If you use the "Quote Reply" button we will know to whom you are replying. Saves confusion, and believe me, we have enough of that here on UHH!

On Oahu don't forget Pearl Harbor. USS Arizona Memorial, USS Missouri, Ford Island, USS Bowfin.
Helicopter tour of the islands. Preferably a doors-off flight.
The Polynesian Cultural Center is a day-long visit and well worth it. Don't forget the North Shore surfing.
There are no private beaches on Hawaii. All are open to the public and even among private houses there will be public access paths.
Assuming you will have a car, just drive around.
I had a full frame Canon when I last visited and I found that my most used lens was my 24-105. Even on the helicopter tours I took it was fine, although, for a couple of shots a bit more reach would have been nice. That and a fast 35mm prime for interiors, such as ships, buildings, etc, were just fine about 98% of the time. About the only time I used my 70-300 was for a few shots of surfers on the North Shore.
Enjoy the islands for what they are. Take the least amount of gear you can. There are so many beautiful and interesting things to photograph that not having the perfect lens for everything isn't going to matter all that much.
This might help (all shot with a 24-105):
https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-253470-1.html

Two of my previous Canons had GPS. I forget which ones they were since I only used the GPS once or twice on the first one and not at all on the second. It acquire signal quickly but accuracy was a bit fuzzy. I had taken a number of photos in each of two spots and each one showed a slightly different location when mapped. All within about 50' of where I was actually standing. The second camera may have been more accurate. Never checked. Definately ate batteries. You could set it for how often it updated. More updates meant more battery usage. On the first camera if you didn't go into the menu and shut off the GPS it would stay active, and updating, even with the camera shut off. Mine killed the battery overnight. The second camera had a menu option to shut it down when the camera shut down. Kind of a no-brainer I would think!

Are you trying to say that people on the internet are not always who they seem? Outrageous!
Next thing you know someone will claim that not everything you read or see on the internet is true!

Anything you post online is no longer yours. No matter what safeguards you employ or what the law says, if someone wants it bad enough they will take it. To believe anything else is just setting yourself up for grief.
Posting a disclaimer after you have already agreed to the terms when you signed up is both futile and idiotic.

You can take all the pictures you want of people in public places also. You can post them on your website if you want to. You just can't use them commercially without a release. The same is true for property. If someone takes a picture of your property and starts selling photos of it you are entitled to a share unless you have signed a release. Street View is a free service. There is no direct income from it so sueing would be a waste of time, although I am sure people have tried.

In the summer of '70, a few months away from my ETS from the Army, I was at Charleston International awaiting a flight. Those were the days when you waited at the chain link fence for the OK to walk out to board the 727. Out of the sky comes what looked more like a Navy ship then an airplane. Huge and grey. It was the very first C5A coming into Charleston Air Force Base, which shares the runway. Beautiful touchdown, but, as it slowed one tire kept going. Right down the runway until it finally flopped over in the median between the runway and the taxiway. Was still there when we took off. The C5A, of course, taxied in like nothing had happened.

The 747 was, and still is, a magnificent aircraft. It's passenger days are pretty much over, but it is still the world's premier air freight carrier. It is the plane that changed modern aviation. Anchorage is the place to go to view it. Right now there are over 2 dozen inbound and a good dozen or so outbound. Anchorage is the major air freight transfer point in North America.
So, if strawberries can be shipped by air economically you can bet that cameras can be!

When my mother passed away my brother and I had to clean out the house to ready it for rental. We kept a few things. Sold some furniture. Gave others whatever they wanted. Even a couple of big trash bags of coats and jackets were given to some seasonal farm workers who shipped them to their families in Ecuador. Couldn't even give away the rest to charity. Those organizations just want to come in and cherry-pick the best items. It hurt to put my mother's 90yrs of memories in a dumpster knowing it will all just end up in a dumpster.
Moral of the story: Sell your gear so that your descendents don't have to end up putting it in a dumpster.

No, you completely misunderstand. Canon's not some burger joint and they are not stupid. A burger joint doesn't tell it's customers that if you want a burger you have to buy fries along with it. They give you what you want. Buy the meal deal or buy just the burger, or, just the fries. You know, "Have It Your Way", from one of the most successful burger joints in the world. Canon is not dumb enough to try to push bundles vs cameras alone when it gains them nothing but frustrated potential customers and a loss of sales. No burger joint would do that either.
Somebody underestimated something. My bet is that supply chain issues were underestimated. Not just in getting cameras to the dealers but in even getting them made because of component and material shortages. It takes months to get a camera from the factory, into a container, onto a ship, across the ocean and into a port and from there to the distribution warehouses, and then on to the dealer. It takes only a couple of days to do the same by air. Before you claim that's too expensive, no, it's not. For that matter it has probably already been done numerous times by Canon and other camera manufacturers. If Canon is willing, as you claim, to offer a $100 discount to push a scheme that is obviously not working, and having seen the unfulfilled demand and heard from frustrated customers you can bet they would be loading up UPS 747s and FedEx MD11s as quickly as possible to get those cameras to the dealers. After all, sales is king, even if you have to eat some transportation costs. Right?
Canon doesn't have the product to ship. Somebody underestimated or got blindsided.

Sales is king if it brings in profit. What sense does it make for Canon to bundle a good portion of it's R7 inventory into a kit that, from all appearances, is no where near as in demand as just the camera? You don't make sales if you don't put forth what people want. Not to mention that to get that extra $400 in sales they take a hit of $100 on each lens. How much of a profit is that lens making now? The idea, as originally put forth, that Canon, to increase profits, is giving priority to bundles over just the camera itself is nonsense. You want sales? You want profits? Then give the market what it wants. Here's my take on it:
Dealers get their allotments of bodies and kits. The bodies sell fast. The kits don't, so everybody has kits for sale. Meanwhile, all those kits have cut down on the number of bodies available and supply chain issues, which still exist, are making it hard to get more bodies. My wife does tens of millions of dollars in purchasing every year for the company she works for. She could give you a real earful on how backlogged the supply chain still is.
You don't makes sales and you don't make profits by reducing the availability of what customers want.

I'm still waiting for an explanation as to how, by selling a kit which is $400 more then the body alone (just checked the price) with a lens that is $500 more then the body if sold separately, is more profitable then just selling all the bodies they can. If Canon's only interest was profits they could just add $100 to the price of the body and all those who just have to have it right now would still be lining up to buy it. Like every other competent manufacturer Canon's preferred profit margin is figured into the unit price, for both body and lens separately in this case. Combining them at a reduced price may not incur much loss, if any, in profits, but it darn sure is not some big profit generator especially when you consider the ill-will it can cause in the marketplace.
Has anyone considered that quite often the manufacturer offers what the dealers request? Canon's input from it's dealers may just be that they want kits.

Increasing profits by selling kits? I haven't checked prices, but, if Canon is selling a body and lens together for less then the price if sold separately, which is the usual procedure, how does that increase profits? If the idea is that people are going to buy the kit for hundreds extra just to get the body, then sure, a few might, but the majority are just going to wait, or just buy something else. Possibly another brand even. Doesn't seem like much of a recipe for higher profits.

Have you tried going into File Explorer, or Windows Explorer on older operating systems, and locating and opening the card from there. You may have another program at work if your computer is saying that it is looking for images. I have never had a Windows system do that. Insert the card, File Explorer opens to the card and a dialog window asks what to do. That's always been my experience with Windows. Photo programs would be the ones looking specifically for images.

Eleven hours of driving for 2611 miles!? No wonder the thieves are coming all the way from LA!