Thank you for your pithy comment. Point well made.
As I said, a Canon 5D plus 50-500 adds up to a lot of moolah.
Ought to produce a reasonable result.
The man was asking how he could get the longest reach for the least outlay.
Wrong, see below. He was asking for a lens for his 6D.
Initially yes but see the OP's second post.
You are right about the second post.
Then I will repeat what I said earlier. This 3,000mm on the P&S is an illusion.
It's no more an illusion than any "FF FOV expressed as focal length" for any other small sensor camera. The fact that it goes out to "3000mm" doesn't make it any more fictional than any less bold of a claim, like the FZ1000's "400mm", which is half as exaggerated, but still an "illusion" of focal length. If we use these focal length illusions as a proxy for angular resolution in an average sensor pixel count in world where almost every camera is in the 16-50MP range (especially if we take the square roots of those MPs into account), with 16 to 20MP as typical, they serve a rough purpose that is not as much an illusion as it is an inaccuracy that needs a little adjustment. Whether it is often mentioned or not, pixels per square degree of perspective *is* an imaging parameter, and higher contrast can not be substituted for it, except in the eyes of an optically naive person who can't tell the difference between real, natural detail, and acuity artifacts, and loses track of scale.
It compares to much less on a larger sensor camera then cropped. Here is how 756mm eq. looks like (from dpreview):
One can get a similar or even better 16mp image from 200mm FF cropped and resized.
Why would you use a "756mm" image in a discussion of "3000mm"? I have already said, and I think that it is generally considered a given that less ambitious "effective focal lengths" are not as impressive with small sensors, because better can be done with larger sensors, if your AOV is wide enough. The claim is that passing "1000mm", and going way up to "3000mm", the P1000 does something very difficult to emulate with larger sensors' current wasteful, enormous pixels, unless you use ridiculously rare and humongous lenses, or stacks of TCs.
Illusion or not, "3000mm" on the P1000 is 16MP crop mode on a FF sensor with 500+ MP with a 539/8. Yes, there is diffraction, and the pixel level views will not be the sharpest you have seen, but that is mostly a problem of having a 68mm entrance pupil, combined with high angular magnification, NOT the P1000's lens or sensor.
The FZ1000 is a much better option, for less.
Maybe at the relatively wider angles of view (the FZ1000 is probably much better at "400m", especially if you use a larger entrance pupil for shallower DOF), but no, the FZ1000 can't do what the P1000 can do at the illusory "3000mm", except impress optically naive eyes with sharper pixelation with a less-magnified subject. The 6D with a 600mm lens, and the FZ1000 at max zoom, are a joke compared to any 16MP "3000mm" with a small sensor, for any area of interest within the P1000's narrower AOV.
You seem to speak as if photographers only aim at getting "the best photos" of anything at all, to impress as a platonic "Image(tm)", and the best photo of a *thing* of interest has no value.
--
John
