Nice shot.

My suggestion would be for a bundle. You say you know very little about DSLRs and that is OK. Here is a good way to learn.

Most avid photographers buy in pieces. We get a new lens when the need arises. We upgrade our body (camera) every few years to stay up on the latest. The down side is most of us get locked into one brand of camera. I have lenses from the 1990s that fit my current cameras.

So if you buy a Nikon D500 you can always upgrade your lenses when you find a need. But even the base (kit) lenses are a good start. I would aim for a wide angle to near normal (ex. the 16-80mm) and a normal to telephoto(70-200mm). Those two kit lenses should cover 98% of anything you might want to shoot. With one lens, the 16-80 should cover most of your needs.

Do missing socks end up in Black Holes?

If you send over WiFi, you are sending bits of information to the iPad; very similar to using the internet to send bits of information to your iPad. It doesn't matter if it is a JPG or RAW. All the WiFi cares about is you're sending a file. All the iPad cares about is it is receiving a file. There will be no loss in quality if you send it by WiFi or by USB cable. (My personal preference is to use a cable as I batch d/l and USB is 10X + faster.)

NOW, the tough part. JPGs are universal and recognized by all computer devices with a display. A RAW file is proprietary and needs to be read and translated in order to be displayed. If you are using some form of Nikon software, you will probably be able to open that RAW file to view. Without Nikon software you would need some 3rd party software to open the RAW file in order to view it.

The good stuff is sending JPG (or JPEG, JPG 2000, etc) is a smaller file than a RAW file and still the accepted way of sending photos.

What lenses do you have currently and how much do you want to spend?

Nice. You are obviously talented and very artistic.

Just to mention, but most telephotos have trouble focusing on distant objects. Especially when there is confusing material around the subject. Grass, branches, and the like can confuse the camera. Even low contrast can confuse the sensor.

Just a suggestion, as I don't know all the particulars in your case, but have you tried to manual focus in situations like that?

WOW, amazing. Thanks for sharing.

My suggestion is "Paint.Net". It is well packed with features, is user friendly, and free. It has a large user base that helps answer questions. The two downsides are it doesn't do RAW and color balancing is manual. Once you become familiar with Paint.Net, you'll find other editing programs easier to use.

https://www.getpaint.net

Putting a good UV or skylight filter in front seldom hurts. Poor quality filters can be a detriment. BUT, I have skylight filters on most of my lenses as scratch protection. This was far more important when we used film and we were much more influenced by ultraviolet light on the film and the protective coatings weren't as good.


Polarizers work well around reflective surfaces. That includes large expanses of water, sand, snow, shiny paint, and even concrete. With the light bouncing all over, your lens will pick up a lot of that stray light. Your photos will look more exposed and colors are washed out. A polarizing filter only allows light from one direction to pass. This will cause a noticeable saturation of colors on the photo.

Since the preferred light is reflecting in only one direction, polarizers turn (rotate) so you may find the most effective angle for your filter. You need to turn the lens in order to find that sweet spot. Polarizers are two piece. One set of glass that is set with the threaded portion, and a second piece that freely rotates. Both pieces of glass prefer to allow light to pass in only one direction. When they are lined up, they stop most non-polarized light from passing through.

In my opinion that is a 9.95/10. You beautifully framed it and kept your focus in a lower light situation.

And thank you for the specs, I personally enjoy seeing how someone did it.

My suggestion would be an EOS EF f2.8 70-200L IS. It will run around $1,800 new but is probably the sharpest lens out there and has a good range. Zooms don't come better than this. The f4 70-200 is not the same lens but costs half as much and is still a good lens. The EF f4.0-5.6 70-300mm IS is much cheaper but still very good even if it is slow.

The Sigma Art primes, 85mm and 135mm, are near the $1,000 mark but again, are excellent portrait and landscape lenses. I also like the EF f1.8 50mm for around $250 or so and it is a bargain.

A 5D IV doesn't deserve cheap glass. Good luck and enjoy.

Let's look at the snow a bit, first. Believe it or not, snow is not white. It's clear, just like an ice cube. But because it reflects light it appears white. Depending on the time of day, surroundings, etc, it will reflect those colors. So on a cloudy day snow will appear gray and on a sunny day it will be more bluish. However, we will still see that snow as white in our minds.

Our eyes are connected to the most powerful computer imaginable; our brains. Our eyes also generally have a fairly shallow depth of field. Add in that our brains will actually focus on only a small portion of the available scene. Contrast that to a camera that records whatever it sees on the sensor. These two things are not the same.

Correcting color in post is not making the color perfect; it is only making the color what we think it should be. For your gray snow, that is the color that was there when the camera took the picture. When you correct it later, you are just telling the computer to make it something it never was but think it should be. Yesterday I saw a picture taken from inside a house of a bird at a feeder. The photo had a strong bluish cast, consistent with a sunny sky without compensation. My mind's eye wanted to color correct it but I knew that it was already correct. The more I looked at it, the more I liked it.

This may not answer your question, but it should put it in perspective. Don't spend dollars saving pennies.

Keep us posted. Having read a review a while back, I'd be interested in some real world experience before I spend that kind of money.

Thanks. Nice birds too.

I edit almost all my shots. It may be something minor such as a slight straightening of the camera. I crop a majority of my photos to remove extraneous material or focus in tighter on my subject. Doing post on my computer allows me to verify if the sharpness is acceptable or if I need other correction.

Only a few shots can actually pass my standards unedited. This is especially true for sports and action shots.

I don't worry about the memory required, I use a portable HDD to store copies of my completed photos. No, the "cloud" is not an option.