There are no dumb questions, only dumb answers. Welcome to the Hog!

No cataracts, yet! My doctor told me, however, that diabetes may start to affect my eyesight. I'm praying that this doesn't happen.

If the bird is stressed, it flies away. If, somehow, you 'lured' the bird into a situation where a hawk eats it, it's the 'circle of life.' That hawk was already in the area; it has to eat, too. How can anyone say that you interfered with 'nature?'

The odds of this particular scenario happening to any animal are tiny to none. It's just an excuse to bully someone by employing shoddy reasoning.

As far as stressing, it seems that some here get stressed too much over far too little.

Now, if you were interfering with an endangered bird, that's another kettle of fish. The answer here is to buy the longest, fastest telephoto lens you can. That way, there's no stress involved with the photographer, the birder, or the bird.

I started with an X-45 Instamatic. hahaha

Ditto. Part Scotts, which makes me, well, thrifty.

Thanks. What got me thinking about this subject happened years ago, when I looked at a few entry-level DSLRs and noticed that the 'view' in the finder seemed as though it was at the end of a tunnel and quite far off (small). I wondered how anyone could view and shoot meaningful pictures with them. I regard the viewfinder (or a great screen) as the link between the camera/lens and the brain, and without a good link, there really can't be top-flight results.

I can see why you need a good viewfinder, even if it's for a different reason than mine. You make an excellent point!

I don't need suggestions; I've already found my solution. For me, it's the EVF on my Sony A65. It has a 1.09 magnification and a 100% view, diopter, 2.3m dots. I'd recommend cameras with a similar setup for those of us who are facing sight problems.

The best film cameras with great viewfinders that I've used (and I've used many) were the Minolta Maxxum 7 and the Nikon F6.

I've not seen a lot on this subject on UHH before. When I was younger, my eyesight was a lot better. Now that I'm in my sixties, the viewfinder has taken on far greater importance--if I can't see my subject, what's the fun of trying to take good pictures?

For me, at least, a good viewfinder (digital or otherwise) has become an absolute must. How do you feel about cameras you've shot, and is excellence in viewfinder design, magnification, percent of coverage, etc., important to you?

https://books.google.com/books?id=DhTdDQAAQBAJ&pg=PT460&lpg=PT460&dq=D7200+date+stamp+turn+on&source=bl&ots=5miGLmXufA&sig=7QV1ApuwT1UuN9C1ejAmXx2XBhE&hl=en&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwiuyfr2yZ7SAhWR2YMKHbakDjoQ6AEIVzAH#v=onepage&q=D7200%20date%20stamp%20turn%20on&f=false

Search for "Time Zone." It might tell you what you need to know...

Plainly, there's no such thing as an unprocessed digital image...

This camera. Sold it a few months back. It served me well. Before that, I had a Minolta 70 35mm (still have) and a Maxxum 7 (stolen). 6 megapixels, but a decent all-around camera.

One or two cameras, solid tripod (or 2...) a long telephoto (300 or more for an APS sensor, 400 or more for full frame), and a standard or wide for a location shot if you set up for a 'landscape (of an object of interest--building, mountains, etc.) that includes the total eclipse.

If you do want to shoot an eclipse landscape, make sure that you arrive the day before the event, so that you can pick the exact spot.

Wish that pasty shop had been there when I lived there! I love the 'letters from home!' And upstairs is where I spent a lot of time... and money...

Wouldn't have stopped me when I lived in Walkerville... light the fires and kick the tires!