First, as many have already said, cloud should be used for backup or archive, NOT primary storage. Secondly, if you use cloud, pick a cloud service like Amazon, Google or Microsoft which are VERY unlikely to go belly-up anytime soon. Finally, although maybe someone may be able to cite an example of a service going down without warning, the two cloud services I've seen go under both provided plenty of time (as the above example), to download and move the images to another service. Cloud is not an answer to all your storage needs - just another tool in the toolbox.

Definitely yes

I agree - that's my intention when I use it as well, the opposite of arrogant.

As you compare performance (from other sources), write speed is the critical parameter in that it controls how fast the camera's buffer can flush data to the card, which ultimately is one of the limiting factors in fps or how long multiple fast writes can be sustained. In camera applications, read speed is typically less critical as you can move data off the card for storage or post processing at your leisure.

Not sure what your camera says, but the color temperature in K is not camera specific, it's the color temperature of the light. Please see http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Color_temperature

Other way. Lower is redder, higher is bluer. Incandescent or warm white is 2700K - 3000K, while daylight is typically 5000K-6500K.

Actually, while choosing class 10 cards is a good start, class 10 only specifies 10 MB/sec. minimum write speed, while some SD cards exceed 70 MB/sec. (And some CF cards exceed 100 MB/sec.). To aid in choosing the fastest cards, there are a number of speed comparisons available - just Google SD or CF card speed comparison. Here's one: http://www.cameramemoryspeed.com/
For a further explanation including UHS ratings, try: http://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Secure_Digital

There are great choices from both Canon and Nikon as well as others - each have their advocates and they all make fine cameras. As a Canon shooter for 50 years, I can only comment knowledgeably on their products. First, forget adapting your old FD mount lenses unless you have some REALLY fine glass - lots of disadvantages (too many to list here). In terms of a body, I'd consider the 6D (advantage: full frame) or the 7D MK II (advantage: great for sports/action). You should be able to pick one up refurbished or lightly used for ~$1,000. For your initial lens, it would be hard to beat the versatility and quality of the EF 24-105 f4L IS. There were lots of these sold as part of kits, and are available everywhere for $600-$650. That recommendation is designed to give you the best Canon system for your budget that you could keep for many years and use as the basis for your system as you grow. Again, this isn't a "Canon vs Nikon" endorsement, just a Canon recommendations if you decide to go that way.

The distance (40') is a key point - too far for HDMI or wireless.

Great suggestion!

As dlmeltz has said, the 7D II is a great action/ sports camera because of the sophisticated autofocus and high fps, but the 5D III has all the advantages of a full frame (lower noise at high ISO and better dynamic range), and it's autofocus system is quite sophisticated also (and the fps spec is no slouch either). Regarding the rumored upcoming 5D IV, not sure when it's coming, but will likely be available only as new (not refurbished) for at least 6 months, with a price similar to a new 5D MK III ($2800), while a good, low shutter count 5D MkIII can be had now for approximately $1,000 less.

As mentioned, the Merrit Island Wildlife Refuge is definitely worth visiting. Another not so well known destination is the space and rocket museum on the Cape Canaveral Air Force Station (not the Kennedy Space Center). You go to the south gate and ask for a pass to the museum. It's been many years since I've visited, and security arrangements may have changed, so research this option further before going, but if available, it's well worth the visit. Many dozens of rockets, the original blockhouse completely equipped with all the original equipment and computer and a space museum next door. It's not well known, and unlike the space center, is usually absent tourists.

Thank you. It's Max, one of our 3 Abbys (that own us).

Cheers,
Chris

And you're shooting with one of the finest film cameras ever made. I love film also - I still have both 35mm and MF as well as a color darkroom and use them. Having said that, there are shots I've been able to take with my digital camera at high ISO that would have been impossible with film, no matter how far it was pushed; and the autofocus on modern cameras has allowed me to compensate for my aging eyes which were beginning to fail me with manual focus (which I preferred).

I have just faced your exact dilemma and traded a pristine 7D + cash for an equally nice 5D MkIII. It was a carefully thought out decision, and after owning the 5D MkIII for a month, I could not be more pleased. I did consider keeping the 7D and purchasing a 6D for FF, but the less rugged build, much slower fps and inferior autofocus (I shoot lots of candida/sports) convinced me to go with the 5D instead. I did consider a 7D MK II, which is a great action/ sports camera with pro construction like the 7D or 5D III, and I may add one when I have the $ (for reach), but the fps of the 5D is not that much slower, the autofocus is as good for my use, and the FF noise/high ISO capabilities are superior (as you know from owning a 6D). The big upside of the 5D is the same as the 6D (or any FF camera) lower noise at high ISO, higher usable ISO and better dynamic range, but with much superior autofocus and build quality compared to the 6D. There are also some nice added features of the 5D, including autofocus micro adjustment at both ends of a zoom's range, HDR, etc.

I compared the dynamic range charts and noise performance of the 7D, 6D, 7D MkII and 5D, MKIII, and the 5 was worth 2 - 2-1/2 stops of ISO performance over my 7D, and the quality of anything beyond ISO 1600 was very noticeable which you know as the 5 and 6D are almost identical in that respect. I had been shooting high school wrestling matches with the 7D with a 70-200 F2.8L IS and needed to shoot at ISO 3200 with a less than optimum shutter speed. The resulting noise was apparent and limited my cropping abilities. With the 5D, I'm able to shoot at ISO 12,800 and still crop without obvious noise allowing me to shoot at the higher shutter speed I needed compared to the 7D. The only downside of the change is the shorter reach of the FF using long lenses, but the attendant upside is that my wide angle zoom (17-40) now has a field of view that's really equivalent to 17mm instead of the equivalent of ~27mm with an APC. To get that FOV with the APC, I'd need to be at 10-11mm with the attendant distortion of an ultra wide. I do intend to add a Canon 1.4x Tele extender to regain some of the reach. I will lose some effective aperture (and perhaps IQ), but I believe that will be more than compensated by the higher usable ISO.

My opinion (which is certainly open to debate) is that modern FF cameras with their lower noise and higher usable ISO allow you to use slower lenses than an APC, which translates into lower cost and less weight for all your lenses for equivalent performance (with the exception of fast lenses specifically chosen for shallow DOF and creamy bokkeh for portraiture). Finally, if you ever intend to shoot professionally, FF will be a requirement for many applications. Just my personal decision for my type of photography - yours may be different.