Into the Bush of Africa with the new Panasonic's GH3

And you could put up a photo of a small 30x superzoom next to the GH3/100-300 combo. However, I dont imagine it would be the same in terms of optical quality, DOF and overall look of the image as the GH3/100-300.

I also dont imagine that an APS-C, like a Nikon 5200 with a 70-300 zoom is virtually the same as a FF with a 450 mm lens.

I dont even imagine that a 70-200 2.8 lens on a FF is equal to a 200 F2 prime on FF.

The reason for these super bulky, super expensive super tele lenses is that they delivers superb  quality, combined with the DOF and subject isolation that gives photos that are outstanding.

It is not only about format - I am sure those that owns a 4/3 Oly 150 2.0 or a Oly 300 2.8 can tell you that those are something else than the regular 70-150 or 100-300 lenses.

I have been on safari with an APS-C system and a 70-200 w TC and was pretty happy with the results. But if I were to go again I would prefer a FF camera with a super tele if I had the option, despite all the bulk and bother, because I would like the bring out the best possible results in such a rare photo opportunity.

No doubt a m43 with a 100-300 or an APS-C with a 70-300 is a sweetspot in convinience vs results for such a trip, but some people go the extra mile for the best results.

--
http://dslr-video.com/blogmag/