Well it’s missing the truly astronomically priced telephoto lenses but I guess no one here is ever gonna get one of them. I mean they start around 12.000€ for the RF 100-300mm F2.8 L, the 800mm F5.6L is around 20.000€ and the RF 1200mm F8 is ~24.000€ 
Edit: I guess a 1200mm F8 L is a bargain when you consider that the EF 1200mm F5.6 L (an FD mount design from the 80ies, refurbished and redesigned for the EF mount in the 90ies) goes for ~US $100.000 when one of them does go on sale.
Oh my god that is a MONSTER.
The 28-70 looks like an iPhone lens by comparison.
I’d hate to see what the CPL filter costs on that!
I am updating to v1.81 right now, it runs sloooow. Might test it later but for most of the stuff I shoot it sounds pretty useless since any movement in the scene will inevitably show up in the picture
Found another:
I would have thought it reasonably quick to shoot, the slowest part being the sensor movement (no idea how fast it can move or change direction) followed by ample processing delay as it merges the 9 shots.
My trusty old Nikon D-50 (that I bought back in about 2004?) has finally died!
And I have fallen down a massive Google rabbit hole for what to replace it with???
I have a couple of half decent lenses for it, a 18-70 1:3.5-4.5 and a 70-300 1:4-5.6 but I now don’t know whether to buy another body that is compatable with the lenses I have? Start from scratch with a new DSLR? I am very much a point and shoot ‘photographer’ and most of my best photos were taken with my wife’s Coolpix camera?
If you could afford about 500Pound/600USD/700Euro and zoom (especially resolution/clarity at max zoom) was the single most important factor, what would you buy?
The last decade of development was mainly about auto focus improvements. How important is a very good autofocus for you?
In that price range I would either look at a used entry level mirrorless camera with a cheap 50mm prime or even settle for a phone. The higher end phones do take some really good pictures these days, easily competing with entry level and point and shoot cameras, often even outdoing them due to the use of computational photography (basically the phone does the photo editing for you).
Any half decent zoom lens will set you back at least 250-300 bucks, leaving little money for the camera. Personally I would not buy zoom lenses with that kind of budget and you can take a surprisingly diverse range of photos with a simple and cheap 50mm F1.8 prime. You can do portraits, landscapes, street photography and much more, just with that 50mm.
I got this recently.
A Canon EOS R10 mirrorless with a 18-45mm and a 55-210mm lens.
I told the guy at the photoshop that I wanted something small and sturdy and he showed me this, with a SmallRig alu frame. He also said something about being as easy to use as a phone, but with advanced options if you like.
It’s definitely something I can just put in my flightbag and pull out for some snapshots.
Autofocus seems pretty darn good too.
Thanks guys.
It is just with a couple of Nikkor AF lenses in the 250-300 buck range (when I got them) I thought maybe a new body and I’m set?
But… (there is always a but isn’t there?) Do I need a DSLR. My dilemma is and I should have put this upfront, is that in the 1000AU range there are camcorders that take photos or cameras that take videos and I’m leaning towards a camcorder?
Edit: Thanks @Derbysieger I did think about a phone. For about a nano second… It is complicated but the main reason is that we don’t have mobile/cell phone coverage where we live and until we do any 4G or better device is a waste of money.
Well you could go for a used Nikon DSLR, nothing wrong with that.
Actually I just checked, with a little bit of luck you could get a used D800 for something like 500 bucks, it’s a very capable camera. The D500 is still very expensive due to not having a successor and its popularity with wildlife photographers but that might be an option as well.
Thanks heaps for that, you might have just saved me hours of decision paralysis 
I can get a new D500 for only a few hundred bucks more than a used D800 (and get a used D500 for the same price). A D500 is currently the frontrunner.
But (there it is again) I can also get a D7500 for about the same price?
I’ll preface this by saying I’m a Canon user myself (locked in by the lenses I own), but I believe the D7500 lacks the aperture arm so would likely be incompatible with your old lenses. While it might be best to just get a whole new set of lenses, the ability to use what you already have might be nice.
Thanks again everyone. Comparing the Nikon models that are compatable with the lenses I already own and looking at the specs (especially the ability to take 4K video) I decided to get a second hand D500 body, advertised as excellent condition and with a new shutter for A$1400.00… Although it is probably a lot more camera than I need?
Maybe… but it’s a very nice camera! Coming from the D50 I imagine you’ll be pleasantly surprised by the AF tracking in the viewfinder, it is magic for a DSLR.
@Troll - my camera is the R10, so those shots I have taken have all come from the same body.
My lens set is up at the top but I’ll update it here:
RF-S 18-45mm (from the kit)
RF 50mm f/1.8
RF 100-400mm
EF 70-200 F/2.8 MkII + EF->RF Adapter w/Control Ring
Oh! I missed that. Cool.
That’s putting it lightly 
While the semi professional cameras do lack some quality of life features (see: Photography Gear: The Camera & Lenses Thread - #17 by Derbysieger ) when it comes to AF setup the underlying technology is basically the same.
What the three big camera manufacturers have done with AF tech in recent years (starrting with Sony, forcing Canon and Nikon to catch up) is nothing short of astonishing. They are now all very close in AF performance and stuff like EYE AF often feels like magic.
I was amazed when my new camera snapped a perfect photo of a fast moving radio controlled quarter scale F-16… I thought it must’ve been luck, but it did it consistently.
