Wildlife - Canon 80D/Sigma 150-600mm vs Lumix G9/Leica 100-400mm

[woof woof]

I think "we" need to be careful here before someone gets the impression that the kit doesn't really matter and rushes out and buys an aging DSLR with a max ISO of 3,200 and by todays methods way behind the curve image quality.

 

[Sangoma]

I had a play with my 100-400mm yesterday and it is the stiffest zoom lens I have and likely the stiffest I've ever had but I haven't had all that many, I'm mostly a prime guy. If it's stiffness would be an issue I don't know as it's something you can only judge for yourself. If you're interested in this lens you need to try one.

I don't tend to zoom in and out too much as I find even 400mm on MFT very often doesn't give enough reach but I can see how some would like to fine tune framing by zooming. On finding subjects I think practice is one thing that can help.

Overall Keith I think you're trying to improve in one of the most challenging and potentially gear wise costly subject areas and I think this will need a lot of careful thought and practice and honing with the gear. Good luck with it.

Is yours an Olympus or Panasonic?

My Panasonic 100-400 is not uncomfortable to zoom, doen't really feel stiff, but it is stiff enough that it does not move by gravity
It is not much different to the Tamron I kept for Canon, but some of the Canon zooms were so loose they used to move if the camera was facing up or down

 

[ancient_mariner]

Regarding resolution, if the largest you view your images is 1080p then having a lower resolution is fine.

 

[woof woof]

Is yours an Olympus or Panasonic?

My Panasonic 100-400 is not uncomfortable to zoom, doen't really feel stiff, but it is stiff enough that it does not move by gravity
It is not much different to the Tamron I kept for Canon, but some of the Canon zooms were so loose they used to move if the camera was facing up or down

Panasonic 100-400mm.

I think if Keith is seriously interested in the Pan 100-400mm he needs to try one especially as he likes to zoom in / out. It may be fine and there may be copy variation. It's something people need to assess for themselves.

 

[Crotal Bell]

Well that was a brief but very interesting chat.

I called Greys of Westminster and put the question very simply, can you walk about for 2-3 hours with a DSLR and Sigma Contemporary 150-600mm or would it be too heavy.

The gentleman on the phone was very clear that it would not be comfortable and he certainly would not do it, too heavy and you would "know about it afterwards."

Previously I had watched one of their vids where a young lady is using that rig, but it didn't state how much time she was hand holding.

The chap at Greys didn't try to sell me a thing, not a sausage, and made it clear that a DSLR and Sig 150-600mm is not a walkabout rig. When I suggested a G9 outfit for my purposes he agreed it made far more sense for a middle aged walking photographer.

He probably doesn't stock sausages either.

 

[Sangoma]

Well that was a brief but very interesting chat.

I called Greys of Westminster and put the question very simply, can you walk about for 2-3 hours with a DSLR and Sigma Contemporary 150-600mm or would it be too heavy.

The gentleman on the phone was very clear that it would not be comfortable and he certainly would not do it, too heavy and you would "know about it afterwards."

Previously I had watched one of their vids where a young lady is using that rig, but it didn't state how much time she was hand holding.

The chap at Greys didn't try to sell me a thing, not a sausage, and made it clear that a DSLR and Sig 150-600mm is not a walkabout rig. When I suggested a G9 outfit for my purposes he agreed it made far more sense for a middle aged walking photographer.

He probably doesn't stock sausages either.

Well, from experience, I can tell you what follows middle age. And is not wearing a blue lycra suit with underwear on the outside and a big S on the front either

 

[RichardC27]

Well that was a brief but very interesting chat.

I called Greys of Westminster and put the question very simply, can you walk about for 2-3 hours with a DSLR and Sigma Contemporary 150-600mm or would it be too heavy.

The gentleman on the phone was very clear that it would not be comfortable and he certainly would not do it, too heavy and you would "know about it afterwards."

Previously I had watched one of their vids where a young lady is using that rig, but it didn't state how much time she was hand holding.

The chap at Greys didn't try to sell me a thing, not a sausage, and made it clear that a DSLR and Sig 150-600mm is not a walkabout rig. When I suggested a G9 outfit for my purposes he agreed it made far more sense for a middle aged walking photographer.

He probably doesn't stock sausages either.

It all depends what strap you're going to use with it. If you're just going to use the neck strap that came with the camera it would be a nightmare. If you use something like a Peak Design cross body strap with the right points connected on the camera it would be manageable.

My motorsport setup consists of the Fuji X-T4, with a SmallRig grip so we'll call that 850g, with the 100-400mm lens at 1.4kg. So a total of 2.25kg and I can walk with that all day (8-10 hours) on my Peak Design strap no problem. I previously had a Joby sling strap and that was fine too. I'm a bit younger than you but I'm not what you'd call an athlete. Yes it's heavy but not unmanageable or uncomfortable with the correct equipment to carry it. An 80D weighs 730g and the Sigma lens is 1905g if you take the tripod foot off. So 2.65kg which really isn't that much to carry across your body on a good quality strap.

I appreciate everyone is different but there are lots of photographers who will happily walk around all day with much heavier rigs than an APS-C DSLR and a Sigma zoom lens. I've seen loads of people at race tracks hand holding the Sigma 150-600 C lens. To just blanket say you can't walk around with it is wrong. Again, you'd have to either borrow or hire one and see what you think, Only you could make the decision whether you're willing to carry the weight to get the images you want, and if your health and fitness will allow you to carry that weight going forward.

 

[the black fox]

Hmmm a lot does depend on your build though keith , I could do it till I had my heart failure it never bothered me but then again I am a big lad.. but as Steve above says you don’t get any younger or fitter as time progresses .
Wearing around your neck is out as well so factor in a decent waist level sling strap and it soon becomes tedious just going out

 

[LCPete]

I think "we" need to be careful here before someone gets the impression that the kit doesn't really matter and rushes out and buys an aging DSLR with a max ISO of 3,200 and by todays methods way behind the curve image quality.

you are of course right, I think what Jeff was saying and I agree with him that nowadays modern processing software can be as equally important as the camera gear itself and I have found that it can transform images taken in the past on older gear
I agree that the kit does matter, the last couple of years I’ve moved over to full frame Canon , but everyone is different and what’s best for me won’t be for someone else

 

[Tysonator]

The 7DMK2 was an improvement over the 7DMK1. I had the mark 1, it was pretty awful in low light, even at low ISO numbers and ETTR. It was better if you gave it the light but in my experience, there was always a weird grain and sometimes banding to images from it. Maybe I just had a bad copy. The 7Dii was (is) much better, even though I never owned one but by all accounts, it was significantly better than the Mk1. A friend of mine had one and loved it.

I've just had a thought. I have an M5 and that has the same sensor as the 80D and it has impressed me. It is much better (or should I say, more forgiving?) than the 7DMk1 sensor was.

The M5 is a bit more basic than the G9 or 80D but it served me well with wildlife whilst I waited on my R7.

The M5 isn't my main camera but it is a lovely thing and might be worth considering (I say might) if weight becomes an issue with the 80D or other DSLRs.

I have owned both & 7D & 7Dii ( and still currently have the 7Dii ) and now the much delayed R7 !

the 7Dii is very much an improvement over the 7D by apx 2 stops min, plus more AF points, CF & SD card slots are a great combination, as you can also buy an SD card where ever you are, no much a CF. The ISO is much better than ate 7D as you did not want to go over 800 ISO on the 7D.
the R7 is very good a high ISO and cleans up well in DeNoise AI.

I also own the sigma 150-600 C, 100-400L IS USM MKii, EF 70-300L IS USM.
IMO the 70-300L is a very sharp lens, the 100-400L MKii is a big improvement over the Mki and it to is sharp, though I still believe the 70-300L is slightly better !
The sigma 150-600C is a beast and too get is best performance it may need tweaking with the sigma dock to your DSLR, though mirrorless cameras should be fine.
I have even put my Sony A6600 mated on the EF 70-300L, EF 100-400L MKii and the sigma EF 150-600C and it works reasonable OK. Not as fast as a EF mount DSLR or R mount canon body.

However it is also pretty good for wildlife if you can get a big Sony zoomy lens as this will work a lot better than adapted canon lens like I used

Personnelly for this thread a canon 80D and sigma 150-600C is a pretty good combination regardless of the age of the 80D. Its low low light is pretty reasonable and it is regarded as one the best all rounder canon DSLR ( though I still like my 7Dii ! )

Money is a limiting factor and I say if the OP can barrow a G9, and 150-600C & 80D / 7Dii that would be the best option however difficult that may be to put into practice.

 

[Tysonator]

you are of course right, I think what Jeff was saying and I agree with him that nowadays modern processing software can be as equally important as the camera gear itself and I have found that it can transform images taken in the past on older gear
I agree that the kit does matter, the last couple of years I’ve moved over to full frame Canon , but everyone is different and what’s best for me won’t be for someone else

Do you still use your 7Dii ! ?

 

[woof woof]

you are of course right, I think what Jeff was saying and I agree with him that nowadays modern processing software can be as equally important as the camera gear itself and I have found that it can transform images taken in the past on older gear
I agree that the kit does matter, the last couple of years I’ve moved over to full frame Canon , but everyone is different and what’s best for me won’t be for someone else

I started with the free Canon software and then CS2 and onto CS5 and now PS2022 and there's no doubt in my mind that it's easier for me to get better results with each new iteration of software and I've proved this to myself by reprocessing older shots. So all that is true but there's a big but coming and it's that when you start out with a file that can't be pushed and pulled about much before falling apart you're probably going to be limited in what you can do even with the best new software. For example when reprocessing my old Canon DSLR files I can get extreme noise banding in the shadows and of course if I'd exposed more for the shadows at the time of shooting the brighter areas would have blown.

 

[sk66]

and the only common denominator is a very good and very patient photographer who's put the hours and learning in.

Way back at the beginning, that was my answer...

I see a lot of people in dedicated Z9 groups (forums/FB/etc) with the "latest greatest" Z9 and very expensive lenses (800mm PF, ect) posting very marginal images... their work probably wasn't great before, and it's still not.

 

[sk66]

I've always found that more pixels do mean you have more headroom for cropping. Clearly, if you have 20MP to choose from there are more options than if you have 10MP.

If you mean that other factors, such as lens resolution or your intentions for the image, will affect how much of a given frame you can crop down to, that would be fair comment but as a bald statement it's somewhat misleading.

I was answering Keith's question in context of the previous discussion that led to it.
And yes, I meant that usually there is some other factor limiting recorded resolution and more pixels isn't really going to help that.

 

[sk66]

Regarding resolution, if the largest you view your images is 1080p then having a lower resolution is fine.

An image cannot (currently) contain more resolution/detail than it is displayed with; an image put online at 1024x768 contains less than 1MP of detail... it doesn't make much sense to think you need to start with something like 46MP to get there.

hmmmm but some of the best cameras I have owned and used were in the 10 to 12 mp range , and a few short years ago this was counted as optimum

12MP was considered optimal partly because that is about the limit of human vision... but that assumes you are not pixel peeping, printing huge and viewing from short distances, or cropping hard.
Most of our struggles for sharp images is just an attempt to actually record anywhere near 12MP of resolution...

 

[sk66]

The suggestion to try for yourself is good... especially if you can afford to rent for a week where you can put it through the paces and examine the results.

I'm turning 57 in a couple months and I often carry > 8kg of kit up the side of a mountain. And I handhold the Z9 with the Sigma 60-600 (4kg +) all the time... but that is completely irrelevant.

 

[Deleted member 95743]

Maybe a Nikon Coolpix P1000 would be a solution to the OP's dilemma; it only weighs 1.4 kg and has a zoom range of 24-3000mm.

 

[LCPete]

Do you still use your 7Dii ! ?

to be honest I don’t not since getting the R5
I was using the 6D 2 for macro and the 7D2 for anything moving but haven’t used the 7D 2 for a while now now I have the R5
thought about selling it but the shutter count is high and for what it’s worth I may as well keep it

 

[Gav.]

Hi Kieth, we've already spoken via PM about gear, I just wanted to chip in to say, try the gear or carefully add weight to your current gear, don't let someone tell you, you can't hold or carry gear, everyone is differant, I'm a bean pole of a man 68kg and only ever hand hold and my gear is 4.4kg plus far more in my pack.

 

[LCPete]

I started with the free Canon software and then CS2 and onto CS5 and now PS2022 and there's no doubt in my mind that it's easier for me to get better results with each new iteration of software and I've proved this to myself by reprocessing older shots. So all that is true but there's a big but coming and it's that when you start out with a file that can't be pushed and pulled about much before falling apart you're probably going to be limited in what you can do even with the best new software. For example when reprocessing my old Canon DSLR files I can get extreme noise banding in the shadows and of course if I'd exposed more for the shadows at the time of shooting the brighter areas would have blown.

yes I know what you mean about older Canon files sometimes I had noise in blue skies even at low ISO , I don’t very often shoot landscape so probably didn’t see a lot of the issues and a lot of the time I’m trying to aim for lighter backgrounds in macro rather than black backgrounds

 

[Crotal Bell]

It all depends what strap you're going to use with it. If you're just going to use the neck strap that came with the camera it would be a nightmare. If you use something like a Peak Design cross body strap with the right points connected on the camera it would be manageable.

My motorsport setup consists of the Fuji X-T4, with a SmallRig grip so we'll call that 850g, with the 100-400mm lens at 1.4kg. So a total of 2.25kg and I can walk with that all day (8-10 hours) on my Peak Design strap no problem. I previously had a Joby sling strap and that was fine too. I'm a bit younger than you but I'm not what you'd call an athlete. Yes it's heavy but not unmanageable or uncomfortable with the correct equipment to carry it. An 80D weighs 730g and the Sigma lens is 1905g if you take the tripod foot off. So 2.65kg which really isn't that much to carry across your body on a good quality strap.

I appreciate everyone is different but there are lots of photographers who will happily walk around all day with much heavier rigs than an APS-C DSLR and a Sigma zoom lens. I've seen loads of people at race tracks hand holding the Sigma 150-600 C lens. To just blanket say you can't walk around with it is wrong. Again, you'd have to either borrow or hire one and see what you think, Only you could make the decision whether you're willing to carry the weight to get the images you want, and if your health and fitness will allow you to carry that weight going forward.

Thanks Richard

 

[Crotal Bell]

Way back at the beginning, that was my answer...

I see a lot of people in dedicated Z9 groups (forums/FB/etc) with the "latest greatest" Z9 and very expensive lenses (800mm PF, ect) posting very marginal images... their work probably wasn't great before, and it's still not.

I do get all this, and I respect that the more you learn and the more effort you put in, the more likely you are to get top quality shots. Not all of us need top quality.
Nevertheless we do want to upgrade to where we can get a few more "keepers" within our own perspective of what is acceptable and makes us happy.

I'm trying harder to plan trips, and good locations to get better results with whatever camera I use, but "walks and pictures" is what makes me happiest right now, even if that means not getting the best quality images. I still want to improve my equipment though, for whatever type of photography day I undertake.

Hope that makes sense.

 

[sk66]

Hope that makes sense

Sure, and that's why I suggested the lens.

Because the 300/4 will record more resolution on a 12MP sensor than the 150-600C will record on a 5DIII; which means it will also record more resolution on your G80 than the 150-600C will record on an 80D. And it will record at least 50% more than the 100-400 will on any body.

Maybe play around with this comparison tool; it can give you an idea of the comparable differences a change in camera body will get you. I set it to compare The 80D, G80, G9, and D7500 at ISO 1600 in daylight. And if you can try before you buy; you should do that too.

 

[Tysonator]

to be honest I don’t not since getting the R5
I was using the 6D 2 for macro and the 7D2 for anything moving but haven’t used the 7D 2 for a while now now I have the R5
thought about selling it but the shutter count is high and for what it’s worth I may as well keep it

wow, R5 and R6ii, well I would not use my 7Dii if I had a both of those cameras,... LOL

A friend of mine has a R5 and it is a very impressive bit of kit !

 

[Crotal Bell]

Sure, and that's why I suggested the lens.

Because the 300/4 will record more resolution on a 12MP sensor than the 150-600C will record on a 5DIII; which means it will also record more resolution on your G80 than the 150-600C will record on an 80D. And it will record at least 50% more than the 100-400 will on any body.

Maybe play around with this comparison tool; it can give you an idea of the comparable differences a change in camera body will get you. I set it to compare The 80D, G80, G9, and D7500 at ISO 1600 in daylight. And if you can try before you buy; you should do that too.

View attachment 377788

Thanks for all the time you're taking to advise, I truly appreciate it.

Sorry, that lens 300/4 do you mean Olympus 100-300mm at F4 ? I'm not sure I understand.

I must admit I think in simple terms - my reasons for thinking about the 80D and 150-600mm
1. I can just about afford it.
2. I have 950mm of zoom and if I can't get close enough, I can crop out half of a 24MP image and still have a 12MP image.

Like I said, I think in simple terms.

 

[sk66]

Sorry, that lens 300/4 do you mean Olympus 100-300mm at F4 ? I'm not sure I understand.

No, the M Zuiko 300/4 Pro lens; it generally costs more than your budget even used, but you might get lucky (or choose to save some more)... and there is a very good reason that lens is so expensive.

I must admit I think in simple terms - my reasons for thinking about the 80D and 150-600mm
1. I can just about afford it.
2. I have 950mm of zoom and if I can't get close enough, I can crop out half of a 24MP image and still have a 12MP image.

Yeah, the realities are just not that simple.
Now maybe if you could swing for a recent Sigma 60-600S and pair it with Nikon D500, then I could see you making some notable gains; probably/maybe comparable to the 300/4 upgrade.

 

[Crotal Bell]

No, the M Zuiko 300/4 Pro lens; it generally costs more than your budget even used, but you might get lucky (or choose to save some more)... and there is a very good reason that lens is so expensive.

Yeah, the realities are just not that simple.
Now maybe if you could swing for a recent Sigma 60-600S and pair it with Nikon D500, then I could see you making some notable gains; probably/maybe comparable to the 300/4 upgrade.

I'm afraid that's far over my budget with just the lens alone.

The 80D and Sigma 150-600C will get me closer on a bigger sensor than my G80 with 100-300mm. I may have to just settle for that, but I will try the weight of that first.

 

[the black fox]

No, the M Zuiko 300/4 Pro lens; it generally costs more than your budget even used, but you might get lucky (or choose to save some more)... and there is a very good reason that lens is so expensive.

Yeah, the realities are just not that simple.
Now maybe if you could swing for a recent Sigma 60-600S and pair it with Nikon D500, then I could see you making some notable gains; probably/maybe comparable to the 300/4 upgrade.

What I don’t think your grasping Steve is the financial constraints we are under in the u.k at the moment ,everything including food , electric ,gas , mortgages, rents , petrol diesel etc has spiralled totally out of control . This is also impacting on camera gear prices so as well intentioned as your comments are I think your probably flogging a dead horse

 

[LCPete]

wow, R5 and R6ii, well I would not use my 7Dii if I had a both of those cameras,... LOL

A friend of mine has a R5 and it is a very impressive bit of kit !

thanks yes the R5 is amazing autofocus is incredible
it’s the 6D 2 I’ve got not the R6 2 but the 6D 2 does have really nice image quality

 

[TimHughes]

I'm afraid that's far over my budget with just the lens alone.

The 80D and Sigma 150-600C will get me closer on a bigger sensor than my G80 with 100-300mm. I may have to just settle for that, but I will try the weight of that first.

Hi Keith, Steven (@sk66) I've found this a useful thread.

Steven, keeping to Keith's stated choices in the OP, can it be summarized as follows:

Keith's current 100-300 has a perceptual max resolution of 6mpix measured by DXO. Upgrading the camera body doesn't change this so results likely to be much the same and disappointing.

The Sigma 150-600 has a max resolution of 14 and as long as the camera body has a sensor more than 14mpix, Keith should see an improvement.

Have I understood the technical part correctly?

 

[Crotal Bell]

Hi Keith, Steven (@sk66) I've found this a useful thread.

Steven, keeping to Keith's stated choices in the OP, can it be summarized as follows:

Keith's current 100-300 has a perceptual max resolution of 6mpix measured by DXO. Upgrading the camera body doesn't change this so results likely to be much the same and disappointing.

The Sigma 150-600 has a max resolution of 14 and as long as the camera body has a sensor more than 14mpix, Keith should see an improvement.

Have I understood the technical part correctly?

I should also mention that I love to capture small birds, Finches and Tits etc and you can't always have the perfect light you want.
More zoom and a bigger sensor has to be helpful for this? (Not to mention an added 8MP over what I have now)

 

[sk66]

Hi Keith, Steven (@sk66) I've found this a useful thread.

Steven, keeping to Keith's stated choices in the OP, can it be summarized as follows:

Keith's current 100-300 has a perceptual max resolution of 6mpix measured by DXO. Upgrading the camera body doesn't change this so results likely to be much the same and disappointing.

Yes.

The Sigma 150-600 has a max resolution of 14 and as long as the camera body has a sensor more than 14mpix, Keith should see an improvement.

Have I understood the technical part correctly?

Kind of... that would be the correct interpretation if sensor size (and design/generation) were held constant, but it is not in this case. That's part of the difficulty of comparing MTF test numbers/sharpness results.
In this case, where Keith wants to use the Sigma 150-600 on APS instead of the FF sensor that gave the 14MP result, the resolution would also be ~ 6MP, even with a 20MP sensor.

The reason for this is because smaller sensors are more demanding... i.e. the pixels are smaller if the sensor has the same resolution, and the lens therefore has to be able to resolve the dots (airy disks) down to that size. That's why a lens for M4/3 has to resolve 2x higher than a lens for FF, in order to record the same detail.
Or maybe it is easier to understand it as crop factor applied to the FF resolution results... same lens producing the same sized dots, and fewer can fit onto the smaller sensor area.

 

[sk66]

I should also mention that I love to capture small birds, Finches and Tits etc and you can't always have the perfect light you want.
More zoom and a bigger sensor has to be helpful for this? (Not to mention an added 8MP over what I have now)

I do a lot of the same kind of photography... I completely understand the frustrations and issues.
On their own and in isolation, more FL (zoom) and a larger sensor are both better/good things. But things don't happen in isolation usually; especially when you are changing multiple things simultaneously.

The main advantage of a larger sensor is that it receives more light for any given exposure compensation. I.e. a lightbulb recorded 2x as large (4x the area) onto a sensor that is 2x as large (4x area) IS 2 stops more light recorded (4x more).... e.g. M4/3 vs FF. But that same increase may be possible by choosing a lens with a wider max aperture.

The advantage of a longer FL exists when the longer lens is also sharper, or when the shorter lens was far out-resolving the sensor. Sometimes that is possible, especially if you are stepping up to a pro level prime. But quite often within a given design/technology a longer FL resolves less than a shorter one, and most modern sensors outresolve most lenses already. Another way to understand it is that both lenses are of the same sharpness and can resolve the same minimum size detail at the same distance... but the longer lens magnifies them more so they cover more pixels...




And you are not comparing top level primes, you are comparing super zoom lenses, plus the 150-600C is not one of the best of them. Think of it this way... you basically chose a longer lens that doesn't focus as well.

Remember what I said about "matching dots;" the lens projects dots (details/airy disks) to be recoded by sensor dots (photosites/pixels). Ultimately what matters is that the dots match, not what size they are.

If you have a lens that can resolve to 3 microns and a sensor with pixels of 3 microns, the results will be the same as using a lens that resolves to 6 microns on a sensor with pixels of 6 microns. The fact that the pixels might be larger because they are on a larger sensor doesn't change that. Think of it this way, a perfect lens at f/1 could resolve and average of ~530MP of detail onto a 4/3 sensor. If you could have such a lens, and result, you could enlarge the resulting "negative" much more than you could a 46MP FF result (strictly in terms of resolution).

In your case the simple answer that addresses all aspects is a much sharper and faster pro level prime lens. There is a reason such lenses retain much more of their original value over time than camera bodies and zoom lenses. And it keeps you in the lightweight 4/3 format you prefer.

 

[Sangoma]

Whatever the numbers say

Going from a 100-300 to a 100-400 makes a visible difference on a G80 and on a G9
Going from a G80 to a G9 with either lens makes a visible difference.

Going from a G80 with a 100-300 to a G9 with a 100-400 makes a bigger visible difference.
The only thing I doubt is whether that difference is as great as the OP is hoping for or expecting, and is sufficient go give him value for his money.
I also find it easier to get good results with the M43 than I did with Canon, though can only apply that to the Canon setups I have tried it with, which is only a few.

These are not scientific numbers, they are actual findings from doing very many comparisons

 

[Deleted member 95743]

2. I have 950mm of zoom and if I can't get close enough, I can crop out half of a 24MP image and still have a 12MP image.

Cropping 50% of the pixels does not have that great an effect on the size of the subject. To double the size of the subject you would have to crop 75% of the pixels.

As I said in my previous post a bridge camera seems to be the solution that you are looking for.

 

[the black fox]

Whatever the numbers say

Going from a 100-300 to a 100-400 makes a visible difference on a G80 and on a G9
Going from a G80 to a G9 with either lens makes a visible difference.

Going from a G80 with a 100-300 to a G9 with a 100-400 makes a bigger visible difference.
The only thing I doubt is whether that difference is as great as the OP is hoping for or expecting, and is sufficient go give him value for his money.
I also find it easier to get good results with the M43 than I did with Canon, though can only apply that to the Canon setups I have tried it with, which is only a few.

These are not scientific numbers, they are actual findings from doing very many comparisons

I’m with you all the way on this Steve . The other option would be to go for the olympus 100-400 and at later date add the 1.4 tc giving around 1150 mm effective reach ,albeit at F9 BUT as a owner and user I can state it works extremely well … and adds only a couple of ounces weight wise

 

[Sangoma]

I’m with you all the way on this Steve . The other option would be to go for the olympus 100-400 and at later date add the 1.4 tc giving around 1150 mm effective reach ,albeit at F9 BUT as a owner and user I can state it works extremely well … and adds only a couple of ounces weight wise

Yes, I would like that option, but for no particular reason reason (ie it is not a criticism of the equipment) I don't like Olympus as much as I like Panasonic.

I was quoting those combinations to try and keep it relevant to the original question, as is your Olympus suggestion.

 

[Crotal Bell]

I do a lot of the same kind of photography... I completely understand the frustrations and issues.
On their own and in isolation, more FL (zoom) and a larger sensor are both better/good things. But things don't happen in isolation usually; especially when you are changing multiple things simultaneously.

The main advantage of a larger sensor is that it receives more light for any given exposure compensation. I.e. a lightbulb recorded 2x as large (4x the area) onto a sensor that is 2x as large (4x area) IS 2 stops more light recorded (4x more).... e.g. M4/3 vs FF. But that same increase may be possible by choosing a lens with a wider max aperture.

The advantage of a longer FL exists when the longer lens is also sharper, or when the shorter lens was far out-resolving the sensor. Sometimes that is possible, especially if you are stepping up to a pro level prime. But quite often within a given design/technology a longer FL resolves less than a shorter one, and most modern sensors outresolve most lenses already. Another way to understand it is that both lenses are of the same sharpness and can resolve the same minimum size detail at the same distance... but the longer lens magnifies them more so they cover more pixels...

View attachment 377797


And you are not comparing top level primes, you are comparing super zoom lenses, plus the 150-600C is not one of the best of them. Think of it this way... you basically chose a longer lens that doesn't focus as well.

Remember what I said about "matching dots;" the lens projects dots (details/airy disks) to be recoded by sensor dots (photosites/pixels). Ultimately what matters is that the dots match, not what size they are.

If you have a lens that can resolve to 3 microns and a sensor with pixels of 3 microns, the results will be the same as using a lens that resolves to 6 microns on a sensor with pixels of 6 microns. The fact that the pixels might be larger because they are on a larger sensor doesn't change that. Think of it this way, a perfect lens at f/1 could resolve and average of ~530MP of detail onto a 4/3 sensor. If you could have such a lens, and result, you could enlarge the resulting "negative" much more than you could a 46MP FF result (strictly in terms of resolution).

In your case the simple answer that addresses all aspects is a much sharper and faster pro level prime lens. There is a reason such lenses retain much more of their original value over time than camera bodies and zoom lenses. And it keeps you in the lightweight 4/3 format you prefer.

I suppose a lot comes down to what pleases the eye, having seen many images from 80D + 150-600mm now, I can see the results are what I desire quality wise.

 

[Crotal Bell]

Cropping 50% of the pixels does not have that great an effect on the size of the subject. To double the size of the subject you would have to crop 75% of the pixels.

As I said in my previous post a bridge camera seems to be the solution that you are looking for.

I have a Bridge camera with 1200mm of zoom, and it has taken some cracking pictures but struggles badly in low light. It's very limiting in that way. Bridge cameras with bigger sensors have no more FL than I already have.

 

[tijuana taxi]

Not sure a Sigma 150-600 is going to be that good in low light especially at the long end.
Min aperture of f/6.3 isn't exactly outstanding and will require a lot of experience to get a decent result.

What you want just doesn't exist for your available budget, might be better off with good noise reduction software.
Most of the photos you see on here have been edited with NR software such as Topaz or PureRaw