My recommendation would be...

Get a Nikon Z50 in kit with the Z DX 16-50mm and Z DX 50-250mm lenses.... and add an FTZ adapter for a total of approx. $1500. The adapter will allow you to use your current 200-500mm on the mirrorless camera.

The Z50 is a DX camera, same as your current D7200s. As a result, with the above kit you will enjoy virtually the same range of focal lengths you have now. If, on the other hand, you go to a full frame like the Sony a7 III, you'll need bigger, heavier, more expensive lenses to go with it. You'll end up with a heavier kit of gear than you have now.

If you like the mirrorless experience, you can add a 2nd camera later... maybe another Z50 or some other model that Nikon introduces in the future.... or maybe a full frame mirrorless to complement the DX camera(s).

At any rate, I think it would be a mistake to get into another system. You would need both the camera and lenses to go with it. There's nothing wrong with Sony gear... although I'm not a fan of their APS-C cameras because of the "rangefinder" design. They just seem uncomfortable to use with large telephoto lenses.

Did the camera come with the original lens hood?

If so, use it!

If you didn't get the hood with the camera, track one down and buy it. A hood will do a better job protecting a lens than some thin piece of glass ever could. A hood will also help protect the filter. Plus a lens hood can actually enhance your images, where that filter won't.

It's kind of funny to spend many hundreds of dollars on a camera and/or lens and then balk at spending more than $20 on a filter that will directly effect every image ever made with that camera and lens!

I use a vest frequently.

I DO NOT use a "photo" vest.

I use a "fishing" vest. Almost the same thing, but 1/3 the price or less.

I was buying ultra cheap fishing vests from Walmart... about $15. They wear out every year or two. Rather than wash them I just replaced them!

I really splurged on my latest fishing vest: Big 5 Sports... $25 if I recall correctly. A little better made, it's held up for at least 3 years... maybe 4.

It's got a bunch of pockets for memory card cases, spare batteries, my phone, snacks, micro fiber cloth, and a few other things.

The DSLRs and their lenses that I use won't fit into any of the pockets, so I still carry a small shoulder bag. But a small mirrorless kit I use for travel and street photography fun would easily fit into the vest, if I wanted.

Wanting to reduce size and weight, the original poster has a number of options. Keeping in mind their current gear and areas of interest, I recommend a Canon R7... here is why:

Current camera, Canon 7D Mark II.... weight 910 grams, approx. size 148mm wide x 112mm tall x 78mm deep.

They're considering higher resolution, full frame mirrorless particularly for landscape photography (among other things). But here is how some popular ones compare to the 7DII...

- Canon R5... 738 grams, approx. 138mm wide x 98mm tall x 88mm deep.
- Nikon Z8.... 910 grams, approx. 144mm wide x 118mm tall x 83mm deep.
- Sony A7R V... 723 grams, approx. 131mm wide x 97mm tall x 82mm deep.

On the other hand...

- Canon R7... 612 grams, approx. 132mm wide x 90mm wide x 92mm deep.

So, other than the depth of it's grip, the R7 is a much more significant reduction in weight and size, than any of the full frame cameras. In fact the Nikon Z8 weighs the same as 7DII.

Now, the Canon R5 and Nikon Z8 are 45MP full frame cameras, while the Sony a7RV is 61MP. The R7 is "only" 32.5MP... and it's APS-C. This is 160% of the resolution from their current DSLR (20MP). But it's not full frame. And it's not 45MP or more. Although I suspect 32.5MP will be plenty a lot of the time, what to do when you come upon a truly fantastic scene you want to shoot in the highest resolution possible? I'd put the R7 on a tripod in portrait orientation and take a panorama with three or four shots. This will actually be MORE resolution than any of the full frame cameras deliver.

There are other reasons the R7 makes the most sense for the OP. First, it's a $1500 camera, while the three full frame models are each nearly triple that. Also there is the OP's 15-20 year familiarity with Canon systems that will make for an easier transition. Plus most Canon EF/EF-S lenses can easily and inexpensively be adapted for use on the R7, allowing them to more gradually move over to the new RF mount system. (Note: Yes, it's possible to adapt Canon lenses to Sony, too. In the past this has been with a pricey Sigma or Metabones adapter... there are new adapters that cost a lot less, though not sure how well they work. There is noticeable autofocus performance loss with EF/EF-S lenses adapted to Sony.)

The OP needs to look beyond the camera, at the lenses they'll be using too. Canon has been particularly diligent in their weight reduction efforts with lenses in the four year old RF mount system. For example, the RF 70-200mm f/2.8 is 410 grams (nearly a full pound) lighter than the latest EF 70-200mm f/2.8. The RF 70-200mm f/4 also lost weight, though not nearly as much (about 1/4 lb.) Another example is the RF 100-500mm, which not only gained 100mm in focal length, but also is more than half a pound lighter than the EF 100-400mm II. Or for someone who only occasionally needs the "reach" of a telephoto, there is a much smaller and approx. 2 lb. lighter RF 100-400mm (granted... it's not a very bright lens: f/5.6-f/8 variable aperture).

There's also the "teleconverter effect" using telephotos on an APS-C camera. A 100-400mm lens on an R7 "acts like" a 160-640mm would on full frame. This is a major weight saver!

The biggest weight savings are had with the telephotos. There is some with wide lenses, too. Just not as much. For example, the RF 14-35mm f/4L weighs 544 grams, or about 70 grams less than the EF 16-35mm f/4L (615 grams).

Wide angle for APS-C is one of the places where the R7 is a bit lacking, as of now. You can bet Canon is working on something... but currently there simply isn't an ultrawide "RF-S" lens for the APS-C R-series cameras. I anticipate Canon will eventually provide an RF 11-22mm similar to the lens they offered in EF-M mount. That's a good thing, since that's an excellent lens. (Note: Unfortunately EF-M cannot be adapted for use on RF mount or any other camera system.)

In the meantime, it's possible to adapt the EF-S 10-22mm (385 grams) or EF-S 10-18mm (240 grams). Of course, an adapter adds a bit of weight. The basic type weigh about 110 grams. It's neat, though, that there are some alternative adapters that provide other features such as a control ring or, especially, a drop-in filter. Other than the basic, Canon's adapters are rather pricey (even the basic Nikon F to Z is pricey). But there are 3rd party adapters that are much more reasonably priced (and in some cases, better than the OEM adapters). Finally, an ultrawide may not even be needed, if planning to do a multi-shot panorama, as suggested above.

There also are some manual focus, manual aperture 3rd party lenses available for R7, including some quality ultrawide primes. I don't know about you, but the way I use this type of lens it's no problem that they are manual focus and aperture.

Canon's RF 100mm macro lens is one that actually gained some weight, compared to its EF mount counterpart. The RF 100mm weighs 730 grams, while the EF 100mm "L" is 625 grams (neither weight includes the optional tripod mounting ring, sold separately). However, the RF 100mm also gains magnification. It can do up to 1.4:1, versus 1:1 possible with the EF lens. If one doesn't need full 1:1 magnification, the RF 85mm f/2 is a smaller, lighter alternative at 500 grams.

Of course, there are a lot of good cameras out there. On paper an R7 seems a very good choice for them. With one of the best AF systems and a fast frame rate, it can be great for wildlife... but also serve very well for many other types of photography. Still, the OP probably should go to a store where they can handle and compare various options, to help with their choice.

I set all my Canon to "auto rotate in computer" only.

I deliberately do not set them to auto rotate the display on the back of the camera. When it's auto rotated on that little screen, a portrait oriented image will be quite small. Instead I just let the image display "as taken" and rotate how I'm holding the camera when I want to see the image "right way up".

Besides, I try not to "chimp" too much. Shooting sports a lot, it's too easy to miss an important shot. So I turn off the auto playback function that displays every image taken, that way I won't be tempted to take my "eye off the ball" to gaze at the great photos I've been taking!



There's a warning in the manual, too, that if the images fail to appear rotated in the computer even though that option is turned on in the camera, it may be the software on the computer that's not able to handle it.

If nothing solves the problem, it could be that the orientation sensor inside the camera is stuck or has failed.

More information would be helpful... such as what your grand daughter wants to photograph. It would also be helpful to know her age and experience level.

Canon "PowerShot" is like asking, "My grand daughter wants a lens, what do you recommend?"

Canon has made many different PowerShots ranging from tiny point 'n' shoots to "vlogging" cameras to near pro-grade "bridge" cameras that look like small DSLRs. The primary thing all the PowerShots have in common is that they're all non-interchangeable lens cameras. Some models have large sensors and short range zooms that will give best performance in low light conditions. Others use smaller sensors and have extremely wide ranging zooms and to be able to photograph distant subjects.

Because of the many different sensor sizes used, often lenses on these types of cameras are often stated in "35mm film/full frame digital equivalent" focal lengths. These aren't the lenses' true focal lengths, but allows comparison of the cameras. I will use this "35mm film/full frame digital equivalent" to describe some of the current models.

The Canon PowerShot G1X Mark III has a 24MP APS-C format sensor similar to what's used in many DSLRs and is fitted with a 24-72mm "35mm equivalent", f/2.8-5.6 lens. If you didn't know better, looking at this camera you would think it's a mirrorless or small DSLR. It has a viewfinder, hot shoe, mode dial and many other features common to those cameras. It has an ISO range of 100 to 25600 and can shoot as fast as 9 frames/sec.

Canon PowerShot G7X Mark III takes a more compact approach, using a slightly smaller 20MP 1" sensor to have a 24-100mmm equivalent, f/1.8-2.8 lens. It has no viewfinder or hot shoe for accessory flash, an ISO range of 100 to 12600, and can shoot as fast as 20 frames/sec.

The PowerShot SX740 HS looks a lot like the G7X, but isn't. While it is also 20MP, it uses a tiny 1/2.3" sensor that allows it's zoom to act like 24 to 960mm equivalent, f/3.3-6.9 lens! It also has no viewfinder or hot shoe, and due to the small sensor it's ISO range of 100 to 800 (expandable to 3200) is much more limited. It can continuously shoot at up to 10 frames/sec.

The PowerShot SX70 HS has very similar specs as the SX740, except that it does have a viewfinder (electronic) and an even more extreme range zoom: 21 to 1365mm equiv., f/3.5-6.5.

Then there is the PowerShot ELPH 360 HS, which is truly a "pocket" camera with the same sensor as the SX740 and SX70, but a 25 to 300mm equiv., f/3.5-7 zoom lens. No viewfinder, no hot shoe. ISO range of 80-300 and up to 7 frames/sec continuous shooting speed. This camera is highly automated, with little the user can do to override it.

The PowerShot V10 is a "vlogging" and "live stream" video camera, while the [/b]PowerShot PICK PTZ[/b] is an auto tracking, hands free camera... just turn it on and set it down. It finds faces and photographs them... or records video of the action.

The above are current models and some may exceed your budget. You might look for used or Canon refurbished, for somewhat lower costs.

EDIT: Talk with your grand daughter. There are actually some budget friendly Canon DLSRs and mirrorless that might be better choice for her and give more room for future growth.

Because they have been around a lot longer (20+ years), it grew out of the previous film camera system (30+ years) and the system is far more robust, the DSLRs will probably be around for some years to come. Plus there is a huge used marketplace for the EOS DSLRs, their lenses and accessories. It would be relatively easy to put together a kit with one or a few lenses for practically any purpose. Canon's Rebel SL2 and SL3 (also called EOS 200D and 250D) are reasonably full featured DSLRs. There was a Rebel SL1 (EOS 100D) too, but it was very entry level... the two later models saw a great deal of improvement. There are even brand new, cheaper Rebel T7 and T100 models (also called EOS 1500D, 2000D, 4000D) that are within your budget, but they lack a lot of useful features (like the SL1) and are bundled with the very cheapest lenses Canon makes. A used SL2 with an EF-S 18-55mm "STM" lens would be a much better choice. Even better if you can get an EF-S 55-250mm STM lens to complement it. Alternatively, the EF-S 18-135mm STM or USM lens might be a good, single lens option.

There also are the Canon M-series mirrorless, which are quite compact. There have never been a lot of EF-M lenses made for them, so be sure to consider those options before looking at this system. Both the Canon DSLRs and M-series are gradually being phased out. Canon seemed to only grudgingly put any development effort into the M-series. It is mostly the later models that I'd recommend: M5, M6, M50, M6 Mark II and M50 Mark II. What Canon EF-M lenses there are can be quite good. There have only been a few 3rd party lenses with autofocus made for them. Sigma and Viltrox have each made three... Tamron made one or two. A couple years ago I put together a kit of M5 with four compact prime lenses, for a "street" photography and travel kit. The entire bag of gear weighs less than one of my Canon DSLR bodies! (But the SL2/SL3 mentioned above are much smaller and lighter than the DSLRs I use.)

The relatively new Canon R-series mirrorless are replacing both their DSLRs and M-series mirrorless. There are now even some moderately affordable, entry-level models of these, too. The R100, for example, is available with RF 18-45mm kit lens for $599. There aren't yet a lot of used or refurbished though, since this system is now only about 4 years old. But already there are far more lenses and accessories than have ever been available for the M-series (which is over 10 years old). With R-series it is possible to adapt EF and EF-S lenses that were used on Canon DSLRs, too. This is also possible with M-series. However, it is NOT possible to adapt the EF-M lenses for the M-series for use on any other system.

Tilt and aspect ratio/crop (not size/crop) are among the very first things I do to RAW files, using Lightroom.

I mostly use either 3:2 or 5:4 aspect ratios, but occasionally others like 1:1, 7:5, 14:11, when I anticipate using one of those sizes for printing.

I may also do some tweaks to color balance and exposure in LR, but that's about it.

I then pass off a 16 bit TIFF to Photoshop for finish work. I do most retouching and fine tuning of the image with the full tonal palette of 16 bit, size the image for it's final use, do any noise reduction I feel is necessary. Finally I will usually convert the image to an 8 bit sRGB JPEG and save it as such. (I occasionally end up with a TIFF or PSD and/or a different color profile, mostly just when a client has requested it for one reason or another.)

Ask the seller?

While I have used several of the Tamron 90mm in other mounts and on vintage Nikon (manual focus) cameras, I haven't used it on modern Nikon with AF. And as far as I know, that's the only mount where they made it both ways, with and without the built-in motor.

The Tokina 100mm macro lens is another that doesn't have the motor in Nikon mount.

Tamron 90mm macro lenses have been in production since the 1980s. There have been at least eleven different versions of the lens...

Manual focus:
- SP 90mm f/2.5 (Model #52)
- SP 90mm f/2.5 (#52B)
- SP 90mm f/2.8 Macro 1:1 (#72)
Autofocus (with built-in motor, except as noted):
- SP AF 90mm f/2.5 (#52E)
- SP AF 90mm f/2.5 (#152E)
- SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Macro 1:1 (#72E)
- SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Macro 1:1 (#172E)
- SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro 1:1 (#272) Nikon F version without motor
- SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro 1:1 (#272) Nikon F version with motor built-in
- SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro 1:1 VC USD (#F004)
- SP AF 90mm f/2.8 Di Macro 1:1 VC USD (#F017)

Reviewers pretty much agree that the F017 model of the 90mm is the best Tamron has ever made. it's recommended over all other autofocus versions.

Tamron's designations:

"SP" = "professional quality"

"AF" = auto focus

"Macro 1:1" = lenses with this designation reach full 1:1 on their own. Lenses not marked this way only reach 1:2 magnification, require an accessory to reach full 1:1.

"Di" = "digitally integrated" and usable on full frame DSLR. (Di II are crop-only DSLRs, Di III & Di III-A are mirrorless).

"USD" = ultrasonic focusing motor (built-in). There also are "OSD" and "VXD", which I think are focus drive related, but don't know for certain.

"G2" = second version of a lens.

Ideally, both tilt-shift (or perspective control) lens AND software.

The lenses available for the purpose on full frame/APS-C have limited range of movement. They can only do so much. It's not uncommon for more adjustment to be needed.

Software correction also has its limits. For one, it means a fairly heavy crop to parts of the image. This can be a problem, depending upon camera resolution. For example, a 45MP or 60MP camera will tolerate the crop more than a 20MP or 24MP camera.

Further, software correction to one part of an image often causes distortions in other parts of the image. For example, the image below (Hotel Del Coronado) was taken with a 21mm lens and has the classic problem where the buildings appear to be tipping over backward...



So I used perspective correction in Photoshop. The result is below...



You can see how there was cropping on both the left and right side. But what you don't see (because I fixed it in Photoshop) was that the bench and sign in the foreground became highly distorted when the corrections were applied to the building. I had to go back to the original, copy off the sign and bench area separately from the rest of the image, then paste it back into the corrected version. There also is some exaggeration of the shapes of the building, although you may not realize how much unless you visited and directly compared the image to the building in real life. But in the "corrected" image, notice that the large roof on the left looks about right and the flag poles on the roofs look vertical... but the smaller, upper portion of the tower on the left now looks more distorted than it did in the original.

I could have gotten better results above if I had shot the image with a tilt-shift lens that partially corrected the perspective, then finished the image with some additional tweaks in Photoshop.

Another thing... When you anticipate making software corrections, allow a bit of room for the crop. I didn't do that with this image (but there was limited room to back up for the shot anyway).

I currently have Canon 24mm and 45mm TS-E lenses.... plus had the 90mm in the past. Wouldn't mind having the Canon 17mm too, but haven't been able to justify its very high price! To be honest, I use these lenses more for plane of focus control and dealing with reflections, than for perspective control purposes. I just don't shoot a lot of architecture. I also sometimes use a TS-E lens for multi-shot panoramas.

I don't see many tilt-shift lenses now in Sony E-mount. Rokinon offers a 24mm. There are also several Venus Laowa, but I think they're shift only... no tilt movement. I don't know about the others, but the widest of them (15mm) also can only be shifted when used on APS-C format and even then only has +/- 6mm movement. For comparison, the Canon 17mm has +/- 12mm shift on full frame, plus up to 6.5 degrees of tilt. Not having used that lens, I really can't say how much vignetting might occur at the more extreme settings.

At one point Schneider was making several PCt lenses.... and I believe offered them in Sony E-mount. I don't know if those are still being made, but recall they were quite pricey (more than Canon, which ain't cheap either).

I am pretty sure Sigma, Metabones and some others make adapters that would allow the Canon TS-E lenses to be used on your Sony camera. All the TS-E lenses are manual focus, but one of those adapters is still needed to provide electronic control of the lens aperture. The Canon lenses are pretty easily found on the used market. A lot of people buy the lens for a job, later end up selling them because they are rather specialized and just don't see a whole lot of use. If you shop Canon TS-E used, be aware there are two series of them...

Original:

TS-E 24mm f/3.5L
TS-E 45mm f/2.8
TS-E 90mm f/2.8

Improved:

TS-E 17mm f/4L
TS-E 24mm f/3.5L II (better image quality, see below)
TS-E 50mm f/2.8L Macro (1:2)
TS-E 90mm f/2.8L Macro
TS-E 135mm f/4L Macro

The original 45mm and 90mm are fine lenses, even though they aren't "L" or as close focusing as the newer lenses. The original 24mm has some image quality flaws... mostly it's susceptible to chromatic aberrations. Pretty easily corrected in post-processing. It's good, but is not quite as sharp as the "II" either.

One key difference between the older and the newer series is that the first three lenses have just one plane of rotation (to orient the movement). From the factory, the tilt and shift movements of those lenses are set out of phase with each other. It is possible to have the lens disassembled and these movements aligned, if wanted. In order to return them to the original setup would require another disassembly of the lens. The later five lenses solve this problem. They have two planes of rotation so the user can easily realign tilt and shift in or out of phase as they see fit.

This is why I only uploaded smaller "proof" sized images online (700 or 800 pixels on the long side)... too small to make a print.

I also made my watermark an "ad" and then provided links so they could "take" those proof sized image to whatever social media site they wished. I wanted my images "stolen", because it was free advertising for me.

This was for sports related photos. I'm sure it's different for fine art images.

In addition to their lower 24MP resolution (versus the R7's 32.5MP)...

Also, the R10, R50 don't have IBIS... of the APS-C R-series, only the R7 has in-body image stabilization.

There are several YouTubers who have done extensive shooting with R7. I was concerned about problems with rolling shutter effects... "Wild Alaska" doesn't think it's a big deal and he shoots a lot of wildlife with his cameras. Besides, the R7's mechanical shutter still manages 15 frames/sec, and then there's no concern about rolling shutter (up to 30 frames/sec in e-shutter, which also is "silent").

I forget which, but some (all?) of the APS-C models below R7 don't have a mechanical shutter... only an electronic shutter. I guess there is a "1st curtain" option with the e-shutter, to help avoid rolling shutter. However, the R7 also can be set up to close the shutter during lens changes, to help keep the sensor clean. That's not an option on the models with no mechanical shutter.

No. At least not with Canon flash.

Canon's ETTL/ETTL II fires a 1/64 power or lower "pop" with the main flash tube, measures that via the camera's metering system, then based on that reading immediately fires what it deems the right amount of light to make a correct exposure. These two "pops" of the flash happen so quickly that they seem like just one. (This can be a problem if you are using additional flashes or strobes that are tripped optically... The pre-flash will set them off too early.)

I assume most other modern flash does something pretty similar, just uses different terminology.

The difference between Canon ETTL and ETTL II, as I understand it, is that when calculating exposure the newer version also can take into account distance information provided by the lens and focusing system, at least with some lenses.

There also is a difference in how ETTL/ETTL II acts that depends upon the camera exposure mode being used. This will probably be relevant to using a vintage, strictly manual lens with the flash.

In the auto exposure modes, a Canon flash in ETTL/ETTL II will fire as "FILL". The camera will set exposure based upon ambient light conditions, then adjust the flash to minus 1.66 stops below that. (This can be adjusted by the user on the more advanced flashes, using "flash exposure compensation".) This is the case with Av (A), Tv (S) and P modes. I don't know how it handles M + Auto ISO (which is another auto exposure mode).

In strictly manual mode (no Auto ISO) Canon's ETTL/ETTL II treats the flash as "FULL", as if it is the only light source, ignoring ambient light conditions. The user can adjust ISO, aperture and to a lesser extent shutter speed, as well as Flash Exposure Compensation (FEC) on some flashes, to balance ambient light with flash as they see fit.

For example, for this praying mantis image I wanted to turn the background black and FULL flash was the way to accomplish that. Behind the mantis was a tangle of leaves, branches and blades of grass I didn't want to see in the image. So I used manual exposure mode, set shutter speed, aperture and ISO that would deliberately underexpose the image, then used the flash at full power as the primary source of illumination. The flash was highly diffused due to the very short distance. I used several layers of white gauze bandage over the flash head, held in place with a rubber band, then hand held the flash above and to the left of the subject (it was NOT a macro flash, using it full power would have overwhelmed the subject).



Conversely, for the below close-up of a garden spider and it's web I used FILL flash. The subject was backlit by full sun, so would have been just a dark blob without flash. I used the same (or very similar) flash as above, except here I used an auto exposure mode that made the flash a secondary, reduced power light source after the camera set an exposure based upon ambient light. I used Av (aperture priority) mode. It was shot on ISO 100 film, so shutter speed was the camera's flash sync or less (the background in this case is simply shaded trees some distance behind the subject).



Again... AFAIK, most modern TTL flash in a fully manual exposure mode that's likely to be used with a vintage lens will give a "FULL" flash effect, ignoring ambient light conditions. The photographer can fiddle with balancing the flash output with ambient light if they wish.

P.S. If I recall correctly, the old tech used by flashes like Vivitar 283/285 where the flash itself has a simple metering system built into it was called "thyristor". Back in the dark ages I used a number of those flashes. There was a lot of chart reading and guess-timation involved! For macro photography I had a pair of small Vivitar flashes that could each be fitted with a fiber optic probe that fed light to that meter in the flash, while the other end clipped onto the lens hood.

Thank heaven for today's flash systems! They are SO MUCH easier to work with!

I'm a little surprised that CHG_CANON (Paul) hasn't chimed in yet, to tell you that a mirrorless Canon R-series is the only truly blessed and holy camera that you should consider taking on that trip!