imagemeister Loc: mid east Florida

Very WELL stated !

Ruthlessrider

Very nice set.

Barn Owl

MrPhotog, Thanks for your essay. Much appreciated. I have been a Canon shooter for years and have sales in pro images over the years. I now have the R6 and the less expensive RF 100-400. I would not advise the use of a 1.4x with that lens. Most of my lenses are EF lenses and with the R6, I have to use the adapter for them on the R6. Probably just my age but the process of having to "play musical chairs" with the lenses and the adapter is a frustration. Wind and rain can add to the problem. Financially and not being a pro, the 200-600 Sony might well be the direction I should go. Wish Canon had released a 200-600 lens that could compete with Sony in quality and price. Of course, any major change in a camera system is going to incur major $$$$; plus, a major learning curve for a new system. For us mere humans, the advice a 600mm f/4 for specific shoots is excellent.

Paladin48 Loc: Orlando

Yeah but you would have to blow "it" up everyday!!!

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

I am only one year younger than you. And when I decided to buy digital mirrorless, I looked at what I expected the future would be. And I went 4/3rds because I was getting older and that system was smaller, lighter, and less costly than Canon and Nikon (and now Sony) while giving me the quality and ability to print 20" X 24" (now 30" X 40"). And I was not going to be shooting professionally. I was able to get my prime "600mm" angle of view at $2350 (now up to $2900). And it is almost unbelievable sharp with a system total of 7 stops of image stabilization. And that being said, I find nothing wrong with one purchasing a full frame or APS-C camera and lenses. Different strokes for different folks. I looked seriously myself at going with Canon before going 4/3rds. Just like you, I wonder what was the actual difference and was it really needed if I did not shoot professionally. I actually have a system now that can actually shoot professionally. There are professionals successfully
shooting 4/3rds - just not me. And it is a less costly system since I am not rich by any stretch of the imagination. But I love to shoot good photos and the compliments that sometimes comes with them when shown.

Trust me when I say; if you can get compliments with the $2000 lens and are not going to shoot professionally, who really cares what extras the professional gets with his extra $11,000 for his lens.

Barn Owl

wdross, Thanks for your advice on the 4/3rds. I may have missed it; are you shooting APS-C Olympus or ?

alphadog

what's your point??? A prime expensive lens will outperform ALWAYS any "cheap" zoom... so what are u expecting to see? You can use the lesser zoom and be happy with your results... good luck

Ed D Loc: Virginia

I shoot with a Canon R5 and used to have a Sigma 150-600 Contemporary. I sold it and bought a Canon RF 100-500 lens. Thr difference in quality is noticeable and a number of friends commented on the photo improvement. That said, the big question is what are you happy with and what do you want? If your satisfied with your Sigma's performance and your photography is just a hobby, stick with your setup. If you're looking to eventually step up your game you will one day need to upgrade your glass.

charles brown Loc: Tennesse

One could only wish. How about four hundred grand.

yorkiebyte Loc: Scottsdale, AZ/Bandon by the Sea, OR

DANG!! ....you best be watchin' yer step Mr. ...!

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

What a great capture 👁️👁️🏆👁️👁️

chrisg-optical Loc: New York, NY

What do you get for $13000 versus about $2000?

A hernia.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

I am shooting Olympus (now OMDS). But I have no qualms with buy a Panasonic body or lens to supplement my system. I would be buying a great lens and only drop to 5.5 or 6.5 stops of IS (no dual IS between OM and Panasonic yet). And just remember, each brand and each format has it's pros - and cons.

For me, 4/3rds is a very nice fit. For 20 pounds of 20.3" x 11.4" x 7.9" backpack, I can shoot with 2 bodies, five f2.8 to f4 lenses (14 to 600 in 35mm in angle of view), 2 teleconverters, 2 flashes, 4 batteries, and other accessories with no need for a tripod. And this fits as either an overhead carry-on or under the seat carry-on - just less room for my feet. Makes for a very nice travel situation. And I hope to replace my film 90 f2 macro with the new 90 f3.5 Pro IS macro this fall.

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Not necessarily true. If what one shoots with meets there needs, and people who are knowledgeable like what they see in the image, a cheap lense may be all they need. In the film days, I bought a cheap 400 f6.3 lens for my OM-1. And it was sharp for a cheap lens. No auto focus and the aperture mechanism was "interesting" but doable. Yes, it was not equal to Canon, Nikon, or even an Olympus lens. But it was a lot closer in quality since most of the money was in the glass instead of the autofocus and aperture mechanism. And these days with the computer power available, even a cheap zoom lens comes out very close to image quality of some of the best primes. This is why the advanced amateurs with small budgets have a much harder time deciding between a good prime and a good zoom. The trade-offs have become a lot smaller than in the film days.

DVZ Loc: Littleton CO

The speed of the lens (think max aperture) makes a big difference in cost.