SX50's all in good for stationary objects but what about if it is moving?
This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.
To those who have discussed low level formatting of CF cards, does it matter if you format the card as Fat32 or NTFS. I found out the hard way that Canon uses Fat 32 format, not the NTFS. When I formatted the card in NTFS format, the card could not be read by my 5D M3, while in Fat32 format it could be read. Of course after I formatted the card in the camera (regardless of initial format) everything was fine.
BTW - for the Mac guys/gals out there. How does Mac deal with Fat32. I thought they did not support it - for external drives to be readable by a Mac, they needed to be NTFS. Is that correct?
Canon also uses nanocoatings, like Nikon's Nano Crystal Coat. It is called SWC by Canon, Subwavelength Coating. All of Canon's new lenses use SWC on multiple elements. Nikon has no advantage there. Flare control on newer Canon lenses is second to none, and one of the biggest reasons I love Canon glass.
Canon's EF 800 f/5.6 L IS was the first lens to use Canon's 4-stop IS system. That is the same 4-stop IS system that is used in the new Mark II generation of Canon teles and superteles. It is also the same 4-stop IS system used in the EF 200mm f/2 L IS. The IS system of both the 800/5.6 and 200/2 is most certainly not out of date. It is actually the current state of the art, and the system that paved the way for the Mark II 300, 400, 500, and 600 lenses.
Weight is probably only area where there can really be significant gains, although the current 800mm lens already made a fair bit of headway on that front by being almost two pounds lighter than the old 600mm f/4 L lens. Canon might be able to improve IQ as well. The 600mm f/4 L II is slightly better than the 800mm with a 1.4x TC, so there is probably something Canon can do to put the 800mm back on top. Is it worth it, though? The margin is very slim...and as a prime supertelephoto, the current 800mm is still a phenomenal lens. I've never used the 200/2, but from what I've seen, it too is a phenomenal lens capable of producing some unbelievably good images with the most mind-blowing boke you've ever seen.
When it comes to aperture, if the difference is f/1.8 vs. f/2, it is trivial, and doesn't really matter. With the insanely good high ISO performance of Canon cameras these days, a third of a stop bump in ISO is trivial.
As for the 800mm, Canon doesn't usually use intermediate f-stops for maximum aperture on their prime lenses. It would either be f/5.6 or f/4. An f/4 800mm lens would require a 200mm entrance pupil. That is GARGANTUAN! The single largest entrance pupil in Canon's entire lens lineup is the 600mm f/4, with a 150mm entrance pupil. An 800mm f/4 would require a 33% increase in front element size. The diameter of the 600mm II is 168mm, so the front element is probably exactly 150mm in size. Can you imagine a lens with a 200mm front element?!? The barrel diameter would probably be 220mm! Not only would such a lens be HUGE, it would be heavy, even with Fluorite elements...much heavier than the current 800mm f/5.6 L (which is actually still fairly light...lighter than the previous EF 600mm f/4 L by a fair margin, again thanks to Fluorite elements, as the current 800 is still a modern design).
It would certainly be an amazing lens, an EF 800mm f/4 L IS. But it would be a significant feat of engineering to make it practical for anything outside of relatively permanent, stationary use on one hell of a beasty tripod. That is nothing to say of the cost. The EF 600mm f/4 L IS II costs $13,000. The current EF 800mm f/5.6 L IS costs $13,500, and it has a smaller entrance pupil than the 600mm. I can only figure an EF 800mm f/4 L IS would cost...$25,000...maybe $35,000?
I don't see either of these lenses getting an increase in maximum aperture. Its either not logical, or not practical.