Nikon DX camera vs. cropping or putting a teleconverter on a full frame body

"Nikon DX camera vs. cropping or putting a teleconverter on a full frame body" is a new article by Steve Perry (website | YouTube | Facebook). You can check also his previous [NR] posts here:

Have you ever attempted to bag a prize wildlife photo only to discover that you needed a little more “reach” than what the lens hanging off the front of your camera was delivering? As a wildlife shooter, I tend to get into head-on collisions with that scenario on a regular basis - especially with my full frame bodies.

Well, along about the time the D300 and D3 came out, I began experimenting with and comparing crop bodies to full frame bodies (with and without TCs). And along the way, I realized that sometimes the right photographic tool for the job might not be what you had previously thought.

With the introduction of the D500, questions of when to use a crop camera or when to use a full frame camera have become as common as mosquitoes in a tent.  Each day, my inbox sees a variety of crop vs. full frame camera conundrums, and it usually boils down to one of the two questions below.

  1. Is it better to crop an FX camera to the DX area - or just use a dedicated DX camera?
  2. Is it better to use an FX camera with a 1.4 teleconverter or switch to a DX camera?

In fact, I was getting these questions so frequently I decided it was about time to make a couple of videos to address those scenarios.

In this first video, we’ll look at the difference between cropping a D5 and D810 to the same (DX) field of view we get with a D500. Will the full frame cameras have what it takes to kick the crop camera to the curb? Click play to find out 🙂

In this next video, we’ll look at an even more common question:

Are you better off using a full frame camera with a 1.4x teleconverter or just switching to a crop camera?

In this one, we’ll look at some sharpness comparisons with a 1.4 TCE III teleconverter hitched to a D5 and D810 vs. the naked lens on a D500.  We’ll also look at three additional pitfalls that anyone using a teleconverter needs to be aware of before they strap one on.

My field results certainly mimic what the tests in the videos show. So, hopefully, these videos can help provide a guideline that allows you to have an edge the next time you're debating which camera, lens, and teleconverter combo you should employ to capture your next critter (or athlete, race car, etc.).

Also, keep in mind that you should think of these videos as a series of general guidelines and not immutable laws that absolutely apply to every setup and situation across the board. There are always exceptions. I encourage you to experiment with your own gear and choose the combinations that give you the highest keeper rate.

Next, let's take a look at a few quick sample images and why I chose the equipment setups I did.

Ghost Of The North (Nikon D7200, Nikon 600mm F4, 1/1600th, ISO 720, F4)

I was geeking out on Snowy Owls earlier this year when I spotted this guy on a fence post. There were quite a few owls in the area, and some were more approachable than others. As I eagerly drove towards him, it seemed like he was one of the tolerant ones. Naturally, he was on the wrong side of the truck (I can't shoot out of the passenger window due to a chronic lack of coordination), so I slowly eased past him and parked a little bit up the road.

I knew for the shot I wanted, I would need to be closer than even this seemingly patient owl would likely allow on foot, so getting out of the truck seemed like a bad idea. Plus, the Jeep hadn't seemed to bother him at all as it passed. So, I removed my D4 and 600mm lens from the tripod in the back of the truck and attached the lens to my D7200.

Now, I could have chosen to try the same shot with the D4 (or now the D5). However, I'd have to be 1.5X closer than what was needed with the D7200. He was tolerant, but not stupid. I knew that if I were to get into FX range there was a good chance he would show me his tail feathers as soon as I poked my lens out of the window. With the D7200, I was able to stay on the far side of the road (which, as you can see, was fine by him).

I also could have used the teleconverter with the D4, but the truth is, I knew I would capture much more detail with the D7200 than the D4 + TC combo. Since I didn't need the quick FPS of the D4, this was a no-brainer.

Eagle At Sunset (Nikon D500, Nikon 600mm F4 + 1.4TCE III, 1/1600th, ISO 3600, F6.3)

After watching the second video above, you may be under the impression that I completely shun any use of a teleconverter, but I wanted to include this photo to show that’s really not the case.

While I do try to avoid teleconverters when possible, I certainly won’t pass by an opportunity due to some sort of TC-phobia. I still keep my 1.4TC with me regardless of which camera I have at the moment. In this case, I used the teleconverter on the D500 in order to get enough “reach” to capture this eagle. This was definitely out of range for my D5 (at least with my lenses), but the D500’s high pixel density put enough pixels on the eagle for a nice shot.

Reddish Egret Hunting (Nikon D7200, Nikon 600mm F4, 1/1000th, ISO 900, F4.5)

Here's another example of where I opted for the crop camera (a D7200 in this case) over a full frame camera.

If you've ever watched a Reddish Egret hunt, you know they are absolutely crazy. They run around the tidal pools dashing unpredictably from spot to spot confusing the little fish into becoming an appetizer.

In this case, I had a D4 and D7200 in the bag and decided to go for the D7200. Not only was it capturing more detail, but in my opinion, the AF on the D7200 is slightly better than the D4 when it is shacked with a teleconverter.

So, while I wouldn't have minded the faster frame rate of the D4, overall I decided that the D7200 brought a little more to the table on this shot. (That, and noise performance is pretty close once you add the TC to the D4 and compensate with another stop of ISO.)

Buck In The Rain (Nikon D7200, Nikon 600mm F4, 1/180th, ISO 1400, F4)

I found this big guy in the Smoky Mountains last fall during an all-day rain. He was further out than I would have liked and my calling him over didn’t seem to encourage him to get any closer (although it did make a few people step back to their cars). So I knew that it was, once again, the choice between the D7200, the D4 cropped, or the D4 + TC.

Since cropping the D4 to D7200 size would result in about a 7MP file vs. the 24MP from the D7200, that part of the choice was pretty easy. Even on a D5, it would only have been 9MP.

Of course, I could have used a teleconverter on the D4, but then I still have lower resolution plus a small optical penalty from the teleconverter. So, the D7200 got the nod.

Deer along the fence in the snow, Side Cut Park, near Toledo, OH, US. (c) Steve Perry

Deer along the fence in the snow, Side Cut Park, near Toledo, OH, US. (c) Steve Perry

A Doe On A Snowy Morning (Nikon D810, Nikon 80-400, 1/250th, ISO 720, F5.6)

Of course, there are times the full frame camera gets the call, such as the shot we have here.

In this case, I was out with the D810 and the 80-400. The deer in my local park are relatively approachable, so I knew that I could use an FX camera with little or no cropping. So, picking full frame was an easy choice.

Bighorn Ram (Nikon D5, Nikon 600mm F4, 1/1250th, ISO 640, F4)

Once again, another nod to full frame. This time, I could have gone with the D500 or the D5. Since he was in easy range of the D5 and 600mm, I went that route. I really love those creamy backgrounds, and a full frame camera with a big, fast lens is my favorite way to get there. Plus, at ISO 640 there's absolutely no sign of noise in this image.

Final Thoughts…

In the end, I ALWAYS try to use a full frame camera when I can - there are just too many advantages not to.

However, if I need to add a teleconverter or do a heavy crop, then most or all of the advantages of full frame are diminished - or disappear altogether. When that happens, I prefer to switch to a crop camera as I discussed in the videos.

Oh, and don't get me wrong - you can get great shots with whatever camera you happen to have. I've had images published that were taken with crop cameras, full frame cameras, full frame cameras that were cropped, and cameras with teleconverters attached. Remember, in many cases the differences are minor. However, if you have the option of using FX or DX, hopefully these videos will help make the decision of which camera to pull out of the bag a little easier.

Finally, if you enjoy these videos, make sure to stop by my site and check out my e-book, Secrets To Stunning Wildlife Photography. It’s nearly 300 pages of my best tips tricks, and advice for getting award-winning images on your memory card.

If you have an interesting idea for a guest post, you can contact me here.

This entry was posted in Other Nikon stuff and tagged , . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Aldo

    Conclusion on ff vs crop : using the right tool for the job will always yield better results… but if you want a do it all… you cant go wrong with a d810. If you cant get good shots with 7fps… 10 wont make a difference.

    Ps that big ram photo is amazing

    • John Mackay

      d810 is realy only 6, i know you can add a battery grip and put a d4 battery in there but i would always prefer to just be at 6fps and use a 1.2 crop.

    • Eledeuh

      Also, people most often envision wildlife photography as a “critter close-up” kind of thing, but it’s often very interesting (and in my opinion, much more), to also work with the “big picture”, the animal’s environment.

      The work of photographer Vincent Munier, for instance, is the perfect embodiment of what I have in mind ( I’m so very sorry, it’s a flash website, but galleries like “Arctic” or “The night of the deer” can give you an idea).
      This short film may give an idea of what his work is about : for those who don’t know him.

  • Plug

    For a lightweight system the D500 and 300 f4 PF is very good for wildlife in remoter places where low bulk is at a premium. It is the case that there is a little bit of compromise with the 1.4 converter and for many birds the 450 equivalent reach without the converter is a bit short. I now wish that Nikon had designed a 400 f5.6 PF as for my photography that would have been more helpful.

    • M09

      420 5.6 PF isnt it already?
      i think nikon might look at 500 5.6 PF 🙂

      • Eledeuh

        Yeah, that or a 400 f/4 PF 😉

    • I agree. The tests were just to show the differences. And, although I know I’d rather shoot my D5 and 600mm, when I’m hiking it’s the 300PF hanging off the D500 with a 1.4TC in my pocket. By far the most portable wildlife setup for a Nikon user.

  • I actually purchased a D500 because I got tired of using my D810 on DX Mode just to get extra reach and 7FPS.
    And a DX camera is “optimized” for the smaller sensor. And even with a 36MP D810, you’ll get around 15MP once in DX size compared to D500’s impressive 20MP.

    Yes there is this “well it’ll always be in 1.5x crop factor”. But I guess you get a DX camera for a reason.

    • Aldo

      This reminds me of the concept of zooms vs primes… if you find yourself hauling heavy zooms but always consistently using only certain focal lengths… its time to consider switching to primes for better results.

      • My comment wasn’t about focal lengths. But the use and funcitonality of FX vs DX bodies.
        Switching to primes won’t let me shoot faster frames, or make my AF points edge to edge.

        • Aldo

          I was speaking in general terms not ‘you’ specifically. You said you found yourself always on dx mode… so bought a d500. So for someone using a zoom and always using a certain focal length… it makes sense to buy a prime of the most used focal length.

          • Ahhhhhhh. Okay, sorry. I thought you were giving me a suggestion to my dx vs fx dilemma. *peace*

    • MB

      Actually the difference in resolution (horizontal or vertical) is only about 15%, that is negligible really …

      • The 5MP difference might be small for you. But I just speak for myself and the way I do my job. The larger megapixel count does really help me especially if I still need to crop it tighter.

    • Brian

      I did the same but went back to using my D810 in situations I was using the D500. The 1.2 crop in the D810 I believe gives a far superior image and the D500 is noisy.

  • Eric Calabros

    This test has to be redone after Nikon released a 54mp camera. a DX crop of that beast is going to be 24mp 🙂

    • M09

      but AF won’t be half good as the D500 serie or D5 and cost more (d500/7200)
      ofcourse it will be a beautiful compromise (have a super FX that can be a nice DX)

    • Aldo

      I currently have a d500 because it was a deal I couldn’t pass… and I can tell you for what I do… it’s not the right camera. DX just cuts the glass in half… and dx lenses may give you a similar FOV… but they don’t give you the same results. Reach and speed that’s what I really think DX is for.

      • Coastalconn

        So if you need a FX camera for what you do, why did you but the D500? A deal is only a deal if it is something you need.

        • Aldo

          Because I got it for 1k… If I paid you 500 dollars to try a new camera… would you decline?

      • Eric Calabros

        I know, but nothing technically prevents enginners make a 54mp sensor fast enough to do 10fps at 24mp crop. Its easily doable today. We’ve reached a point a state of the art FF, can be used as MF for resolution, and DX for reach.

  • Coastalconn

    Nicely done Steve and echoes what I have been saying for a long time. Lately I’ve added one more point to when people ask me fx or dx. That is geography can play a big role in which to choose. Here in CT, we are almost always focal length limited and generally DX is better suited. On the other hand, someone in say Florida, where wildife tends to be much less skittish a FX camera may work better.

    I had a choice a few months ago of getting a D4 to use with my 500 F4 or adding a 300 F2.8 for my close-up Hawk work with the D500 and I choose the 300 f2.8. So sometimes lens choice can come into play as well.

    • Better to break it down like this, do you like birds? DX. Never going to shoot a bird? FX. No birder can ever have enough reach.

      Ever. I truly relish the extra 150mm I get with my 300mm, and if I had to carry around a 500mm my bag weight would double in size and weight.

    • Thanks – and I agree. What you shoot (and how approachable it is) PLUS what you can afford in glass makes a huge difference in what format you choose.

  • ar

    Love those shots! I didn’t watch the videos, so I apologize if the following was already taken into consideration…
    Anyway, I use only full frame now and don’t even consider any crop sensor at all for quality photography. My one simple reason is that I believe a lot of interesting shots are no longer dependent on traditional image ratios, meaning you may need some sort of extra wide banner format in order to make a sale. The extra ‘wasted’ pixels suddenly come in extra convenient. Secondly, and this is maybe not that critical to some, but having worked with older lenses that provide some unique characteristics, usually only the center of the lens is ‘usable’. Again, the extra pixels now allow for cropping in post and move the high resolution center of the lens off to wherever is most convenient/pleasing. The extra image size is nowadays of little to no consequence considering the ever decreasing cost of storage. Therefore, I really don’t see why anything other than full frame is even being offered… That’s just my weak-minded opinion. I loved my D300, but I was hoping for an upgraded D810 rather than waste efforts on the otherwise apparently well done D500. Anyway, whatever produces the results is what counts, of course!

    • Coastalconn

      Nope, none of that was covered. Maybe you should watch the video..

    • Michael Cary Arellano

      But cropping in does not give you the compression that a tighter shot on a crop body would..

      • Eledeuh

        It does, “(perspective) compression” depends on your position relative to the subject.

        The “crop body” just has a smaller sensor that “crops” the image projected through an FX lens. Whether you crop “after the fact” (from an FX image) or “from the start” (on DX) it doesn’t change one bit.

      • Travis Haughton

        First, Lens “compression” isn’t a thing:

        A crop sensor is exactly what it sounds like. It is literally cropping the image by just recording a narrower window of pixels.

  • Captain Megaton

    TL;DR: “yay, when things are far away I can get great results with a DX camera … but yay, when things are closer I can get even better results with an FX camera.”

    • MonkeySpanner

      Well, kind of, yes. But things are slightly more complicated than that.

      • Captain Megaton

        Go on…

        • preston

          Read the article for why.

  • Wesley

    IMO, DX camera is better for erratic and/or fast subjects because larger AF array coverage.

  • Eledeuh

    @NikonRumors it looks like a comment of mine was moderated away.. yet I don’t understand why ?

    Even though I may not have made it clear, it pertained to the perceived importance of “reach”, which is one of the primary argument for DX vs. FX. I think it’s worth noting that there’s a common bias toward “maximum reach” when sometimes it’s may be interesting to explore other options (and go wider).

    • every post that contains links is hold for moderation, you post is now approved

      • Eledeuh

        The “awaiting moderation” flag had disappeared and the comment was completely inaccessible after an hour or so, weird. Thanks 😉

        • I have to manually approve all comments that contain links. Sorry I have to do this because of the large amount of spam I get.

  • Travis Haughton

    Another piece of glass is always going to cost sharpness – whether a TC or a filter. People are so confused on this “reach” thing with crop cameras. It. is. not. adding. reach. A D500 file is effectively a cropped D800 sensor. If you took your D800 file and cropped it digitally you can achieve the same result.

    While this is an interesting comparison, a better comparison would be something like this: DX body with 200mm vs FX body with a 300mm. Those would equal the same field of view. To be fair you would have to stop the FX lens down a stop to give equivalent DOF. The FX camera should have quite an advantage.

    • Coastalconn

      It wouldn’t be a better comparison. The point of Steve’s video is that if you are focal length limited which camera should you buy. There are tons of comparisons out there for which you seek.

      • Travis Haughton

        If you’re “focal length limited” just crop your D8xx file. That’s all the crop sensor is doing.

        • Coastalconn

          At a slower frame rate, weaker AF system and smaller buffer.. I have a D800 and it is purely a backup to my D500.

          • Travis Haughton

            Those limitations aren’t inherent to Full Frame cameras, just that particular body. And the D800 is 2.5 years old, that makes sense.

            • I have a D810 and I agree with him still, it’s my backup to my D500 now. Coastalconn is dead on, I and he prefer our D500’s, do you own one? We have experience in both platforms and we know which camera we would prefer to “reach” for….

            • Coastalconn

              It’s not just that particular body. D4/D5 can match the frame rate and buffer at the cost of a huge loss in resolution, again talking focal length limited as in this video. You can add a TC and take a hit in AF and IQ of course. Unless the D820 comes out with the D5 AF system, buffer and 48 MP there is no FX camera that can match the D500 peformance if you are focal length limited.. Feel free to come shoot Osprey with me next spring in CT, you will be wishing you had a D500. Several of my friends also have D810 and D4s that collect dust since they got a D500..

        • Eledeuh

          You seem to be ignoring the main reason why people tend to choose DX over FX : by cropping on an FX sensor you lose a lot of detail compared to a DX sensor output.

          A D810 in DX crop mode is what, 12MP ? And that’s the D810, it’s a lot worse on 24, 20 or even 16MP FX cameras. In the meantime the D500 has 20MP which allows you to eventually crop even further.

          • Virindi

            15mp actually (d810 in dx mode)
            But what matters is the lens, can it provide enough details to fill the pixels on the D810? If it does then yes you will have a better result on a dx camera of 20 or 24mp.

            • Eledeuh

              All supertelephoto primes are more than capable of that, the consumer zooms maybe less so.

            • Virindi

              I know my 120-300 and 400G can do that. I have to stop down to F4 though. I plan to use a D7200 as second body.
              I tried using a TC 1.4 II and III, at 550mm F4 I just did not gain any real detail improvement over 400f2.8 but 550mm F5.6 is again perfectly sharp at 100%. I still prefer a DX body it’s nice to have 2bodies.

    • M09

      someone posted below that D800 crop mode is 12 MP
      people want a lot of megapixel into a DX sensor, it doesnt matter that is not ‘real’ reach
      it matters that within the smaller sensor you have packed a lot of information, which is almost the same as getting an iguana’s head filling the frame (D5 800 5.6 in FX?)
      having all the iguana’s head INFORMATION, into your picture
      honestly about the field of view behind, few people care, at that ‘reach’
      all we want is the Iguana head data filling 20-24 megapixels.

      so basicly one should be buying a D800 elephant (slow AF, huge files, bad DX mode) for another kind of photography.

      if you shoot on FX camera in DX mode, you are just cropping = saving in data when you have to transfer to the pc, nothing else.

      we would be talking business IF we have a FX camera that HAS huge amount of MP in DX mode, i am hoping on the D820 if they want to increase it, if they want

      right now the D7200 has 24MP and D500 20, and dont tell me ‘yes but a D123 has 4 Mpixels in DX mode ! and thats enough, because that it’s like if you dont care about shooting DX.

      and if you disagree, then let’s cut out a good amount of MP from your FX camera, let’s see how less satisfied you are going to be, let’s say from 36 to 18.

    • Thanks for your comment – a couple of thoughts…

      I (and many others) tend to use the word “reach” simply because there isn’t really any other succinct way to describe the apparent magnification due to greater pixel density (which isn’t really magnification) and tighter field of view you get when switching to a higher pixel density crop camera.

      As for the D810, a DX crop is 15MP, the D500 is 21MP, so there is a difference that you can see in the final output. I’ll grant you it’s close, but the cropped image from a D500 is more like the cropped image from a 48MP camera. If we had one of those, cropping that camera to DX or switching to a D500 would yield the same results. (Of course, we’d then have to look at AF, speed, etc). In fact, if a 48MP FX camera comes out with the same DX crop mode performance as the D500 body has, my D500 will probably go up for sale.

      As for a 200mm on DX vs a 300 mm on FX, I agree there’s no contest – FX will give the better result all things being equal. That’s why FX is always my first choice when I can use it 🙂

  • Pirate Booty

    for distant subjects, crop cameras will always give you the sharpest results

    more pixels stacked onto a small area = more detail

    this has been the case for years, the only reason this is still being asked is because some full frame users (especially on DPReview), have been spreading miinformation and claimed that cropping a full frame = crop detail, this isn’t true at all

    • Pirate Booty

      It should also be noted that megapixels matter. I can guarantee you that, *in good light-and at the same focal length*, I can get more detail in my shot with my 24 MP smartphone than someone with an older 16 MP FX camera and a $4000 lens.

      Megapixels matters, it is still the single most important factor determining how much detail will be in the shot, far more important than the lens.

  • JXVo

    I shoot with D8x0 bodies so my choices for extending reach are crop or 1.4TC. Losing a stop due to the TC requires higher ISO and a faster shutter speed for the increased focal length. The AF is also much slower to acquire moving subjects.

    Shooting with 500f4VR I generally get better results without the TC and crop when I need to. With the 300f4 (older version) the difference is less clear cut and TC can be useful where AF speed is not a problem.

    The article/videos don’t directly mention the influence of light levels. In bright sunlight the disadvantages of the TC are much reduced.

  • tomherren

    Thanks for the link to Vincent Munier who’s photography, in my view, is highly artistic combined with reportage and portraiture. A great alternative to the usual “intrusion” into an animals privacy by using super long lenses.

    • Eledeuh

      I cannot recommend and praise his book “Arctique” enough, if you can get your hands on it, it’s just wonderful.

      • merops

        Thank you so much for posting the link to Vincent Munier’s work. I can’t even begin to aspire to producing work like his, but can admire the beauty of his photos …
        I just ordered ‘Arctique’ off the internet. I was shocked by the price of copies on an However you can get it for 65 Euros (plus postage) from the publisher. Just google ‘Vincent Munier Arctique’ and you will get the publisher’s website. Just posting this in case anyone else is interested.

  • Mohd Shamsul

    I can’t tell which photos were shot with what. Maybe I’m not pixel peeping enough or need to get my eyes checked.

  • Max

    1. The fluffy owl looks like a bag of snow was dumped on top of a pole and had a face painted on it.
    2. It kind of looks like a macro shot of a (white)matchstick head.
    3. I want to give it a hug.

  • Aldo

    wow thanks for the link indeed. When I see stuff like this I realize how I’m really not a photographer… but rather someone who shoots for money.

    • Allan

      It’s still good to be second best. : )

      • Aldo

        I just don’t think I’m a photographer like that… some people can take a picture of a trash can and it’s a masterpiece…. Many photographers claim to be ‘artists’… but the truth is that very few break that barrier.

        • Allan

          For me, there is a difference between excellent photographs and artistic photographs. e.g., there are excellent photographs of brides and there are artistic photographs of brides. Some photographers strive to be excellent photographers, and others strive to be original, artistic photographers. (I know others could probably express this more eloquently.)

  • A-Sign

    The YouTube reviews of Steve Perry are really helpful and useful. For example his comparison about the Nikkor 200-500mm and 300mm PF on DX and FX bodies. His knowledge comes from a very professional background and you will notice this in his very detailed reviews.

    • Thanks 🙂

      • A-Sign

        Ah, don’t thank me. 🙂 I have learned a lot from your video (especially the 200-500mm vs. 300 PF + teleconverter comparison was very comprehensive and helpful because currently i own a d600 and my longest lens is 200mm but i want to cover more wildlife). Your backcountry gallery at your website and on facebook is awesome! I was only a bit disappointed that the third copy of your 200-500mm lens was sharp enough – which means as a customer i need to figure out how to test this if you buy it at a local shop. I guess the sharpness needs to be on pair with my 70-200mm f/2.8 lens if the lens is a good copy?

  • novak miler

    Ghost of the north……. Wow. Such a beautiful photo!

  • BrainBeat

    Great videos thanks for posting them they clearly present the information and show what is best when.
    I wonder how things would compare if he did those tests again but against cameras with even smaller sensors like the Nikon 1 or Micro 4/3 cameras. True it would be hard to compare the Micro 4/3 options as there are not really any lenses that are identical between the 2 systems but I know you can adapt FF lenses on both systems with only the Nikon 1 with AF at the moment.

  • Max

    Anyone got some moonshots ?

  • Veselin Gramatikov

    Two important things missing:

    1. Full Frame disatvantage – Adding teleconverter reduce AF performance
    2. Crop sensor disatvantage – Motion blur in crop sensor are much more evident – high speeds are required.

    For ultimate quality you have to use Full Frame with good prime telephoto lens. For ultimate value and portability crop sensor + shorter, brighter lens is the very best choise.

    For example i use d500/d7200/300 4.0 PF VR. The equivalent will be something as d750/d5/200-500 5.6 VR. You can add tc to 300/4.0 without loosing to much af performance but adding tc to 200-500 will reduce your af performance. Crop sensor system is lighter and sometimes cheaper. Zooms as 200-500 change the game by a little. But the end of the day the primes are much better like optical and af performance.

    So if you are in buged d500/d7200/300/4.0 VR is your best choise. After this d750/200-500 is not bad option and may deliver similar if not better IQ. But 200-500 have slow af operation. For the same reach and better IQ & flexibility you will need 500/4 for your FF camera so the price and weight are much greater. In the end of the day with all this systems you can get brilliant high IQ shots. So sometimes the difference are not as much important as you think. Nikon d500 great deal if you are in wildlife photography. Fast camera with big buffer and good af is very important. Light weight too .

    • Around 6.48 in the video, I mention the shortcomings of the TC – including AF performance. 🙂

      And I agree, it’s all about choosing the cameras and lenses that work best for what you can afford and carry, The video was just comparing TC to crop cameras.

  • Back to top