If a Taos New Mexico workshop convenes in August, I will have a chance to spend six days or so prior at two or three national parks between Salt Lake City and Taos. I am looking at Capitol Reef in Utah and Mesa Verde in Colorado (and Durango). I’m thinking also of the Arches. I’ve been to Bryce and Zion.
I will be traveling by myself. I’m 86, healthy for my age, able to walk a leisurely mile or more if it’s reasonably level.
Is what I plan feasible? Is two nights the proper amount of time? Considering the distance, would I be better off with three nights and two parks? If so, which?
I have, of course, photographed other national parks, but I have not done any night-sky photography. Any thoughts on that?
Any thoughts at all?
Thanks.
David

It seems to me that the overall quality of photography posted on UHH these days has improved. If you just look at "Newest Pictures" you get a quick sampling of what is being posted and I am impressed.

The atmosphere here is good also. Most are friendly, anxious to help, and non-judgmental, whatever the problem. I also feel that the learning opportunities have increased as people openly share their ideas and methods.

Congratulations are due for one and all!

Again...I see the words, I hear the hype. I don't see the wonderful new images.

I would expect to at least see some comparison images from someone who has upgraded from, say, a D3500 (or even a D5500). But I've yet to see even one. And I'm in no way convinced that there is even anywhere meaningful to go from some of the best DSLR images that have been posted here.

I'm fine with claims of improved process and flow by those who have moved from what I would call "crippled" DSLRs or from cameras that don't even provide the option for photographer controlled operation (like my ancient Nikon CoolPix P3). If my mental capabilities decline over time, I may need the assists and crutches that the new cameras can provide to replace thinking that I might no longer be able to do for myself. Or help me if I become unable to continue to hold my camera steady enough.

But I still maintain that the "better" lenses do not provide any meaningful, real-world benefits over the best existing lenses, or that the best existing lenses could not be made even better.

And what I am willing to fuss about, like the OP, is what I believe is a very disingenuous effort to replace an existing product with a more cheaply made replacement, designed and implemented to be assembled by robots, then sold at a 50% price premium while trying to make those of us who choose not to buy think we are missing out on the new "miracle machine."

By the way, I never put glass packs on any of my cars, but if I ever felt that the sound of my shutter mechanism was making me anxious, I think I'd be asking my doctor if he could prescribe something that would calm me down a little bit.

When I put my D500 into Live View mode, don't I have a pseudo "mirrorless camera" now? The screen that shows what is coming through the lens is on the back of the camera instead of the viewfinder. And further more I have a histogram operating in real time so I can make adjustments before the shot is taken. I can also critically focus, expose and frame the shot as needed. Why buy some new gear to keep trendy when I've got it all - 3 in 1 - DSLR, Mirrorless and Video. This will satisfy my needs for years to come.