Taking trip out West this summer to Crater Lake (1st time), Columbia River Gorge (3rd time), and Glacier NP (many times), maybe Yellowstone (many times). Consequently, my goal is to try and get some landscapes (at least 1 or 2) that will qualify as "wall art", and I anticipate (do to circumstances beyond my control) that this will be my last trip/opportunity. Working with FX camera, 28-300 (3.5-5.6), 70-200 (2.8), and a 50 (1.8). Have acquired necessary hardware for shooting pano's (as that was my first thought), and studying and practicing with current gear (to see how each lens performs) before departure. The other consideration running around in my head (after watching many you tube videos), is that maybe a wide angle lens would be less time consuming, and just as effective (but smaller file size wise) as setting up and taking pano's (which would be larger files), and processing them. Cost is another consideration. Then the 64 thousand dollar question becomes: "do I really need to purchase and add a used 17-35 wide angle lens to my bag just for this trip, which I am inclined to believe will become extra weight in my bag after the trip?" Yes or No. Pertinent comments welcome. Thanks for your time and input. Elmo P>S>: As I reread this I may have answered my own question, now I wait to see what you say.

While attempting to learn every way possible to control the Depth Of Field of an image, I took the attached picture of a Starling trying to get access to the beef suet in this bottom only feeder. I think I might have used five things to make the background in this image blurry to make the Starling stand out from the background. Earlier, I read somewhere that there are only three things that can have any effect on the Depth of Field of an image. Can anyone on UHH name five things that they think effects the Depth of Field of an image?

I have a professional photographer friend who is super excited about his new purchase of the Panasonic LUMIX FZ300. What I know for sure is that it has an incredible zoom range of 25-600mm in an incredibly small package considering its reach, about 691g. I have seen example pictures, and they are quite impressive in their close detail and sharpness. All that for about $500. He says that it is simply the monopoly that big camera companies have that make other professional equipment so expensive. I also know that every positive in this business has a downside. The only downside that I can find is its very small 1/1.23 sensor. I don’t know a lot about that except that a full frame camera gives the sharpest pictures and best IQ, with the least noise. Yet his pictures look great, and the fast 2.8 aperture lens allows for low ISO settings. A regular DSLR with 2.8 600mm would be incredibly large, heavy, and expensive. So why is it that I never see professional photographers who reveal their equipment using a bridge camera like this?