Where once the only option was the longest lens possible if you wanted to shoot wildlife, now we have the resolution to give the photographer some real flex with cropping. So when you're next out birding, what's the best approach? Is it a telecoverter, or just cropping?
I'd taken pictures of robins and other mildly interesting British birds over the years, but it wasn't until I went to Costa Rica in January that I really tried my hand at capturing rare and elusive wildlife. I quickly learned that a long lens isn't nearly as long as you thought when somebody spots a sloth 100 feet up a distant tree. Even using a micro four-thirds sensor, you need some spectacular reach.
The issue is, really long lenses have been eye-wateringly expensive, though that's looking to change soon thanks to Canon. So, your best option, traditionally speaking, was to take your longest lens and add a 1.4x or 2x teleconverter between it and your body. This, at the cost of at least a stop of light, will increase your reach. However, you'll likely have to raise your aperture to ensure the best image quality and this can lose you a lot of light, and lowering your shutter speed is rarely the right move with wildlife.
Modern cameras, particularly full frame bodies, can have large resolution images which — in combination with the right glass — can mean you are able to crop the image significantly to properly frame your subject. This is a relatively new option I am seeing used more and more often, and you can seldom tell without being told.
So, which would you choose for shooting wildlife? Would you rather use a teleconverter, or just crop the file in post?
I use an Olympus OMD EM10 for holidays, it gives me both options. Saving in both RAW and .JPEG I can use the inbuilt 2x ElectronicTeleconverter for getting really good focus, these are saved in .JPEG. The RAW file isn't effected by the Electronic Teleconverter so doesn't have the camera's inbuilt cropping and enlarging.
This enables me to use the RAW with manual cropping if I want to tweak the composition.
The sensor in the OMD10 is 16mp, so cropping for digital display output, which only uses 2mp for 1920x1080 HD or 8mp for 3840x2160 4K is fine. Should I need to print to large sizes I would need to get closer to the point of interest or use a good optical Teleconverter lens.
So in my opinion optical Teleconverters are a niche product, for those who print their output on A2 or above. I haven't got one but read reviews that hint that they can soften images.
Interestingly the Canon 600 and 800mm RF lenses which are so reasonably priced are already stopped down to around the fstop you would need should you use an optical teleconverter.
The micro four thirds system gives you a 2x equivalent field of view reach, 300mm lens gives the same framing as a 600mm lens on a full frame camera. You also have a sensor which is a quarter the size of a full frame sensor, which at 1/4 crop on a full frame sensor would need the full frame sensor to be 64mp to capture the same amount of detail.
(I also use the Canon APS-C system for the same reach reason).
I have a Tamron 18-400mm and is clearly not enough. But cropping and using a teleconverter is something I'm looking forward to try in near future
The two approaches produce dramatically different results; namely, different Depth of Field. They aren't comparable. Thus, it is strange that you suggest they are interchangable.
What a dumb-assed article. This tops out as a reddit post at best. There's nothing here.