I am considering from a few different lenses to rent for an upcoming cruise. The only one available for me to physically handle at my local store was the Sony 70-300 G SSM. I was shocked to find out how much heavier the G lens was. Made my kit 75-300 feel like a paperclip (and it was quite a bit wider)!! Although I didn't think (dumb-me) of taking shots with both lenses, here is a pic I took with the G lens. SOOC. Given that the 70-400 is twice the weight, I don't think it would be something I want to carry around with me all day long and or pack or tripod. The sales person said the IQ would be a little better, but the focus would be a lot faster. Reviews read online said the IQ would be more than a little better. Should I consider renting/borrowing a bridge camera instead? Mine doesn't take video.

I remember having a similar view many years back, yes, I to came from the old school of film. At one stage totally denying that digital was photography at all, that was until I did an art and design course involving a lot of photographic work using film & digital. I was blown away by what I could achieve and now firmly believe that the dividing wall between photography & art has been completely demolished, and all art is subjective and is only limited by the imagination and the ability to use the appropriate software, something I still struggle with at times!!!

BigG, I think the PP "push" these days is all about the creative envelope you find yourself in at the moment and how it fits your comfort zone.

To name just two, PhotoShop and Lightroom 4, you get an opportunity to do just a tad or totally stretch the possibilities. Then, going a step further, Lightroom offers you a chance to make a wide range of changes, simple or out to what Rod Sterling referred to as the "Twilight Zone", the imagination zone, yet does so in a non-destructive format... some folks need that kind of a platform to build upon.

Obviously, the beauty of an image rests in the eye of the beholder. Thankfully, photography in the digital world offers inspirational choices for ALL of us.

So, where is ENOUGH located? It's where we choose to take off our photographic boots and rest. That point will be wherever/whenever we are TOTALLY satisfied with the images we capture in-camera or process with technology beyond our cameras. There is a fun spot for all.

IMHO! All this get-it-right in camera then no PP is bull-shine. In film days all sorts of chemicals were added to the developer to achieve special effects, not to mention dodging and burning and other tricks during the printing. Only prints from the local lab for the snap-shooter were un-altered, and most of them were poor to so-so! I know, I've got boxes of them! In these digital days, with PP software and some skills we have the ability to produce something worth hanging on the wall! It's not always necessary or even desirable to make changes to the composition in PP, but I'm prepared to bet most photos would benefit from judicious adjustments of some, if not all, of cropping, white balance, tone, colour and sharpening.
Happy New Year, Adrian.

Very good examples!

I have been disappointed with sharpness and details, such as feathers, shooting birds from 6 to 10 ft with Sony SAL 18-250 DT 3.5-6.3 or Tamron AF 70-300 f 4-5.6. Have not tried a teleconverter but reviews are not encouraging when used with the lesser lenses or longer f numbers. It impresses me that web wildlife glossaries show terrific pictures using 200 or 300 range lenses. I am interested in something that would work and consider cost. However, Sony 500 is $13,000, and a Sigma 500 is over $5,000.
I am contemplating the following but would appreciate some direction.:Tamron 200--500 f5-6.3 @$950, Sigma 50-500 f4.5-6.3 @ $1400, Sigma 150-500 f5.6-6.3 @$1,070 but blogs say it is much heavier than Tam 200-500 and can not track BIF, and Sony SAL 70-400G @ $1,900 to be used with or without a TC considering its length of 400 may be inadequate.
I am looking for direction to achieve satisfaction.
Walter II (an old novice)

In the four years I have been into the digital photography hobby, I have worked my way up, starting with point and shoot compacts, then travel zooms, bridge cameras, and what I thought would be the last step; micro 4/3. While checking emails last nite, I noticed that both Radio Shack and Target stores had a special on the Canon Rebel T3 with the 18-55 kit lens AND a 75-300 EF zoom lens for $499.00. Did I NEED this camera? NO. I need food, clothing, shelter, and to a lesser degree, due to my age, sex. I WANTED it. At that price it was too good to pass up, and buying it wasn't taking food off of my table or the roof off my head. Yes, it is a two year old model and at the bottom of the DSLR food chain, but in terms of image quality, the worst DSLR is like dating the ugliest gal in the Miss Universe contest.