I have a long, heavy lens with rotating, but non-removable tripod foot. Was disappointed at first, but soon realized that by rotating the foot 180 degrees, that grabbing the tripod foot is by far the best way to pick up the camera and lens, hold the camera and lens, take it out of the bag, etc. If the tripod foot was removable, I would never actually remove it. Better for the camera mount is terms of stress, and easier on the hand whenever you need to hold the camera with one hand.
The Sony is essentially the same size as the EF300 L II after correcting for flange distance, so most likely no DO in there. They do tout the extensive use of magnesium, alloy, but Canon has also used that for years. Sony also mentions that they limited the number of elements to save weight. Lastly, the use of linear motors eliminates the helicoids and that could save quite a bit of weight. It will be interesting to see how well the reduced element design works out in the real world.
It’s the same design as in the Canon version III/RF 400mm/2.8 and 600mm/4 and Sony equivalents. The large elements at the front of the lens are removed and replaced by small ones close to the back. It saves a lot of glass weight but it does seem it has a cost of some loss of IQ.
Yep, the EF 400 II and particularly the 600 II were sharper. I have no incentive to get rid of my EF 800 f/5.6 since the RF 800 is the new design 400 with a built-in TC and it does not support additional TCs well. It will be interesting to see how that design philosophy works at 300mm.
This is a very good point to make with regards to resolution and print size. Next year I plan on printing a book of my wildlife photos for friends and family and am quickly realizing that the largest photo in the book would be an 8x10 and take up the entire page. For a 8x10 photo at 300 pixels per an inch one only needs 7.2 MP!
Printing has long suffered from limited dynamic range and color gamut, so before making a big spend on multiple copies of a book, try printing some of your images on a good inkjet and see if you like the result. A very good printing process only has about 7 bits of contrast range (DMAX= 2.1), so all but the cheapest monitors will outperform the printing process and modern OLED TVs are stunning in comparison, so putting your images on a USB stick that can be plugged int the back of a TV will offer much more impressive images on a modern 4k or 8k TV. The advantage of printing is that all the viewers will see the same quality of image, whereas different monitors will have different calibrations. In the end, it depends on what you want to present. If a relatively low contrast,, artsy image is the goal, then printing is a good medium. If, OTOH you want to convey maximum reality, then a good monitor will win hands down.
You may find that turning the tripod collar so that the handle faces up is actually a preferable way to hold the camera/lens. I was initially annoyed when I bought a heavy telephoto that the tripod collar could not be removed. Now, I would leave the collar on even if it could be removed. Lifting and carrying the camera and lens with the tripod collar is much easier and will take the pressure off the mount for those that tend to carry the combo by holding the camera. Just a thought.
My best selling print was shot on a 6mp original Canon digital camera, and when I did do some summer festivals, could easily print 8x12 inches.
But, but 400mm DO II is so nice. And there is also the 1.4XIII albeit only for a 560mm f/5.6 lens. I had some reservations for the IQ at 800 at f/8 too and you do not make it easy sir with your exceptional scientific tests. I still love it though (I just have to find a use for it
: OK until I sell my last 2 FF DSLR Canon cameras it stays! )Weight is a prime concern for me nowadays. I was significantly younger when I carried the 300/2.8 and 400/4 and I now have 2kg as my max weight. Also, the 100-500 is just so good and effectively only a stop dimmer. However, I do admit looking at the prices of used 400/4 and if they get cheap enough I might buy for a third time in case I do need f/4!But, but 400mm DO II is so nice. And there is also the 1.4XIII albeit only for a 560mm f/5.6 lens. I had some reservations for the IQ at 800 at f/8 too and you do not make it easy sir with your exceptional scientific tests. I still love it though (I just have to find a use for it
