1DX + 800 5.6 + Kenko 1.4 maintains AF

Gray Fox wrote:Care to explain why uprezzing/downrezzning is nonsense?

My point was only in relation to ISO performance comparisons. Although it may be an interesting intellectual exercise to compare noise performance between two cameras through file manipulation gymnastics, the only comparison that really matters is the per pixel noise. Plenty has been written about how well the D800 competes with the D4 in terms of noise provided you first downrez the 36MP files to 16MP, but why would you buy a D800 if you really need the ISO performance of the D4? You may as well put the money you'll need for a new computer to handle the 36MP files towards the D4 to begin with!

As for resolution, I understand the need of wildlife shooters to put as many pixels on target as possible, but they have to be QUALITY pixels, otherwise we'd all be happy shooting 7D's. But we're not all happy shooting 7D's because we know dense sensors come with trade-offs that ultimately result in an IQ quality hit.

With the exception of the limited DR, I''m reasonably happy with my 1D4 but even it's 27MP equivalent on FF cannot compete with the superior IQ I got from my old 12MP FF body that I used to use (ignoring differences in "reach"). High density resolution providing "reach" is important, but I don't think it's the holy grail it's sometimes made out to be.

FWIW, JMO and YMMV.

If all you shot was low light/high iso then I'd see your point about just buying a D4 (of course, we are both leaving out that there is a $3000 price difference), but most people shoot in a variety of light, which makes the ability to downscale an image (not really gymnastics with how easy LR/PS makes it) to improve noise quality a fairly powerful tool. I respect that some people want the finished product as close as possible in camera. I also respect that not everybody likes teleconverters and slow focus at f/8. Having chased small birds with a full-frame 12mp camera (600 and tcs), I am a whole lot less frustrated with my D800 and it's DX crop mode, and I couldn't see a D4 as an option for at least that type of shooting.

I got the 1 Dx in late June and had the chance to take it on my trip to the Russian Arctic additionally to the 1 D Mark IV, 7D and 5D3. Regarding AF (initial focus and tracking), the 1 Dx is the best Canon camera I've used so far. Especially in situations in which unexpected and rapid movements took place, i.e. when shooting actions at the birdcliffs or BIF from the Zodiac, the performance was stellar and even better than the MK IV. On the trip I mostly used the 500mm/f.4.0 with/without 1,4 Extender (I) and the 300mm/f 2.8, sometimes with 1,4- or 2.0 Extender mounted, too. Nevertheless, reach can be an issue with the 1 Dx , indeed and I found myself preferring the 1 D Mark IV for more distant wildlife, súch as polar bears etc. I think for those who can afford it the 600mm II may be a better option than the 500mm if you want to go for the 1Dx, depending on your photographique needs, of course. That said, let's still wait what Canon has in the sleeves regarding the f8 - 800mm problem In good light the 7D certainly is an option, too. But if you compare the IQ, the files of the 1Dx and 1 D MK IV are superior, of course, even if you need to use the converters on the 1 series cams. No suprise here.

BTW, the rear display and the viewfinder of the 1Dx are considerably clearer and more brilliant, too than the ones of the Mark IV which are not bad at all. According to my findings, high ISO noise at native size of the files is about 1 stop better than the 1 D Mark IV. If you crop the image and push it to the dimensions of the 1D Mark IV, the differences are marginally, though. This mirrors Fred Miranda's tests. However, the image quality of the 1Dx is extremely good, DR is maybe slightly better than on the 5d3 (no scientific test here yet) but still not on the same level as Nikon's offerings regarding the possibility to push the shadows.


Wolfgang

Gary Irwin wrote:With the exception of the limited DR, I''m reasonably happy with my 1D4 but even it's 27MP equivalent on FF cannot compete with the superior IQ I got from my old 12MP FF body that I used to use (ignoring differences in "reach"). High density resolution providing "reach" is important, but I don't think it's the holy grail it's sometimes made out to be.

Appreciate the response. Sometimes confusion arises when details get left out or generalizations are applied when narrower uses are intended. I suspect that is true in this case, mostly having to do with the specifics of intended applications. For this discussion I think we’re mostly drawing contrasts between general purpose plus sports imaging - with a strong need for good low light and high ISO performance, which places a premium on full frame and what you called good per pixel noise characteristics - and the much narrower area of approach-constrained distant subjects such as birds and wildlife, which benefits from high pixel density sensors. (In the latter case, one unfortunately cannot “ignore differences in reach”. ) Cameras speced toward one application are likely to do less well in the other - as you related from your experience.

I took the example Fred Miranda posted in his 1DX test not as an inducement to uprezz images from full frame cameras such as the 1DX but rather as a sample of what would result if one did, especially in comparison with its logical competitor, the 1DIV. I agree that if one’s needs are largely met by a quality full frame camera like the 1DX one has little need to uprezz, except on those possibly rare occasions when one is stuck shooting really distant subjects. Seems perfectly reasonable.

But if a really large percentage of your subject matter is approach constrained distant subjects and you are considering moving from the 1DIV to the 1DX a genuine tradeoff must be made, and the more information one has the better decision one can make. What the Fred Miranda comparison showed me was that in those situations, which constitute a majority of what I now use a 1DIV for (I use a 1DsIII for general purpose imaging), the 1DX would gain me little in improved noise performance at equivalent image scales. That’s a very useful thing to know. Plus, there’s the fact that I’d rather have real pixels than uprezzed ones, which is where the high pixel density of the 1DIV remains relevant.

I could cite very real examples at both the refuges I visit and the one sports venue I visit (professional tennis, as a paying customer seated high in the stands) where this is very valuable decision quality information - especially as it applies to night session imaging - but I won’t bore you with the details. I hasten to add, again, that this applies largely and perhaps solely to cases when one can’t go with a longer lens and can’t get closer. Most rarely if ever encounter those situations. A few of us encounter them quite often.

Needless to say, there are plenty of reasons to crave a 1DX. It has a great feature set and outstanding performance in many areas. And I must confess, I have a friend who may be able to get me into the photographers pit next year. If so, I’ll be there with a 1DX! But I won’t be giving up my 1DIV any time soon. Perhaps the bottom line here is that while Canon claims to have merged their pro line, some of us still need our 1DIV (now relegated to the status of a quasi specialty camera) plus another camera, be it a 1DsIII, 1DX or 5DIII.

To conclude, it’s clear that your post was predicated on a high regard for low per pixel noise. No one can dispute its importance or desirability. However, I would point out that there are folks who contend that per pixel noise is very important but is not the only aspect of image capture and that how dominant a role it plays depends on circumstances. This topic deserves a thread of it’s own, so I’ll forestall further discussion by referencing Roger Clark's web site for a lot of technical stuff if you are so inclined. Especially relevant are the articles in Part 2: Implications of Digital Photography Technology. His bottom line is “given a focal length limited situation and desire for as much detail as I can get, a camera with small pixels” is the best choice. If you can “change position to get the subject to fill the sensor, a larger sensor (e.g. full frame)” is best, especially “a high quality sensor like those in pro-series cameras.” I.e. horses for courses. P.S. Please excuse the looong post! Hopefully it's my last (few hundred) word(s) on the subject!

I think the point of this combo is more so you "can" use the 800 and converter when needed and still have all the other advantages of the 1DX.

A possible fly in the ointment.... A friend who has the 800 has just gotten a 1DX and a Kenco converter. It does focus pretty well and image quality is actually pretty good..... better in his initial unscientific tests than the bare 800 and upressing. So far so good.

That combo does not seem possible to calibrate with micro adjustment. Understandable. But...... it seems at first anyway, that if you micro adjust the bare 800 or even any other lens like the 300 or 500 then when the Kenko/800 is put on the camera freezes up and the only remedy is to remove the battery.

So, long story short, it seems that micro adjustment is not possible with ANY lens if you want to use that combination. There may be a hoop that can be jumped through but it appears to be the case in early tries.

Since the Kenko does not report, the firmware in the camera can't assign a unique name to the lens/TC combo and apparently Canon did not think of that possibility or at least test for that possibility and the running firmware enters a locked up phase. it's clearly a bug but not one I would have expected Canon to find since they don't even acknowledge third party stuff much less test their gear with it.

James McIntyre wrote:

JKQ wrote:FWIW, my 1DX autofocuses perfectly with stacked 1.4x Kenko and Canon teleconverters with a 600/4...

Which Kenko, the 11-pin or the 8-pin? See above. How did you decide which to choose?

Please be more specific so we can sort out some of the confusion.

Kenko also makes a 2x 11-pin TC:
http://atinyblip.com/articles/photograp ... converter/
Have you tried this?

This is very interesting. I purchased a Tamron 300F-CA 2X because the Canon would not fit two of my lenses (24-105 L and 100 macro).

Change the grey coloured rings to black on my Tamron, and only the name would distinguish them. Could they possibly be the same, with a colour change for Tamron?

As for pins: at the front of the EX, there are eleven (11) pins; at the rear, there are eight (8).

In the linked pic of the Kenko, it's not clear how many front pins there are.

This is also interesting: http://www.photographyreview.com/cat/le ... 32crx.aspx

It would seem that the SP versions are better (which is some relief for me).

I am pretty sure that Kenko make the Tamron converter, Kenko also did a white one, and the soligor is also the same. However the Kenko 2x and the Canon 2x are yards apart in IQ. The 1.4 TCs are all very similar though, my Canon 1.4 mkII is very mucht he same as my Kenko Pro 300, but I use the canon for the sealing.

I don't have rigorous tests at all, but my impression was that the Tamron degraded the image quality such that I haven't used it since shortly after I bought and tried it. If I could have returned it, I would have (but kept it too long).

The heft and quality is nowhere near that of my Canon 2X iii.

Glenn

I tried it yesterday. It fit loose on the lens connection and only intermittently auto focused. Perhaps I got a bad copy, but thought you might like to know. Going back to B&H.
mike