floating blind, being able to use the 600mm f/4 lens at f/4 with the 1.6x crop mode worked well. With the 1.4x teleconverter, you lose that f/4 option. Now I agree I would prefer more DOF, but in that dim light my options were limited. Good luck George, and thanks for your reply.

MtManMD Loc: Beaverton, Oregon

John, thanks for your Part 2 article and your testing results. I read your original article and had forgotten about it. You provide excellent reasoning and great examples of using this technique, something I may not have known about for a long time on my own.

I have the R5 body, EF 100-400mm, and just recently the RF 800mm. After my initial tests around the house with the 800mm, I'm excited to give that lens and the R5 crop factor setting a good test in the Tetons in a couple of weeks.

John Gerlach Loc: Island Park, Idaho

Good luck in the Tetons. That is my second home and I can even see the mountains there from my first home. You should find lots of wildlife.

DaveJ Loc: NE Missouri

John,
Thanks for the article. I have an R5 also. No 600 F4, but I do have an 800f11 I have had fun with. Just curious if you have tried the CRAW and what you think of it. I have been shooting with it the last 4 outings and have not seen any difference with my end product from full RAW.
Dave

goldstar46 Loc: Tampa, Fl

=======================================================

Good Morning John...

I just wanted to get back with some additional thoughts on your writings about the use of the "1.6 crop" on the new Canon EOS R5 camera... I do want to say that I "DO Understand" your position...

After long consideration on the subject and, me personally doing some work on my EOS R5 to do some experimenting with my "crop factor" on my sensor system, I have finally come to the conclusion that - apparently, you and I "live" in two different kinds of photographic worlds and have two different photographic needs....... AND, that is "OK..." That is the reason we all have our own equipment, and we each are allowed to create our own photography the way we wish.. and why it is called "ART"

As for me, after doing photography for some 55+years (I am now 74), I have come to a point in my life where, for important landscape shots, I strive to do "Everything" that I can to get the absolute best quality, sharpest, cleanest, and yes largest image that I can get each and every time I go for an important photo shoot. My 2nd "Digital Camera" owned in my life was that of a Canon 40D with the APS-C sensor... and after a number of years, knowing I wanted to improve on my quality, I made a personal commitment to change over to "Full-Frame" and decided to NOT go backward... So very lucky for me, I am in a very wonder financial position, that I can do that... AND, now I have 5 of the Canon EOS Full-Frame Cameras (one being the R5) and 7 of the Canon EF Lens (one being the 600mm)... YES, The Lord has truly "Blessed" me and my family...

In addition to the above, I am constantly trying to learn, doing new things, and I experiment to do whatever it is I can to improve my "Love" and my Retired Advocation of Photography... I want the absolute best I can create, and that philosophy is always on my mind... That John is why your proposed suggestion, of using the 1.6 crop vs the Teleconverter did interest me...

However, after much consideration, I have come to the conclusion that your objective is different and it appears to me that "convenience" and "size" is of real importance to you to help you with your "speed of shooting" and maybe a dilemma of which you might have with your image storage.. so, you have been looking for another alternative way to fulfill your needs....... AND, that is "OK"

John, I find that the basic premise in your research and your writings is:
=============================================
~~~~~ "I should choose the EOS R5 Crop Mode because it is 'equality as good' as using a 1.4 Tele-Converter and it saves me space, improves camera speed, saves hard drive space, and my time from changing back and forth with a 1.4x converter" ... BUT, that philosophy of yours is seasoned with a "sprinkling of -- when I know I am NOT going to make large images, and I am going to print smaller images..."

The above is "evidenced" for me when you have written the below following statements in your further discussions...

1) - As stated in the article, I do use the 1.4x III teleconverter when I need to use it for really long-distance shooting
2) - For everything I have done in my photo career, I have not needed larger file sizes.
3) - All of my books were printed with file sizes less than 20MP.
4) - I agree if I was in the business of selling 3 x 4 foot prints for the wall, then I would want larger file sizes...

When I read the above in your writing, it has finally dawned on me where is the most important thing to you is that your .. "Size of Digital Image" does not matter so much as you quickly getting the shot in wildlife.. AND, as one who does "bird photography" sometimes, I do get that..

So, when I think of what is important for me... over years, I have come to realize that ~~~ it is important for me, to "NOT" intentionally discard 62% of all of the canvas that I'm able to use when it comes to taking pictures.

Your style photography, on the other hand, according to what I can read looks like it's a matter of convenience and what is easy and you're trying to downsize because you're concerned about large images and the speed of them which the image is written to your camera.

As I have said above, I am very financially lucky in life, and I am able to own the equipment I have, along with one of the best gaming windows pc, a 27" Wacom Display, along with 14TB hard drives, and a 28TB NAS... so, for me, for the use of my personal stuff and the "Big Landscapes" I love....... BIG, is "OK" and I have made the decision that that works for me...

NOW, in closing....... You have written a 'very nice article' and there are always many sides to a given situation... each should be considered and "take away" what work for each of us... I always try to say, everyone on UHH has their own philosophy, their own belief, their own needs and abilities......... and that is "OK..... ART is ART and we all love what we do...

As for me ~~ Right Now ~~ I will be staying with NOT using the 1.6 Crop which is in the R5.

I do wish you all the best in your personal endeavors, John.

PS: Have you considered using the new Canon "CRAW" format... Works wonders.

Cheers
George Veazey
######

John Gerlach Loc: Island Park, Idaho

Hi George,

You wrote a fine summary of what I am doing. Storage space and speed of writing images to the card are not an issue for me. I am equally into landscapes and macro. For both I never use the crop factor as I can always get close enough. I only use the 1.6x crop when I cannot get closer and need to see the critter larger in the viewfinder to know when to shoot. And like you, I did well financially so I can pay cash for anything I want.

goldstar46 Loc: Tampa, Fl