I recently acquired the "II" version of this lens. I used it ( a little bit) on a recent trip to Yellowstone (used my FZ1000 more out of convenience) and found it very capable on my Panasonic GX85...even at full 300mm. REsults are still in progress. But so far, so "great". NO complaints.

I've noticed that it seems as though user comments on new gear start out quit positive, But the longer such comments linger on, the more things (often) seem to level off a bit. So I'll need to give this one some time before considering the purchase for my needs. I could use the longer zoom for my wildlife subjects; hence my initial interest in Nikon's announcement.

I totally agree with James56.

I am a bit skeptical of attaining sharp shots near full-out 3000mm. But maybe better shots (sharper) at 2000mm than the P900. Will need to read a whole bunch of users comments before making any move towards an actual purchase. Don't mind the cost if it'll produce.

I don't think that it's officially on the market yet, but soon. It's 25mm-3000mm range has my attention. How about you?
It seems to have some other rather interesting features as well. If it were to continue where the P900 left off, this could be a very interesting camera. Your thoughts?

THe pics to be shown are on a DVD. Can I run the DVD on my laptop and project them onto the screen from there?
And no, I cannot darken the hall where these will be shown; as on whole side of the room has windows viewing a courtyard.
I'm not aware of any details of this entire operation except I've seen it used by others.

I've been asked to make a presentation of some of my recent photo trips. Having never done this before, my first question is about detail and sharpness. If I place all of my photos to be shown on a DVD, and project them onto a screen, will the quality get worse the larger that I blow them up? The pictures have been taken with 10, 16 & 20 megapixels. The last thing I want to convey is poor quality images to the group.
For what it's worth, I have made prints as large as 16 X 20 with fine sharpness and detail. But projected images will be much larger than this.
Thanks.

Another vote for you to at least consider the Panasonic GX85. I recently sold all of my Canon gear and have gone totally to the GX85. NO looking back; as this was an excellent choice for me. Especially for it's lighter weight and dual image stabilizer with appropriate lenses.

This might be ending up more complicated than intended. If so I'm sorry for the confusion. I'm aware the Olympus M43rds lens can be used on Panasonic bodies and that Panasonic M43rds lenses can be mounted on Olympus M43rds bodies WITHOUT the aid of any adapters. Are those the only 2 brands that can be used that way? Will the Sigma M43rds lenses require an adapter on either the Oly or Panny bodies to be used fully?

Lille,

So the 45-200mm Panasonic lens is SOLD?

Bob

I currently have a Panasonic GX85 ILC and 3 lenses. 2 are Panasonics and one is Olympus. Both brands of lenses work just as well on either brands bodies without any adapters. So I ask, can other brands of mirrorless lenses work just as well on either body without the aid of adapters? A specific example......can a Canon M lens work on my Panasonic M43rds body, just as easily as the Olympus lens can? Can off brand mirrorless lenses work on my Panny without an adapter?

How 'bout some pictures of all the gear?

Have you considered a mirrorless camera? Could be significantly lighter than average DSLR.

I also have experience with the FZ1000 and give it many thumbs up. If I reduced my gear to one camera (I have 3) this would be the ONE, no questions. The positive comments written thus far here would be the very same for me. It feels great in hand and after just a short time, you can operate the camera VERY quickly. It's a winner. Perhaps the best camera purchase I've ever made.

I may still be a bit confused. I have a FZ1000 with a 2.7 crop factor and a Panasonic GX85 with a 2X factor. So are you telling me that an object shot at the same tele range on either camera will appear the same size? For example a shot of a deer taken with the FZ1000 at 300mm, and the CX85 with 300mm lens at 300mm will appear the same size if made on equal sized print? A basic reason for my asking this question in the first place was to determine which camera would be better served for distant wildlife for upcoming trip in Yellowstone.