What's the latest on 40D/100-400 + 1.4TC (1 Viewer)

Before I went on holiday (15th Sept) there was a thread running between people who were trying to get the new 40D with 100-400 to work with 1.4TC by taping the pins.
I am trying, without success, to find the latest reports. I have the 20D, 100-400 + Kenco 1.4 and WAS thinking of upgrading to the 40D.
Can someone kindly sumarise and tell me:-
1. Will the combination work ?
2. If not, will it work with 500mm f4 ?
Sorry to resurrect this but lack of AF or IS will affect my choice.

Hi Dave,

speaking for myself, I've stopped using the Kenko TC with the 40D/100-400mm and haven't really tried overly hard with the Canon 1.4x either while I'm still road-testing the camera.

I think it's fair to say that the Canon does work better than the Kenko, but - last time I tried - I concluded that it's still not as fast or as effective as the Kenko was on the 30D.

I do intend to try again though - I suspect that things will be better now that I've put AF onto the <AF-ON> button on the back, so that I can control the AF's working - but I doubt I'll get a chance to test that theory out in anger this week.

The 40D should work perfectly with a 1.4x TC and the 500mm f/4. because even losing a stop of light to the TC still leaves you with f/5.6, which is within the camera's operating spec.

I should also point out that some folk have had more luck with their TCs on the 40D/100-400mm than I have - as I recall, "tdodd" on here has had some success.

Thanks Keith.
It will be a great shame if you cannot overcome the problem. Hopefully others will see this question and come up with a solution. When I bought the 20D it was going to be a stop-gap until the 40D but this puts a big ? over it.

I've uploaded three albums of shots with my 40D, illustrating the success or otherwise of the AI Servo AF. I should mention that I am new to BIF photography and my skills at tracking BIFs or BIF photography generally are far from perfected. Anyway, the albums....

1. 82 shots of a car (focus attempted on the number plate) doing a few runs towards and away from the camera at ~30mph with my 100-400 lens @ 400mm and a Kenko 1.4X teleconverter attached. I've uploaded the photos in full resolution from sraw files. The website will resize them to fit your screen but you can download the original files for closer inspection if you wish. I thought this would serve as a useful first test and a sort of "control" as the number plate gives good contrast and the vehicle movement should be pretty predictable, thus reducing the room for error on my part.

http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/EezyTiger/40D100400Kenko14XTeleconAFTestingCar?authkey=Owxv6hJJpfc

The results aren't 100% perfect but there are many keepers in the sequence and it is clear to me that the lens and teleconverter do work reasonably well. I dare say the bare lens would do better but that was not the aim of the test. Clearly the camera is tracking focus and there is no sign of a failure to lock or to flap around hunting for focus.

2. 11 shots of a gull in flight on a murky day against a grey sea. The sequence starts poorly but ends pretty well as the camera fully locks in on the bird. These were also with the 100-400 @ 400mm and the Kenko 1.4X teleconverter. These are uploaded as full resolution images, this time shot in full raw, and again will resize to fit your screen but can be downloaded for closer inspection. For convenience I've added a 100% crop of the last image to the end of the sequence.

http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/EezyTiger/40DEF100400400mmKenko14XAFTesting?authkey=PwjmtSNxcLY

3. A whole bunch of BIF shots, taken at the zoo, with either my 100-400 or 70-200 f/2.8 IS, both without the teleconverter. The exif data is included in the photos and they are all resized to 800*533 from the raw originals. I've included everything, good and bad so you can guage the level of success or otherwise that I had. I think the results from these shots dispel the myth that the camera is easily fooled by a messy background. There may be 2-3 shots taken with all focus points but otherwise everything else in this album and both the others was exclusively with centre point AF only.

http://picasaweb.google.co.uk/EezyTiger/40DBIFs?authkey=Lz1yTBmVR-A

I've attached a 100% crop from each album. For the car I had to take the crop from the jpeg I'd already produced from the sraw file, as I'd deleted the sraw original, so the quality of this crop is a bit sub-par. For the birds the crops are 800*800 crops from the original raw files, converted to jpeg at 100% size.

Dave Smith asks......."You mention BIF shots. This is a foreign language to me-what does BIF stand for ?"
Obviously (duh!) it stands for Badgers in forests!!!!!
OK, so I jest...... its Birds in Flight, I presume. But this use of shorthand can be misleading and often puzzling. So don't feel bad about your failure to comprehend Dave. Some of them get me too.

Adrian

David Smith said:

Am I correct in summarising as follows:-
Keith and others have found that the 40D + Kenco 1.4 + 100-400 will not AF.
You have tried exactly the same set up and found it will AF. (Obviously not as quick as without the 1.4 but thats to be expected)

Click to expand...

Yep,

that's about the size of it, David.

A similar thing has been seen with 350D/400D users before now: some folk have been very successful using those cameras with a TC, and some have simply given it up as a bad job.

Keith Reeder said:

Yep,

that's about the size of it, David.

A similar thing has been seen with 350D/400D users before now: some folk have been very successful using those cameras with a TC, and some have simply given it up as a bad job.

Click to expand...

This get confusingerer & confusingerer! Maybe I can just buy TDODDS 40D-as it's 2nd hand then maybe £100 including delivery??
Assuming Jessops price is OK I suppose I could take my lense & TC in, fit it to the body and check it!


Thanks to Boy George for the BIF info. By the way, your not really THE -no you can't be!!

I bought my 40D in Jessops within an indoor shopping centre and took along my 100-400 and Kenko 1.4X to try it out in the shop before going ahead with my purchase. I was able to get AF to work within the shopping centre on things like shop signs, window displays and seated people. Sometimes it failed but mostly I was able to get a lock by picking a subject of adequate lighting and contrast.

As far as Canon is concerned the combination is not expected to work and without taping the pins on the converter it will not AF at all. By taping the pins you hide the teleconverter from the camera and it tries to AF but with less success than the approved bare lens. As others have reported, this combination appears not to work at all for them and this was a big concern for me when deciding whether or not to get the 40D, as I already have a 30D which does work with this combo.

But getting lock on a static subject which you can pick and choose is some way removed from locking onto and tracking a moving and somewhat erratic target. So the real proof was to try it outdoors on moving targets after I got it home. The sequence with the car and the seagull are conclusive proof to me that the combination does work. It's not 100% successful but my results far exceed "does not work at all". I am very happy with the performance of my copy, given others have less success or no success.

Some people have also claimed that the 40D is not as good for BIF (birds in flight) photograpy because the AF is too quick to change focus to another subject (like a busy/contrasty backgraound) if your aim wanders too far off the subject. I posted the 3rd album of shots without the teleconverter to once again show that my 40D is capable of delivering results with BIFs.

Overall my opinion of my 40D is that it is vastly more capable than my 30D in the AF department for moving subjects. It locks quicker, tracks more accurately and does not wander off the target if I do an adequate job of aiming the camera at the right subject. The improved viewfinder also makes it easier to see and follow the subject and judge whether you have focus lock and are tracking accurately before releasing the shutter.

The albums I've uploaded were shot for my own benefit but since I had the images I thought I might just as well share for the benefit of others. Some people say the 40D is poor for BIFs and useless with an f/5.6 lens and teleconverter so I'm just adding balance to the argument because in my experience it works just fine. It is not a 1D body and I do not expect it to work as well as a camera of four times the price but the fact is that it does work (for me) and for the money is a very capable camera and a worthy improvement over the 30D.

It is unfortunate that others have had less success than me but I have no complaints about my purchase.

EDIT : p.s. so in my experience that's actually two bodies out of two that will work with the 100-400 lens (at 400mm f/5.6) and Kenko 1.4X teleconverter - the shop demo model and the one I bought.

Boy George said:

Dave Smith asks......."You mention BIF shots. This is a foreign language to me-what does BIF stand for ?"
Obviously (duh!) it stands for Badgers in forests!!!!!
OK, so I jest...... its Birds in Flight, I presume. But this use of shorthand can be misleading and often puzzling. So don't feel bad about your failure to comprehend Dave. Some of them get me too.

Adrian

Click to expand...

BIF does indeed stand for "Bird(s) In Flight". I only started trying BIF photography in July this year but have already become very familiar with the term in my visits to this site and others.

I assumed that as this was a bird related website and this is the Canon photographic forum that the term "BIF" would be well understood. It's certainly not an acronym of my own invention. I apologise for not making things clearer.

David Smith said:

If you use the same set up using jpeg and normal (say auto) would yuo expect the same success?
Thanks for the help

Click to expand...

I'm afraid I don't shoot jpeg and I never ever use the full auto setting (assuming you mean the green square) and nor would I. I'll use Program mode but that's the nearest to full auto that I'll go, and then I'll still shoot raw. I don't consider myself a good enough photographer to shoot jpeg. I need every aid I can get to squeeze the maximum quality from my shots (well the ones I intend to keep) and shooting jpeg just restricts the options for further lossless image refinement too much for me.

In full auto (green square) you have do not have the option to shoot raw and you also have no control over the choice of AF point and that, to me, is just hopeless, whatever the shooting situation. I mostly shoot with the centre AF point only or occasionally pick a different focus point if that suits my subject better. It's possible that I tried all 9 focus points for 2-3 shots in the third album, but I've no idea which ones they were, and I very quickly switched straight back to single point centre AF again.

I've now shot a short video to demonstrate my 40D AF working with the 100-400 and Kenko 1.4X. Unfortunately the camcorder was playing up so I've lost the beginning of the clip and as my video editing software is playing up as well there is a bit of a wedding stuck on the end of the clip but all the salient information is present.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=STvuECPWR7c

This is a great way to demonstrate the ability to AF with this combo. Thanks for going to all this trouble. I suspect a lot of people will have been watching this thread. :t:

Thanks, Tim.

I've just completed two weeks jury service, today, so providing solid evidence is particularly impressed upon my mind at the moment. It is easy to make all sorts of claims on the internet but without backing them up with proof it's all a bit pointless really. As I taped the pins on the teleconverter there is no evidence in the exif data of the photos I posted that I was using a teleconverter and I thought this video would at least support my claims of success and reinforce the credibility of my testimony :t:

Tim,

it only really proves that tdodd has been lucky.

As I point out above, some folk with a 350D/400D have been able to use TC too - but then ask Paul Goode and PostcardCV about their experiences.

Don't get me wrong, I'm pleased that it's working out for tdodd, but one swallow does not a Summer make, and I'd hate people to start believing that just because it's working out here, that this represents what is typical.

Equally I can't say that my experience is typical either, but If I made the same video with my 40D/100-400mm/Kenko 1.4x, you'd simply see a lot of nondescript blurriness and hear nothing but interminable whirring as the lens went back and forth until either the battery went flat or the AF motor melted!



Here's a whole DPReview thread I started on the subject three weeks back. I suggest reading it carefully, evaluating all the results, and then asking yourself:

Do you feel lucky, punk?

Well, do ya??

Keith, it's at least two swallows because the shop demo camera also worked - with my lens and converter. So the question now for me is - am I lucky with my 40D or is it my lens or my teleconverter that is blessed? Alternatively, for you, is it your 40D or your lens or teleconverter that is cursed?

If you want to remove (or at least reduce) the element of chance then try *your* lens and teleconverter in the shop before purchasing. If the demo body works then also check the brand new box they hand you, in store, to make sure that camera body also works with your kit. If it doesn't then you know what to do.

Keith, have you tried mounting the 40D, TC, lens combo on a tripod like tdodd? I guess it shouldn't really make a difference and I know it's not how you like to shoot but it might make for a fairer comparison. I find AF significantly better using a tripod rather than handholding with my 30D/canon 1.4x TC and 100-400mm.

I looked through that thread on dpreview but found it horribly confusing. However, the net feel did seem to be a thumbs down for the combination compared with users experiences with the 20/30D.

Remember that my kit works fine (for a non 1D series camera), handheld, on cars at 30mph and BIFs. The only reason I stuck my camera on a tripod for this demo was in order to be able to shoot the video through the camera viewfinder. It would have been a tad tricky to operate the 40D properly (two handed) and also wield the camcorder at the same time.

tdodd said:

Remember that my kit works fine (for a non 1D series camera), handheld, on cars at 30mph and BIFs. The only reason I stuck my camera on a tripod for this demo was in order to be able to shoot the video through the camera viewfinder. It would have been a tad tricky to operate the 40D properly (two handed) and also wield the camcorder at the same time.

Click to expand...

Ah, fair point. Scratch my last suggestion then Keith. :cat:

tdodd said:

is it your 40D or your lens or teleconverter that is cursed?

Click to expand...

Naaah, that DPReview thread suggests it ain't just me, which is why I posted it.

The point I'm trying (and failing! ) to make is that there's clearly more of a lottery here than there is with the 30D, and that people need to be aware of that.

I've tried both the Kenko and Canon TCs, incidentally, and neither are a patch on the performance I got from the Kenko on my 30D, though the Canon is better on the 40D than the Kenko for me.

But to refer back to the DPR thread, there are people who are doing better with the Kenko than the Canon; some who are doing better with the Canon; and some who aren't getting anything from either TC.

Personally I would hate to be responsible for posting something that persuaded BF members to go out any buy a 40D and TC on the assumption that because it worked for one person it will work for them too, and then to read that it doesn't work for them after all...

There's unquestionably more variation in the results from the 40D with TCs than with its predecessors, which is why I'm suggesting a cautious approach.

As a matter of interest, what serial number range is your 40D in?