R6 Mark II: Using Cropping/aspect ratio vs. Digital tele-conv vs. longer lens to extend reach

[BuddyO]

I haven't tried this and compared results yet, but I was wondering if anyone else had used the 1.6x cropping setting or digital tele-conv to extend the reach and compared results with shots taken with a longer lens?  Or comparing the 1.6x cropping vs tele-conv with respect to image quality?

I'm currently using the RF 24-105L lens.

Seems like using the 1.6x cropping setting may be a great way to extend the reach without bringing a second lens?

[kvbarkley]

On the same camera the 1.6X is really just a cropping. You might as well take full frame and crop on your own.

[BuddyO]

Ah, that makes sense, thank you.

[p4pictures]

The 1.6x cropping setting loses a lot of resolution, images are only 9.3MP, even in RAW. 

The digital teleconverter function does a similar job but the camera then up samples the data back to 24MP but you can only save JPG images. It’s not bad but it’s no substitute for a longer le in my view.

[BuddyO]

Thank you, Brian.

[FloridaDrafter]

Hello, Buddy!

I agree with the others. CLICK HERE to see some test shots of the moon that I took using the R6 II comparing a cropped Raw with the electronic tele-converter feature of the R6 II. As Brian mentioned, using the 1.6X crop will result in a big loss of resolution. I've used it in my R5, and although others report it's OK, it's not up to my standards.

Please note the difference between the cropped Raw and the two taken with the tele-converter.

Newton

[BuddyO]

Thanks for the reply and link, Newton.

To me, it seems the Raw 100% Zoom and Crop wins for image quality.

I think I'll leave my camera setting on Full Frame and full zoom with the RF 24-105L and just crop.

[Waddizzle]

As a general rule, interchangeable lens camera bodies do not have digital or electronic zoom.