Okay, this won't address the craving, but try thinking about the camera as equipment that will need to be upgraded every few years. Figure you have XX dollars per year for photography, and that you will buy a new camera every Y years. Save accordingly. Oh, and don't look at anything about what's coming next in cameras until you're getting ready to buy. Or keep looking and dreaming. If you have money to spare, you might try renting a newer model periodically. And talk to a good therapist.

The SX has the small, point-and-shoot sensor which will limit the image quality, particularly in low light. I have an SX50 superzoom. It is a nice camera with surprisingly good optics, and several people who post here seem to use it as their primary camera, but for me something of a niche model. I have used a G16 as a travel camera of a couple of years and like it a lot. It has a larger sensor than an SX, an optical view finder (although it's recommended that you use the view screen to compose your photo), and takes good pictures. It now runs around $450 new. As far as I know Canon has dropped that series, so there's no G17. The current equivalent is the G5X (released last year), which has a larger one-inch sensor and an electronic view finder. It costs around $800 but I'd certainly consider that if it's in your price range. There are also the G7X (now Mk 2 version) and G9X, both with the same sensor as the G5X, but no view finder, so they are smaller and actually fit in a pocket. The G5X has the same optics as the G7X. The G9X is the smallest of the three and has less zoom.
There's also a G3X superzoom, again with the one-inch sensor but no built in view finder (you can buy one as an attachment). It runs around $1,000, plus around $200 if you want the view finder. It's more the size of a DSLR, although much lighter. It would be the most flexible of the group as travel camera since you get a considerably longer zoom than with any of the others.

The advantage of the mirrorless is that you get the same size sensor as in a DSLR in a smaller and lighter body (but then there's the weight of a lens). I'd look at the EOS-M3 or wait a another week and look at the brand new -M5. They cost more and you'd need to buy at least one dedicated EF-M lens. Although the standard Canon DSLR EF and EF-S lenses can work using an adapter, in my view they are to heavy for the mirrorless camera body.

If you can narrow your choices down to two or three models, you might try renting them together so you see which one works best for you. That effectively adds to the total cost of whatever you end up with, but I think it's worth it. Good luck

If you can live with a maximum equivalent zoom of around 24-400 to 600 mm you might look at one of the camera's with one-inch sensors such as the Canon PowerShot G3X, Panasonic LUMIX FZ 1000 or Sony RX 10. Nikon is soon to release something similar in a new DL series with a 24-500 mm zoom. They run around $1,000. FWIW, in my view the 16x to 25x zoom range is more usable than 50x to 83x and the larger sensor makes a big difference in the picture.

Ken, FWIW, if you'll always be in your car any of the suggested bags would probably be fine. My alternative for travel in the car is a LoPro Photo Runner 100 bag for my DSLR, extra lens or two, and spare battery for when I'm walking around, and something larger for transporting and storing the rest. It is a bit of a guess at times and I've sometimes found that I didn't have the lens I wanted for a particular shot, but my enjoyment of the experience increases as the weight I'm carrying decreases. (And sometimes I really like the picture taken with the "wrong" lens.) I also find it's easier (more flexible) to find space for a couple of smaller bags than one large one. In any case, good luck and have a great trip.

Spectacular! Thanks for this and your other posts. I really enjoy them.

I'm actually not sure what you're asking. It is your picture and unless it's being claimed to a more or less literal, documentary image you should obviously adjust or change it as you wish. I certainly adjust my pictures to achieve different effects and I assume most people do. But since you asked about our feelings on this, I would say that for me the adjusted picture is rather jarring. I think that might be because the apparent direction of the sunset lighting doesn't match the shadows on the spit of land, or because the haze on the water seems out of place for the time of day, but of course it could be because I know it's a modified image. I hasten to add that that you're the one creating the picture for your enjoyment, critics (rightly) be damned.

I think the classic birding binoculars are around 8 or 10 power x 42. If you're carrying much camera gear, I'd suggest you consider something smaller and lighter like an 8x20, 8x25 or 8x28. The roof prism Vortex Viper 8x28 is quite good, as is the reverse Porto prism Bushnell Elite 7x26. If you can afford it, Leica, Zeiss or Swarovski pocket binoculars 8/10x20 or x25 are excellent.

Beautiful shots. Thanks for posting them.

Someone else mentioned the Canon G1X and I want to second that. It has a large 1.5" sensor and an optical viewfinder. It is fairly hefty, has some shutter lag and is fairly slow to focus, but takes really nice pictures. These days it has about the same cost as a G16, around $450 new on Amazon--cheaper if can buy used from a reliable source. You can rent one from an online outfit allied BorrowLenses. There is an upgraded MkII version with no viewfinder--also very nice pictures but I think much more clumsy to use.

Good luck.

You sound pretty experienced but here are 2 cents worth, with apologies for being obvious or presumptuous.

Weather: Right now the long range forecast for Boston through September 24 has highs around 25C and lows around 15C. North Conway is about 20C/10C over the same period. (You're missing a miserably hot summer.) I'd recommend checking Weather.com or something similar just before you leave for last minute adjustments and along the way when you're here since the weather here is pretty changeable over a few days. In your time frame, I'd keep aware of any Atlantic hurricanes or tropical storms that develop since they can give us a lot of rain even if they stay well off shore. Otherwise, I'd suggest a lot of flexibility in you clothing and something waterproof to layer over polartec/fleece. Also remember when you're up New Hampshire is that the temperature drops with attitude, and Mt. Washington often seems to have its own weather. It can easily be shirt sleeves at the bottom and fleece as you ascend. (On Mt. Washington they warn hikers about sudden snow squalls.)

Gear: Probably late but I'd want to have a good 1" point and shoot with a 25-75/100mm lens or one of the fixed lens APS-C cameras like the Nikon A or Fuji X100T. I'd also suggest a good pair of binoculars small enough to carry along with your cameras.

Hope you enjoy your trip.
Ed

Very nice. I like them all.

You might want to look at the Canon EF-S 24 mm 2.8 pancake lens. It is designed for the APS-C format and has the equivalent FoV of a 38 mm lens on a full frame. It's around $150, weighs very little and is very unobtrusive. It has gotten good reviews and I think it takes very good pictures, and it was great for walking around a French city on vacation this past spring. Someone else mentioned its full frame cousin, the EF 40mm 2.8. Also light weight, etc., costs about $200. Equivalent FoV of a 64mm lens on the T6i. In my view also a good choice.

It's a lovely photograph. Thanks for posting it.

I believe Nikon has the usual compact sensor (1 over 2/3 ?) while the G3X has a larger Sony 1" sensor. That should mean better images for the Canon all else being equal. I've used a G3X. I liked the pictures but I was frustrated because I found the EVF clumsy to use, plus it adds bulk to the camera. I imagine I'd get comfortable with it if I used it enough.

You might see if you can rent one or both cameras for a few days from someplace like LensRentals or BorrowLenses (online) or you local camera store. Someone else mentioned the Canon SX50 which is older and doesn't have the reach of the P900 but takes very good pictures. Pretty inexpensive if you can find a refurbished one on the Canon web site.

I don't know about snapshots, but the forms appear to apply to commercial filming and film school projects. Since the beaches are public recreational areas and setting up a film shoot is disruptive, it seems to me that the licensing is sensible. Plus, if it's a commercial project, then someone is presumably going to make a lot more than the licensing fee from the use of the land and it seems reasonable for the state or county to charge up front for its use. And as others have pointed it, the licensing would be unenforceable against the large numbers with cell phones and people with point and shoots.

Off topic, but the book referenced by one of the responses was identified as The Decline and Fall of California: From Decadence to Destruction, by Victor Hanson Davis. Still available from Amazon and likely to remain so as long as there's a market for it. Davis is a classical historian who has written a couple of very good books on ancient Greek warfare (I'd strongly recommend one of them, The Western War of War; the other is a re-worked PhD dissertation and it's pretty slow reading). I've also read a couple of his later books dealing with more recent periods of military history and some of his articles on current events (he write a lot). As far as I can tell, he is (or at least was) a decent scholar of ancient history, but he goes downhill after about 300 BC.