mawz wrote:
I'll preface this by saying I'm not a wildlife photographer.
But I historically have been a constant system switcher. I've been doing the Sony/Nikon/Fuji/m43 round robin for years (and Sony/Nikon/Pentax before that). Never did Canon after some bad experiences 20-ish years ago (not Canon's fault, just repeated bad luck with used gear, used to joke that the easiest way to break a Canon body was to sell it to me)
That changed 13 months ago when I switched from an OM-1 to an R7. Yeah, a downgrade, but the R7 gave me more pixels on wide angles, the ability to crop down to the same reach (same pixel pitch between the two) and most of the performance advantages of the OM-1 didn't benefit me.
I still have and use that R7. That's the first body I've kept for over a year since my last D300, and I've since added the R6.
Canon's got a great lineup for the average shooter. Nikon and Sony still lack reasonable consumer FF zoom selection (no reasonably priced 1st party 70-300 or 100-400 and Sony also lacks a reasonably priced UWA zoom, Canon has the 15-30/240-105STM/100-400 combo). The inexpensive prime selection is also excellent and cheap, unlike most of Nikon's offerings (only 2 qualify as cheap) or Sony's (where the cheap ones aren't great and the great ones aren't cheap. Canon's incredible little 16/2.8 is the breakout here. It's outstanding for the cost)
Yeah, Canon clearly isn't focused on the Wildlife market. They never really have been. They've always offered a workable solution, but brands which focus more narrowly are always going to have better options in those markets. The real difference is you now have two brands truly focused on adventure & wildlife shooting (OM System and Nikon)
Canon's focus is very much on either 'do everything well' options and the core 'working pro' gear, but that's nothing new, it's been their core focus for 20+ years.
Tamron offers excellent consumer tele zooms in FE and Z mounts. No need for native options.
