I think a lot of things have changed since the "good ole days" and that some people are still stuck in that day and time, whatever year it was. Yes, using the lowest ISO possible is the right approach but "low" has become a variable in some cases. Landscape images are easy enough, use the lowest ISO setting on your particular camera. Nature images are the same, given the light and other settings, use the lowest ISO. When shooting wildlife things change a bit. Noise is less a result of ISO than it is a result of not enough light. With wildlife using a high enough shutter speed to get the action wanted is the first part of the exposure triangle that is set. If the animal is stationary then a low ISO will work fine, given that the animal is not in the shadows or the morning light has not come up or the evening light has gone down, a lot of variables. If the animal is moving and the light is low things get very tricky, including ISO. Some cameras handle ISO better than other cameras so knowing your particular camera's limitations is key to success. The question in a low-light situation is do you want the image at all and how high can you go to get it? A dark, underexposed image can be impossible to bring up but an image taken at a higher ISO can often be saved with todays' excellent denoise software. I have images that are good images that were shot at upwards of 10,000 ISO using the Nikon Z9. In photography it's all about knowing the variables in the given situation and how to control them to the best of your ability. Don't simply stick with a low ISO and fail to get the shot or obtain an underexposed shot (which can be the "kiss of death," access the situation and variables, know your gear, your software, and act accordingly. Getting a shot with noise that can be processed out in software is better than not getting the shot at all.

I cannot figure out why you wrote this in response to my reply to the poster. I'm not advocating for any one camera, they are all good in their own way. Some do one thing better than another, but in the end it's about what the photographer wants from his or her camera and can it deliver, assuming the photographer knows how to make that happen. I'm not "into" simply buying equipment because everyone else is, my purchase is generally based on what it is I want to achieve with any piece of equipment. And, BTW, I'm with you on the "Paul thing" but I don't thing you can stop him. He is annoying and I simply pass by his comments as they are often useless.

Sorry, but I don't understand a word of this...

If you are happy with your gear stay with it and take the trip. If you are dissatisfied with your gear and your photographic images then try the new camera and miss the trip. Getting to know the Z9 takes a bit of time, it's somewhat different in some ways from your D500. You might also consider simply upgrading to a D850, lots of bargains right now I think, which will net you a larger file size, better IQ, and more low-light capability. I have the D500, the D850 and the Z9 as well as the 500PF, which is now attached to my Z9. It has to be a choice based on your needs, wants, desires, not that of this group.

did you open the file to the Z_9_0201.bin folder...haven't loaded it yet but will do so now to see if I have a problem.

If you were to hit the "quote reply" button then we would know to whom you were referring without having to search back through the comments. The photographers of the past are gone (yes, we know that), that's why we refer to them that way, of the past, but that does not diminish their impact on photography today. Adams had a tremendous impact on photography and is one of the reasons that photography became known as an art and not just as a science. There are many other things that he also did for photography and it's probably good to remember him and others who came and left before us as they paved the way.

And most of us know, on the comment about RAW, that the person is simply misinformed.

But you do understand I hope that if one does choose to shoot in RAW that image must be processed, just as a camera processes the JPEG image that is output. How one chooses to shoot and how and what they process is a personal decision and does not affect me so I really don't care about it. I shoot RAW because I like to be in charge of the changes made to the original RAW file, just like you appear to be someone who likes to shoot JPEG because you don't have the desire to be in charge of the changes made to the original RAW file. It all works as long as the photographer is happy with the outcome. Getting it "right" can actually have various meanings in the world of photography, your "right" and my "right" could be somewhat different. Obtaing a well-exposed image is a good goal to have but even what that might mean, based on what the intent is, can differ. I haven't looked at your work and I assume you are happy with it but just because you do something does not mean that everyone else should do what you do. I can do a lot more creative processing with a RAW file than my camera can do with a RAW file as the camera does not have my vision. It's about more than the basics.

To be more specific-
An original image in LrC can be dragged-dropped to any Collection in LrC and that virtual copy original image can be worked on in LrC and that metadata will show up on all virtual copies of the original image in the LrC Collections. This is all within the software.

An original image can be "sent" from within the LrC application to Topaz or PS with the Photo>Edit In command, a right click and the Edit In command, or using the shortcut key for PS, Command (Control in PC) + E. A new original image is created using the Preferences you have set in LrC, so it could be a TIFF or a PS file or something else. You work on that file, use the save function, close the working window or let the software send it back to LrC, and a new original image shows up in the LrC application window. This second image is then an ORIGINAL and is no longer associated with the original image you imported to LrC. But you can then create any number of virtual copies of THAT original and do what you want with them or drag-drop THAT original copy just like the original imported image. Having a predefined way to work is best so that when you work with original images and images changed in PS or other software plug-ins you can keep track of what is happening with the image.

My way of working with plug-in software and original images. I import the original images into LrC. I mark an image that I want to work on with a green border. I process and make any size corrections on the image first (unless it is Topaz DeNoise), for example, when assuming I am going to use PS. I use the Command+E shortcut and PS or LrC creates a TIFF file (my choice of file type) that opens up in PS. I make the PS corrections. I save and send the file back to LrC by closing the PS window. I then have two files of that image that are stacked in LrC. I delete the green border from the original image file, review the corrected PS file and make any other edits, then remove the green border from the corrected file and mark it with 5 stars. Any kind of system can work as long as it is rational and you follow it. It can get very confusing if not careful when working with an original image and making changes in various software plug-ins so you always want to keep track of the file that you are working on and want to end up with. You can use colored borders, stars, or picks and then delete those markers as needed to end up with the new original file. Each time you use any plug-in, it creates a new original file.

I hope I have been specific enough with this, explaining these things can get confusing as there are always a lot of steps involved.

There are no "real" copies, only virtual copies, no space being taken up in the computer, only a new preview. Each virtual copy of the original that is placed into a Collection is updated as per the original copy of that particular image. You can, however, create additional virtual copies from the original and do other things to that virtual copy or copies, each virtual copy is independent of the other. The reason the virtual copy in collections mirrors the original is that that specific virtual copy was added to the collection by selection or drop-drag.

Lots of "if it looks right to" my eye or the eye here about rules. In fact, all of the "rules" were written based on research about how the eye transmits data to the brain and it's actually the brain that makes the decision about how something looks to us. And, not oddly since we are all similar, many if not most of us see things, generally, the same way and this is often based on the rules, known or unknown to us. Knowing the "rules" of how the brain works helps us as photographers to accomplish the goal that we have set for our image. As for judges, depending on the accomplishments of the judge, I would listen or ignore comments and advice. But if something does stick up from an exact corner we do see it as odd, but it could be that odd was what the photographer wanted to accomplish. I almost always shoot composition, so using one "rule" or another and that works well for me and generally accomplishes the goals I have set.

I only quickly read what has been written...There is no one way to sort in LrC and LrC does not require any specific way to sort and, in fact, LrC has no bearing at all on the way you decide to sort EXCEPT that it mirrors your hard drive. Online at Adobe read up on the Library Module or you may find yourself in even more trouble. You can import all of your folders as is, so to speak, into LrC. A link to the online help manual: https://helpx.adobe.com/lightroom-classic/help/file-import-formats-settings.html. Use the "by original folder." It can be very difficult, once someone has sorted the way you have chosen to, to effectively use images. The reason many people use the year, as I have chosen to do, is that we use keywords and other metadata to sort the images as needed. Knowing how to use this program prior to using it is key to the successful use of the software.

(Download)

I have never shot RAW and JPEG, only RAW. I simply export as needed from LrC, which makes it very easy to do. I think it's only "necessary" to shoot both in rare instances, for example if you were a sports reporter and needed to send electronic images in a hurry. I'd say simply delete the jpegs and use the RAW.

Adobe (and a lot of other people) has a different take on Documentary photography...which includes the likes of Diane Arbus and skilled photographers who "documented" the Civil War. Images posted in Nat Geo are generally considered documentary images and thus are not supposed to be altered in any significant way. The image you posted, and I have many of those including the cat food my cat will eat, are not really documentary but are snapshots that we use in everyday life. Documentary photography is a well-known genre that includes, when done by a skilled photographer, work that can also be called "art." The link (and it is a crazy long link-hope it works): https://www.adobe.com/ie/creativecloud/photography/discover/documentary-photography.html?ef_id=CjwKCAjw_ISWBhBkEiwAdqxb9myQxOSRHFZDfzjQWtCbTBS3V-E_5nWlHDxjm50FuSl0mfkXpnWZwRoCV6AQAvD_BwE:G:s&s_kwcid=AL!3085!3!271592263377!!!g!!!1413573331!55719868215&gclid=CjwKCAjw_ISWBhBkEiwAdqxb9myQxOSRHFZDfzjQWtCbTBS3V-E_5nWlHDxjm50FuSl0mfkXpnWZwRoCV6AQAvD_BwE

Subscription only, as is some other software, like Microsoft. It's simply a newer way of doing business and there are many pros to be considered. Adobe is constantly updating and improving LrC and every time they improve it, add a new feature, or a new tool I get immediate access to it. The masking features in LrC are incredible now and well worth the $10 a month that it cost me. Also, the ability to find an image in a few seconds using LrC filter tools saves me a lot of time when I need a certain type of image. Using old outdate software can be troublesome as new equipment is brought into the mix.