I am a Nikon, Leica, (cameras) and Sony (electronics) enthusiast. However it irritates me when "Canon" users can't even correctly spell their product.

Not sure about low light, but if you are looking for the best shirtpocket or purse small lightweight camera, the Sony 100 is highly acclaimed. Three models from about $650.00 to about $950.00. Pocket cameras are getting harder to find because non-photographers feel smartphones snapshots are acceptable.

I was on the committee for commissioning of LCS-5, Milwaukee.
Your pics are terrific, and goose bumps of rememberance.
Thanks.

Clearly, a typical phone picture. (Or UNclearly.)
Good example of why we use professional cameras.

16-35 f4.0 FX is the best for my money (I have and like). At least for landscape.
17-35 f2.8 FX might be a bit better, but twice the $'s. And the weight.
My 3 cents.

Depending on preference for FX or DX, note that the 16-80 DX 2.8 is specifically paired (packaged) with the D500 for landscape and I hear rave reviews from friends.
Personally, I am using the 16-35 FX 4.0 (effective 24-54) along with the 28-300 (effective 42-450) FX 3.5 and am happy. I know you are sometimes compromising a little sharpness with a zoom, but I like the versatility. The 17-35 FX 2.8 is probably the best for this, but too expensive for my blood at $2K.

Yes, for the extra $300.00 it is worth it in my experience having used both. The slower lens is lighter weight, but not enough advantage for the benefits of the faster. 5.6.
Frankly, as DX zooms are concerned, you can't do any better in my opinion.
I am currently using two zoom FX lenses on my D 500, so maybe I am not thinking clearly.

There are two Nikkor 18-300 lenses. Get the faster one for the extra $'s - slightly heavier but worth it. I have had both. On your D500 (same as me), which is heavy anyway, the diff will not be noticeable. On vacation it is convenient to not carry more than one lens and this is my fav for DX format. For FX I opted for two lenses: 16-35 and 28-300. Better pics, but the question is what do you want for vac photos. Summary: For vac carrying only one lens, it's the best Nikkor choice in my opinion.

Keep away from the cheaply-priced cards. Ativa and pro-master in particular. I have had failures. Having two card slots saved me.
Also, faster speeds are necessary for video. 90 or higher is best.

I have a high level DX (D500) with two FX zoom lenses. Therefore I am ready for a FX body when I win the lottery.
I also avoid cheap wine.

The mini SD has been fine for me IF you choose a quality brand with performance speed. I use San Disk Extreme Pro 95 mb. It's worth the extra $'s for dependability and the faster mb is better for video.
Keep away from Promaster, Ativa, and other off brands; they often fail.

Hello photo friends. I have a D80 with a non-working LED back screen. Otherwise excellent condition. Is it worth repairing? My local store would not accept it on trade saying it was useless; I do not necessarily trust them. I have a new DSLR but I hate to just throw this away as it would be good as a backup. Any ideas?

I had a 18-300 DX, the slower of two lenses. It was light which is an advantage, but I was not satisfied with clarity/ sharpness. The store told me it was a higher tech lens for $300.00 less and I fell for it. I think it was what they had in stock and too lazy to order the faster one. I sold it for a loss at just 5 mos old (33% of retail) and got the 28-300 FX which so far is terrific. The sharpest tele I have ever experienced, just as sharp as my 16-35 FX. I use it on a D500 and some say a FX lens on a DX body is a waste. I don't agree. My primary use is landscapes and portrait and often print 8x10.

I am fairly sure my 28-300 is FX, so some of the comments in this chain are wrong. I traded from a DX 18-300 of which there are two; mine was the cheaper one.

I have around 30,000 slides taken from about 1970 to 2006 when I switched to digital (D40, now a D500). Because of my age, they will probably be thrown away someday soon. However I would like to select some for keeping for my family. Quality is important; I appreciate the ideas and hearing of success stories from others. Third party processing seems expensive. Taking a photo of a slide screen image could be time-consuming and lose quality. A reasonably priced slide scanner might be a good option. Thanks.