The last 2 1/2 weeks I’ve been laid up at home with the flu. After a year of social distancing and scrupulous was of hands, the use of copious amounts of hospital grade hand sanitizer, and a flu jab I’ve gone down with the most persistent of bugs that just won’t leave me alone. Consequently I’ve been stuck at home and not up to much photographically.
Just before Christmas we managed to get away for a few days and one of those days was spent in Mandurah. It was a good place to start a trip that was to be primarily focused on bird photography. For a bit of a change I decided to leave the micro four thirds kit at home and take my Canon DSLR and relevant lenses. I did this for a number of reasons:
- I fancied a change
- With the collapse of Olympus and the future of the brand uncertain and Panasonic’s recent statements about concentrating predominantly on full frame cameras geared at video usage I felt that perhaps I should move away from micro four thirds and look at another system.
- Curiosity as to whether the difference between the two formats is actually that apparent in real world usage. The key board warriors on the photographic forums are so specification orientated that they have lost sight of the fact that cameras are just a tool to produce photographs not endlessly obsess over minute details that make no real world difference.
- I’m thinking about selling off surplus equipment and just concentrating on one system. So I was trying to decided which one was I prepared to get rid of.
Boring really for you guys, but as I’ve said I’ve been laid up at home for a couple of weeks with nothing much to think about. So without further ado here are some of the photos.
So did I come to any conclusions? Yes – a Canon EOS 6d plus Sigma 150-600mm lens is heavy. I missed the reach of micro four thirds lenses.