Thank you. I will be looking it up. It sound like something I would like to read. One can never learn enough.

The love and joy of seeing. And the capture, even if not perfect, of the memories of those moments.

Your wish is close to being granted! Try the OM 150-400 f4.5 Pro IS 1.25X. The angle of view in 35mm terms is 300-800 and 375-1000 with the internal 1.25 teleconverter on. On the new OM1 mkII, it is a combined 8.5 stops of IS. Size is 4.6 dia. x 12.4" long at 4.14 pounds. And it can shoot 1:1 macro. It only misses on the internal teleconverter, 150 instead of 100, and 0.14 pounds over the 4 pound or less that you wanted. And for comparison to full frame - wait, full frame has nothing to compare to it!

If you are looking for the most perfect camera system, there isn't one. There are only systems that meet one's certain pros and cons. And one must determine which system's pros and cons are more important than the other system's pros and cons.

Starting with sensor shape, if you crop for most standard print sizes, full-frame can require up to a 11% loss of pixels while 4/3rds will only require up to a 7% pixel loss. This can sometimes "even out" the pixel count between a 24mp full-frame sensor and a 21mp 4/3rds sensor. Personally, I find this is the least determining factor. Because the pixels are smaller with a 4/3rds sensor, there is a difference in ISO and dynamic range with full-frame being the better of the two. But the OM-1 mkII has narrowed that difference by using a stacked sensor. This could be a factor if you do lots of low light shooting. As far as image stabilization, there are very few camera systems that are as good as the OM-1 (the Sony A7IV being one; note, as good, not better). Panasonic 4/3rds is much more prolific with their dual IS than any brand. But OM usually will have fewer but better dual IS overall due to the IBIS/ILIS strength. And the OM dual IS is really some of the total camera industry's very best. The 4/3rds system bodies and lenses are interchangeable for all basic functions (OM and Panasonic). Only a few of the full-frame brands are such. The glass of the OM system Pro series lenses will be able to resolve a 100mp sensor when someone finally makes one. There are differences between full frame lenses and 4/3rds lenses. 4/3rds tend to be smaller, lighter, and less costly for the same angle of view. Full-frame has a narrower depth of field for the same angle of view and aperture as 4/3rds. If you shoot lots of very narrow depth of field, full frame tends to be the better choice. But if size, weight, and cost are more important than depth of field, then 4/3rds will tend to be the better choice. One example of this is comparing the OM 300 f4 Pro IS lens to the Nikon and Canon 600 f4 IS lenses (same angle of view, 4.1°, different depth of field). The OM 300 is less than 10", 2.7 pounds, and $2900 compared to 16" to18" long, 6.5 and 6.7 pounds, and $13,000. In other words, I can buy one 300 lens and two spares for the same price of one of the other 600 lenses.

Does this mean that 4/3rds is better than full-frame? Absolutely not! But it does mean that there are different pros and cons between the two. Some on UHH shoot only full-frame. Some shoot only 4/3rds. But then there are others that shoot both full-frame and 4/3rds depending on what they are shooting or where they are going. Be sure that you look at the pros and cons and, if necessary, rent a 4/3rds to give yourself a feel for the 4/3rds system.

I am glad he likes to walk as far as he can before wanting to ride. He is going to live a while longer with your help.

It is interesting to hear this. Even at 74 years of age and increasing eyeglass problems, I have none of the problems you have mentioned with my mirrorless camera. I can see why you have your point of view, but I wonder why I don't have the same problems.

Do not look through the viewfinder without a filter that blocks UV rays! With a filter that allows UV rays, the UV rays will be concentrated and blindness will occur after the totality when the sunburn sets in. During totality, yes, one can view the chromesphere without the filter on the camera. But some people forget to remove their eye from the viewfinder before the end of totality! And some that were not quick enough paid with damaged eyesight. I cannot emphasize enough that sunlight concentrated by a telephoto lens is very, very dangerous. And the camera will be exposed to unfiltered sunlight at the end of totality also. But the camera is much, much more rugged than one's eye and repairable. One's eye that has been damaged as such is more than likely permanent.

Good advice. It cannot be said enough: Be sure you have the adequate and proper filters for both your eyes (to prevent blindness) and camera (to prevent costly camera damage). For your eyes, make sure what you buy cuts off the UV rays. Some camera filters do not cut off UV rays (sunburned eyes = blindness). So be very careful about using camera filters for your naked eye viewing of the sun. As far as other exposure data, try the NASA eclipse website. And there are lots of other sites to gain more info too. And the suggestion of practicing is important. Three or four minutes goes so fast it is almost unbelievable. And be sure to observe the shadow coming and going. Watch the horizon's color change as the shadow comes. Feel the temperature drop 10° to 15°. If you are near animals or birds, watch their behavior change and their confusion after totality. And during totality, be sure to see the chromesphere and stars without any filters and just your naked eyes (all while shooting of course; remember: practice, practice, practice, practice, practice).

The welders glass should be an ND 17, ND 18, and ND 19. You can safely use the welders glass to view the sun through it. I have never heard of welders plate. I do know if you cannot see the sun through the welders glass, the glass you have is too protective and blocking. One should be able to view the sun through the welders glass as long as they want if it is the right darkness. And if it is the right darkness for one's eyes, it is the right darkness for one's camera.

They are relatively hard to find, but if I were you, I would try to find a used TG-5 (Olympus label), TG-6 (Olympus label), and TG-7 (OM System label). Waterproof, 7' drop proof, available ring flash accessory, 11X macro ability, sequence shooting, RAW and JPEG, etc. B&H Photo used, Adorama used, Ken Camera, and OMDS's reconditioned would be good areas to search. Just a reminder, the new TG-7 is on sale for $499.99 (normally $549.99). It is worth considering even if it becomes yours when she gets home.

Take a solar charger. There are any number of them with different outputs. Just a suggestion.

You will need proper a filter to prevent camera damage and eye blindness. The only time that a filter will not be needed would be during the time of totality. If you are not on the path of totality, you will need a filter 100% of the time. The best places for information are the NASA eclipse website and Thousand Oaks Optical website. And remember, if the filter does not have the right spec cited for UV cutoff, the UV coming through the filter will be able to blind someone. One other filter source is welders glass. It will cut both intense sunlight and UV rays the same way it does for welding. ND 17, ND 18, or ND19 in welders glass should be sufficient. Of course, it is not as optically flat as a proper lens filter, but I have found it to be more than flat enough for solar photography. Have fun with this one since I am going to miss it because of my granddaughter's wedding.

Ideally made for wet environments!

On my "wish list" is the TG-6 or TG-7. Waterproof, 7' drop proof, 11X macro, ring flash attachment, etc. And will easily fit in one's pocket. Not as sophisticated as larger cameras but offers more than a smartphone as far as I am concerned.