You will be disappointed.

Not that Sony gear is bad in any way. In fact it's good.

But you won't reduce the weight of your kit by making that switch. In fact, you'll be making your kit heavier.

The Sony camera most comparable to the R5 is the A7R IIIA.

The R5 weighs 26 ounces. The A7R IIIA weighs 23 ounces. So you would save 3 ounces with the switch of camera.

The Canon RF 100-500mm weighs 48 oz. The Sony 200-600mm 75 oz. So you would ADD 27 oz to your kit with the switch of lens.

Make that switch and you will end up with a 24 oz. HEAVIER kit of gear.

If you are serious about reducing weight, the best way to do so would be to switch to a crop sensor camera, which in turn would allow you to use smaller, lighter lenses.

For example, with Canon R7 there would only be modest weigh savings from the camera alone (4.5 oz. less than R5)... But you also could switch to the RF 100-400mm lens. On the APS-C format camera, that lens will "act like" a 160-640mm would on full frame. And at 22.5 oz. the RF 100-400mm is less than half the weight of the RF 100-500mm (48 oz.)

An R7 with the RF 100-400mm would save close to 2 lbs (about 30 oz.) weight compared to your current rig. Plus you get "perceived" additional telephoto reach of an additional 140mm.

You could build similarly lightened kits with APS-C Sony, Fuji or Nikon cameras, or possibly even a little lighter with Panasonic or OM micro 4/3 system cameras and lenses.

But it may make more sense to stick with Canon, keep the R5 for when you want full frame (ideal with short focal lengths, for example), be able to use other accessories you already have (batteries, chargers, other lenses, flash, etc.)

My only complaint about my M5 is that is feels "too small" in my hands (see Mark's comments above).

But that's just me (and Mark)! You may or may not feel the camera is too small. I'm accustomed to 7D-series and 5D-series with battery grips, which I've been shooting with for ten or more years.

My solution was to put an L-bracket on the M5. I needed to add an Arca-Swiss compatible plate to it anyway, to use the camera on any of my tripods, monopods and with some other accessories, all of which use the Arca style QR system. When I started shopping around for a fitted Arca plate, I found there weren't many to choose. Plus they seemed a little pricey ($38 to $50).

eBay to the rescue! I found an L-bracket specifically for the M5 there for $16 (incl. shipping all the way from China) and decided to give it a try. Didn't expect much at such a low price, but it arrived in less than a week and is really quite well made. Fits perfectly and doesn't block access to controls, connections and memory/battery door of the camera. It's also modular, so can be used either as an L-bracket or just an Arca-compatible plate.

Normally I don't care for L-brackets. I don't use them on my DSLRs. They make them too big. But on the M5 an L-bracket makes it a little bigger and it seems more comfortable to me.

There also are "cages" like SmallRig, if you want for video work. I just shoot stills.

I bought the M5 as a compact, unobtrusive "street" camera, as well as a small, light kit for travel. For lenses, I have a Meike 12mm f/2.8 (manual focus), the tiny Canon EF-M 22mm f/2 STM, Sigma 56mm f/1.4 DC and Canon EF 85mm f/1.8 USM (adapted). The whole kit, including camera bag and some other accessories, weighs less than one of my DSLRs with a standard zoom lens.

While there aren't a whole lot of EF-M lenses from Canon... most of what there are get good praise and there are a few excellent 3rd party options as well. Many of the 3rd party lenses are manual focus AND manual aperture only. As far as I know, the only 3rd party lenses with AF and electronic aperture are from Sigma, Vitrox and Tamron. Sigma offers a 16mm, 30mm and 56mm. Viltrox offers a 23mm, 33mm and 56mm. Tamron only made an 18-200mm zoom in the EF-M mount, but I believe they have discontinued it (still avail. used?)

If you buy any of the fully manual lenses (like the Meike I mentioned above), note that you need to go into the camera's menu and set it to "shoot without lens". That's because there are no electronics in that type of lens, so the camera doesn't "know" it's there. By default, it's supposed to prevent shutter release when no lens is installed. So you have to override that.

Another tip... If you are accustomed to a camera with a joystick, you might want to try setting up the AF point selection via the LCD touch screen to act similarly, since the M5 doesn't have a joystick (doesn't have room for one). There is option to use the entire touch screen or just one of the quadrants. I use the upper right quadrant, since that's close to where my thumb falls.

Enjoy your new M5 and let us know what you think of it after you've had a chance to try it out!

While I am not a fan of "do it all" zooms, they have their place when you just want a single lens or are trying to travel light.

There are three possibilities...

Nikon 18-200mm DX (replacement), still avail. at B&H Photo, but gray market only.
Nikon 18-300mm DX
Tamron 18-400mm

Although the longer focal length lenses are a little larger, they are surprisingly close to the same weight and price as your 18-200mm.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/compare/Nikon_AF-S+DX+NIKKOR+18-200mm+f_3.5-5.6G+ED+VR+II+Lens_vs_Tamron_18-400mm+f_3.5-6.3+Di+II+VC+HLD+Lens+for+Nikon+F_vs_Nikon_AF-S+DX+NIKKOR+18-300mm+f_3.5-6.3G+ED+VR+Lens/BHitems/644744-GREY_1345956-REG_1045736-REG

No guarantees that these won't have "zoom creep", too. It's common in zoom lenses. Some have a "zoom lock". I don't know if any of these do. I'll leave it to you to research them further... there are probably lots of reviews online, if you do a search.

What is an "N200" or "N850"? I've never heard of those models.

I believe you use a Canon 80D, which is an APS-C crop sensor camera (many of the responses pertain to full frame).

For Yosemite with a crop sensor DSLR I'd recommend an EF-S 10-22mm f/3.5-4.5 USM or similar.... great for scenic shots. The Canon EF-S 10-18mm IS STM is a smaller, lighter less expensive alternative... more plasticky, but quite capable. There are also some similar 3rd party lenses, but most fall a bit short of the potential for these two Canon EF-S ultrawides.

Personally I would also take my EF 100-400mm II telephoto, even though it's about 3.5 lb... great for wildlife. There's not much likelihood of seeing larger wildlife in Yosemite unless you trek into some of the more remote areas. But in the busier areas there are likely small wildlife, birds, etc. that are relatively accustomed to people. I use an EF 1.4X II on this lens occasionally, too.

As an alternative, one of the EF 70-300mm can serve well in place of the 100-400mm. The 70-300mm is considerably smaller and lighter, but cannot be used with a 1.4X teleconverter.

I also like to carry a macro lens, just in case. My favorite is the Canon EF 100mm, but when I want to travel light I've been carrying a Tamron 60mm f/2 that's very good, quite compact, and doubles nicely for the occasional candid portrait shot. A "crop only" lens (like the ultrawides mentioned above) this lens' f/2 aperture is a stop more than most macro lenses offer, isn't typically needed for macro (usually stopping down in search of a little more depth of field), but is what makes a true dual purpose lens.

Particularly since it's on a powerful telephoto lens, you will not see the chip in your images... EXCEPT in certain lighting conditions when it will cause a lot of flare.

You could minimize the flare with some black paint in the chip. How well this will work on a lens that includes a Fresnel element is anyone's guess.

However, a better solution would be to replace the filter. After all, that's a $125 filter on a $3600 lens. Why risk compromising the images from it in any way.

There are a number of ways...

First, I believe your 80D has ability with its built-in flash to control an off-camera flash. Check the manual for details. (If you don't have it, the manual can be downloaded free from Canon USA website.)

There are limitations to using that on-board flash. It will "flicker" while controlling the off-camera flash. This is "optical" control, so the 580EX's amber screen on the front must face your camera. And the distance from which you can control the off-camera flash is limited. Probably no more than 20 or 30 feet. Maybe less in bright light conditions.

There also are "wired" connections... "off-camera shoe cords" for Canon EOS are widely available and are relatively low cost. Most only allow the off-camera flash to be about 3 feet from the camera. Some may be longer, but typically they are around 10 feet.

Canon produced an "ST-E2" flash controller module that works optically, similar to the built-in flash, but without the flashes of white light and maybe a little more reach. This uses a near infrared light instead and may be good for about 25 or 35 feet (less in bright ambient light conditions). There also are similar flash controllers produced by 3rd party manufacturers, costing less. (NOTE: The ST-E3-"RT" will NOT work with your flash. This uses radio waves instead of lights, so is only usable with 600EX-RT, 470EX-RT flashes. I don't know if the current ST-E10 is backward compatible with flashes like yours.)

You also can control an off-camera flash with an on-camera flash. The 550EX, 560EX and 580EX flashes all are able to act as a "master" unit (or as a slave). The tiny 90EX flash also can act as a master (but not as a slave unit). The 420EX thru 470EX flashes and some of the 300EX series can act as off-camera slave units, but not as master controller units. The distance these "master" flashes can reach is similar to the ST-E2, and like that controller they use near infrared light for optical communication.

Finally, there are radio controllers from several 3rd party manufacturers that give much greater distances (some do 100 ft. to over 400 ft.) With these you need both a controller unit to put in your camera's hot shoe and a receiving unit that the remote flash connects to.

There are hundreds of printers, but your requirements immediately narrow it to just a few printers.

Using these criteria:
- Inkjet (laser are no good for photos, dye sub are expensive)
- Photo quality prints (at least 6 ink colors... 8 or more preferred).
- 13" wide printer (sufficient for up to 13x19" prints)

Plugged into the search tool at B&H Photo website, we have narrowed it to just six printers:

- Canon Pixma iP8720... $285 (sale thru 9/2, $245)
- Epson Expression XP-15000... $299
- Canon Pixma Pro-200... $585 (sale thru 9/2, $535)
- Epson EcoTank ET-8550... $800 (sale thru 9/2, $700)
- Canon ImagePrograf Pro-300... $850 (sale, $800)
- Epson SureColor P700... $829 (mail in rebate, $629)

These meet the above criteria.

The next questions (to narrow it further) are how long do your want your prints to last and/or what type of paper do you print on and how do you display your prints?

For print longevity, "pigment" inks are better than "dye" inks. For color prints personally I prefer pigment inks on matte papers, which are then framed under glass. For the low-gloss or luster papers that I use for black & white prints I prefer dye inks. So I use each type of inkjet printer for photographs.

Also, it used to be that dye based inks had a pretty short life... only around 25 years at best. Dye based inks I used to use would sometimes show fading within a year or two when exposed to a lot of indirect but bright sunlight in a store front. No longer displaying anything there, I haven't had the same opportunity to test the newer dye inks I now used. Today when used with the right paper a dye-based print is predicted to have up to 125 or more years life. Pigment based inks give longer than that... I've heard 200 to 225 or more years. Not that I'm worried either way (since I won't be around to see them), but generally speaking pigment inks are considered more "museum quality" or "archival" than dye based inks.

Of the above printers, only the Epson P700 and Canon Pro-300 use pigment based inks. Those two also have the most complete sets of ink colors (ten cartridges), however the colors in their respective sets are different. The Canon uses cyan, light cyan, magenta, light magenta, yellow, red, two blacks (one is matte), one gray and an "optimizer" that's used to even out the finish on prints. The Epson uses cyan, light cyan, magenta, light magenta, yellow, violet, two blacks, gray and light gray. The Epson uses approx 1.6X larger individual ink cartridges than the Canon.... Epson 25mL... Canon 14mL. However, the Epson inks cost 3X the price of the Canon: Epson $38 ea., Canon $13 ea.

Of the dye-based inkjets, in my opinion the Canon Pro 200 is the most photo-oriented with 8 colors: cyan, light cyan, magenta, light magenta, yellow, black, gray and light gray. Epson

The Canon iP8720, Epson XP-15000 and Epson ET-8550 all use 6 ink colors and are more general purpose, less photo-oriented. They all do include a gray ink for better black and white prints. The Epson ET-8550 is one of their "eco tank" printers. The Canon iP8720 also has choice of standard or extra large capacity ink cartridges. I don't know the exact capacity of the ink cartridges in any of these or how their prices compare.

First of all, I don't find the noise in that image to be objectionable.

This has nothing at all to do with low light.

It is because by default Elements 2023 cannot handle CR3 (Canon's current version of RAW files).

This is how you solve the problem:

1. Start Elements.
2. Go to "help" menu.
3. Click on "Install Camera Raw" (Internet connection necessary).
4. Once that's installed, you should be able to handle those CR3 files with Elements 2023.

Alternatively, as Chg_Canon suggested you can go to the Canon website, download and install their Digital Photo Pro software and use that to unpack those CR3 files, converting to something Elements can handle. Of course

Sure, that's a possibility... But it costs $20 a week to rent and $25 for round trip shipping.... $45.

For under $50 you can buy a very similar Commlite EF to RF adapter, shipped free from B&H Photo.

If it were me, I'd buy the Meike EF to RF adapter with drop-in variable neutral density and clear filters for $160, plus the Meike drop-in circular polarizer sold separately for $80. Total: $240. The same are available from Canon themselves, but the adapter and three drop-in filters will cost you $790. Plus reviewers say the Meike variable ND is better than the Canon! There also are some other types of drop-in filters offered for the Meike, that aren't available for the Canon.

The EF 400mm f/5.6: is one of few Canon telephotos without IS. Because of that, I would think the R7 with IBIS would be a better choice of camera than the R10 without IBIS.

Actually you don't.

You have a camera with a 9mm to 72mm zoom lens.... these are the lens' actual focal lengths.

It is the RX100's little 1" sensor (smaller than DX/APS-C) that makes that lens "act like" a 24-200mm would on a full frame camera.

Full frame = 1.0X
DX APS-C = 1.5X
Micro 4/3 = 2.0X
Sony 1" = 2.72X

Because of all the different sensor sizes used in non-interchangeable lens digital cameras, it is common practice to state their lens focal lengths in full frame (or 35mm film) "equivalents". This is done to allow comparison of the cameras.

Those small sensors have come a long way and are able to produce overall very good image quality.

HOWEVER the combination of sensor and lens' actual focal lengths strongly effect depth of field, limiting how much background blur effect can be achieved. In fact, APS-C format is roughly 1 aperture stop less than full frame, Micro 4/3 about 2 stops, and 1" close to 3 stops. In other words, if you want the effect of f/2.8 on full frame (say for a portrait), you will need f/2 on APS-C, f/1.4 on a Micro 4/3 format camera... and f/1.0 on a 1" sensor! The opposite is true, too. If you want great depth of field (such as for landscape photography) you might choose a small aperture like f/16 on full frame, will only need f/11 on APS-C, f/8 on M4/3 and f/5.6 on a 1" sensor. So like many things in photography, this is both a positive and a negative consideration, depending upon what is being done with the camera.

PLUS, due to the smaller sensor there will be a limitation on the camera's highest usable ISO. This is a subjective topic... depends upon the user, what they shoot, how they use their images and how much noise they will tolerate in an image. DXO and others rate sensor noise to come up with an optimal ISO figure, for sake of comparison.

The 21MP DX Nikon D500 DSLR (now 9 years old) is rated ISO 1324.
The much newer 46MP FX Z7 Mk II is has a low light rating of ISO 2841.
With it's lower resolution 24MP FX sensor, the Z7 Mk II is rated ISO 3690.
20MP Sony RX100 VII with it's much smaller sensor is low light rated to only ISO 418.

In other words, the original poster's DX format D500 produces usable images about 1.5 stops higher ISO than the Sony RX100 VII.
The newer full frame mirrorless do even better...
Z7II has more than 1 stop higher usable ISO than the D500, more than 2.5 stops higher than the RX100.
Z6II is even better, with 1.5 stops more usable ISO than D500, close to 3 stops higher than RX100.

The Sony RX100 VII certainly is a great camera... for what it is. But, like all cameras, it has pluses and minuses, handy features and capabilities, as well as some limitations and compromises. While it may be a perfect camera for some people, it might be entirely the wrong choice for others.

I am normally among the first to recommend a crop sensor camera over full frame, to reduce size and weight. However, in your case I have to do just the opposite.

For your purposes a full frame camera would be a better choice. Better for landscape and portrait photography. These types of photography also aren't all that demanding of autofocus, so cameras with less than the "latest and greatest" AF system will serve you just as well.

There are two current Nikon you should consider, each is about 1/4 lb. lighter than D500, and both happen to be on sale right now (in the US, don't know about elsewhere)...

- Nikon Z7 Mark II ($2600, body only) 46MP full frame.
- Nikon Z6 Mark II ($1700, body only) 25MP full frame.

It's not an important feature for most landscape and portrait photography, but the Z7II matches your D500's 10 frames/sec. shooting rate. The Z6II does even better with up to 14 fps.

Both offer more resolution than your D500's 21MP. And as full frame cameras they will likely allow even higher usable ISO.

Yes, you could get get even lower weight with one of the DX mirrorless... Z30/Z50 or Zfc. However, in many respects you will be taking a step down in the model line. All the current Nikon Z DX models are more similar to the D3000/D5000 series, than to your top-of-the-line DX D500. Where you have 2 memory card slots now, you'd have only one in the DX mirrorless (the Z7II and Z6II both have dual slots).

Both the FX mirrorless also have 1/8000 shutter speed, matching your D500. The DX mirrorless max out at 1/4000.

Both the FX mirrorless have anti-flicker feature like your D500, which is a handy feature when shooting under fluorescent and similar types of lighting. Nikon's DX format mirrorless don't have this feature.

The FX mirrorless also bring new features your D500 lacks, such as in-camera image stabilization. The DX format Z series cameras don't have that.

While Nikon's line-up is in better shape than Canon's APS-C lens selection, so far Nikon has only produced five DX-specific lenses. In contrast, there are 31 Nikon Z FX lenses. Of course, the DX cameras also can use FX lenses (likewise the FX cameras can use the DX lenses, but images will be heavily cropped). There are also a number of third party lenses for both DX and FX Z.

You also should carefully compare lens size and weight. There may be some savings to be had there, too. You also might consider using a few prime lenses instead of zooms, too. They can be considerably smaller and lighter (not to mention, less expensive). I shoot Canon gear, but have a mirrorless with four prime lenses (ultra wide, moderate wide, short tele, longer tele). The entire kit is lighter than one of my DSLRs with one standard zoom lenses. Heck, in fact the entire mirrorless kit including small camera bag, macro extension tubes, an adapter (to use DSLR lenses on it), extra batteries, memory cars, etc. is way lighter than many of the individual lenses for my DSLRs.

You also need to

On the whole, I don't care for and don't use L-brackets.

However, a couple years ago when I bought up a mirrorless camera for, among other things, street photogrpahy... it felt uncomfortably small in my hands. Not that my hands are large. It's just that I was accustomed to full size DSLRs with battery grips.

At any rate, I use the Arca-Swiss quick release system on everything. It is SOOOOO much more versatile and simple than the two different Manfrotto/Bogen types I'd been using (the small plates on my 35mm film cameras, the larger hexagonal plates on medium format and large format film cameras).

By their very nature, L-brackets lend themselves to using the Arca style system. It's just a matter of making them the right width and then machining the dovetail grooves on either side. Neither of the legacy Manfrotto/Bogen systems work well on an L-bracket (With the Manfrotto/Bogen plates I used both homemade L-brackets and "spacers" on some cameras, lenses and other gear.)

I knew I'd want one, so started looking for an Arca plate for my new mirrorless. Not many companies make them for this specific camera. I only found two... one was out of stock, both were rather pricey for a simple fitted plate. Then I found a Chinese-made L-bracket (eBay!) and thought it worth a try. At 1/3 the cost of the few Arca plates, I really wasn't expecting very much... but what the heck. In under a week it arrived and was FAR better made than expected, fits perfectly. It also is a modular design.... the "leg" can be removed for it to serve as a fitted Arca plate, rather than an L-bracket. It doesn't obstruct any of the ports or controls of the camera, allows access to battery and memory card, and has anti-twist features. Even has 1/4 threads to mount to a standard tripod, if needed.

However, after using it a short while I found, in this particular case, that the L-bracket making the camera a little larger and slightly heavier actually made it more comfortable for me. Not that I'll be adding one to larger cameras with battery grips. But if I find myself shooting with another small camera, I might consider one. (By the way, some L-brackets accommodate a lefthand grip, if wanted.)