RF Extender 1.4 v built in tele converter R6 ii

[derekc]

I have just purchased an RF 100-500 L lens to use with the R6 ii that I bought in March.
I also purchased an RF extender 1.4.
I have shot some test images with the extender and also with the ‘built in’ tele converter x2 of the R6 ii, of the same subjects.
I am surprised to find that the tele converter shots are in some cases as good as the extender, and in one case appears to be better (sharper)!
I have tried to keep the camera settings the same, using at least 1/500 shutter speed. My shots were at 500 plus 1.4 with the extender giving me 700. The best I could do with the tele converter was 343, as I found it impossible to set exactly 350 on the camera, as the display seems to ‘jump’ between focal lengths and doesn’t match what looks like 350 on the lens barrel.
Has anyone carried out similar tests? My intuition says that the extender should be better.

[Farider]

IMHO the extender is the better option as the magnification option in the camera will be a digital one and a reduced resolution.

Ian

[@imagesBV]

I believe the built in tele converter creates additional pixels...aka computational photography to make up the number cropped from the edges....whereas the extender is purely optical using the original sensor resolution.....I too would expect the extender to be best.
I wonder why the computational function is not applied to the whole 24MP sensor to give a computational 50MP image...or does it do that?