Birderbill, your experience with the RV6 and 100-400/5.6 is very, very helpful. It matches my experience when I rented the lens - I wanted to love it and buy it, but it disappointed. That was a turning point in my decision to switch to M43, since I found I could no longer handhold the 200-600 steady (great lens for birding on tripod+gimbal, but I like to walk around).
So you've helped me ease off GAS for the R6. I think I'll keep my RV for landscape work, but will sell my Sony 70-200 F4 - a lovely lens, and works well with 1.4 TC, but I like my OM 50-200 2.8 more. Simply a superb lens (and does wvery ell not only with 1.4 TC but also acceptably well with 2.0 TC, giving me reach up to 800 mm in a weight I can carry).
I am considering the 150-600 for when I'm not walking around and can use a tripod. I'll probably rent it on a birding trip in a few weeks.
I had to adjust when going from Sony A7RV to OM-1 II because I was used to relying on cropping. I've found filling the frame with the subject to be more crucial on m43 - but that's good technique, anyway, envisioning composition as I shoot rather than waiting until post-
And yes, DR on OM is fine if you avoid blowing out highlights. IMO DR just takes a little bit more work in post than Sony high-res sensors.
I had to adjust when going from Sony A7RV to OM-1 II because I was used to relying on cropping. I've found filling the frame with the subject to be more crucial on m43 - but that's good technique, anyway, envisioning composition as I shoot rather than waiting until post-
And yes, DR on OM is fine if you avoid blowing out highlights. IMO DR just takes a little bit more work in post than Sony high-res sensors.
The late, great Jay Maisel was a proponent of 35 mm cameras and Kodachrome. Most of his contemporaries used medium and large format film to do the kind of commercial and corporate work he was doing. I read an article by him back in the late 70's and he said with 35 mm you really had to fill the frame because you had a very small piece of real estate to work with, and you really had to maximize what you had.
That has always been my mantra. When I shot weddings for a studio ages ago with 2 1/4 square cameras, I was the only photographer that shot for him who's work he could not crop. Every other shooter was using the square like a point and shoot, never composing, just getting the subject somewhere in the frame. He really liked my work because he had to sell square format albums, which cost more, so he made more profit.
Whenever I printed, I always kept the film edges in the print, both as a badge of honor that I didn't have to crop, and also because I thought it looked more authentic that way.
Fill the frame, shoot with intention. This is the way.
I am a beginner - always. (That's my Zen background, but in fact after years of photographs journey in the Sierras and Nepal, it's only now that I'm beginning to delve into the mysteries of intentional photography).
It's very helpful to hear from experienced people like yourself.
