>>4427186This poster is correct
https://www.imagemaven.com/blog/lumix-100-300mmhttps://robinwong.blogspot.com/2024/01/panasonic-lumix-100-300mm-f4-56-at-kl.htmlLight. Sharp. Fast. Accurate.
https://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=777&Camera=736&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=0&LensComp=757&CameraComp=453&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=4&APIComp=1Meanwhilehere is the image quality of the AFFORDABLE lenses
>>4427180 >>4427147 is recommending... the other ones, that are actually almost sharp, like the tamron 150-600, 500mm pf, 100-400 L, and 400 f5.6 are $1000-$2000 boat anchors
Birding on large sensors is for 1: professionals 2: actual idiots.
YES, full frame has better image quality! Yes, even APS-C has better image quality, especially if you're comparing primes and shooting street/portraits/landscapes like a normal, non autistic person. YES, a d750 and $200 85mm f1.8 automatically takes nicer looking photos than a $2000 G9II with a $1500 85mm f2.4 equivalent "nocitron" with a fake leica badge, and they're about the same size!
No, it doesn't matter for fucking birds, and the size difference shows with fucking birds. It's not a cherished photo of your girlfriend/boyfriend/tranny sex slave/husky dog-wife or an amazing street scene from once in a lifetime vacation in a foreign country. You are not shooting an editorial for national geographic - if you were, you would have been given a Z8 and 180-600 already! Get over your fucking selves. ITS A BIRD! Every bird species that exists has at least 200 photos of it. If you're ever going to get a rare bird that doesn't, it's going to be on micro four thirds because you won't take this non-stabilized, low FPS 3.5lb blob and its inherently inaccurate autofocus with you, and you WILL fuck up exposure or gain absolutely nothing over m43 because DSLR metering usually needs chimped, or gets m43 quality because you'll have exposure comp stuck on -1 for safety-sans-chimping.
