Save your money, weight, embarassment, whatever, the G9II will have better ergonomics and performance all around because it combines baked in noise reduction with less noisy hardware supporting the sensor, but you don't need a lens over 200mm (400mm equivalent), or 300 (600) if you are having trouble gitting gud.
As focal lengths extend, distortion from the atmosphere becomes a more severe issue, it's easy not to notice that an OOF foreground object is partially obscuring something until a second after you take the shot. Shorter lenses also tend to be faster and sharper for cheaper. Going past 600mm is for people who take the most boring and worthless kind of bird photo of all:
Birds in flight.
What this basically is, is a bunch of boomers with cameras ranging from canon mirrorless + $12k zoom to sony + $1k tamron zoom to olympus + $8k zoom, all standing alongside the fenced edge of a swamp and taking pictures of eagles just flying. For everything else, you don't need or want so much focal length, you want less distance to your subject, which typically means your subject is doing something other than being on a branch over there or flying, you can alter the composition more easily (more distance = less apparent perspective change), and you can better interact with your subject (REAL wildlife photographers are not honest about the wild part, they feed the animals. make a photo dont just take a photo) and might even have some chance at using artificial lighting.
>>4234678>3mp>can already see that it's heavily processed by computational photographyAI doesn't stop working when your sensor gets bigger, furthermore, it actually works better. Most M43 birders are professional bloggers in my experience, and the ones who are not do not AI rape their images to death,
