Nice pictures. Fun and colorful.

Try a teleconverter (like the Nikon TC-20E iii teleconverter, which I don't own, but have seen.)
It will "steal" some light from your picture (and your 70-300 is already at F5.6 at 300), but if you have good light to work with, you might be really happy with the results.

Absolutely true. It is purely my opinion that CRoy would enjoy a prime lens more than a new camera.

But from a financial point of view, lenses are cheap, and you can use (or re-sell) a lens for many years. Cameras are expensive, and the re-sale value of cameras is terrible. The D5300, for example, which was introduced at about $750, can now be sold for $75.

The Nikon 35mm 1.8 was $179. You can sell it for $135. That's a 25% hit compared to a 90% hit.

For the lighting in ice rinks, I usually shoot at 1/250, F2.8, and ISO 800. This is a compromise, but you can pick other compromise if you want.

At 1/250 there will still be some blur on the fastest moves, but it is not as distracting as you might think.

The EM-1 is a great camera at ISO 800, but if you shoot up over ISO 1600, you will start to lose some edge sharpness from the noise reduction. Some people turn the noise reduction off and prefer the grain.

F2.8 is kind of what you need, in my opinion. The best of the MFT 200 mm 2.8 lenses is the Panasonic Elmarit DG OIS. It is a little expensive, so you have to decide which compromises you can accept.

The D5300 is still a good camera. To get a camera that is "more than just a little" better will cost around $2000. (And even then, in my opinion, not worth it.)

In my opinion, always start by upgrading the lenses. A good lens to start with is the Nikon 35mm F1.8. You can find this lens for less than $200, and it will allow you to do a lot of things the kit lens does not, such as:

- Shoot indoors without the flash,
- Shoot in medium light at a higher shutter speed.
- Throw the background out of focus even on the "wide" shots.

The color, quality and focus speed are all very good for the price; you will find that you will end up using this all the time and leaving the other lens at home.

Once you get used to the 35mm (which is really about a 50 mm frame of view), then you will want their 50mm lens as well (about a 75mm frame of view, for standard portraits.)

Both of those lenses will be like getting a whole new camera.

The UHH has a really good section where you can post your photos for critique.

https://www.uglyhedgehog.com/s-117-1.html

You may find that the areas you think are problems are really not, or that the techniques you think are working are the real problem.

In any case, you might get a better idea how to look at your own photos critically by having other people help.

Also, be sure to turn off image stabilization when shooting on a tripod.

Lenses (and even cameras with IBIS) can sometimes blur a shot because they are trying to adjust out vibration that isn't really there.

Good job. You answered the question she asked.

Too many people think they are sales reps for Sony (or Nikon or Canon or whatever), and forget to mention that (in many circumstances) cell phones can take really good pictures,

If you are familiar with the old Minolta film cameras, the Sony A7 will seem easy to use.

The old Minolta XD-7, for example, was slightly shorter and thinner than a Sony A7, but the A7 has a large grip on the front that give your fingers a place to rest (and hold a nice heavy battery). The Minolta was wider (by about 10mm) but the Sony actually is easier to hold because of the "battery bump."

Having said that, I would recommend that you go ahead and spend the money on the A7iii unless that is really just too much to consider.

The newer model has dramatically faster autofocus, to the point where it literally changes the way you feel about the camera. There are some other minor improvements to video, image stabilization, and ISO, but the headline feature is the autofocus, which is good enough to use it as a sports camera. (The A7ii, is really not.)

If you only use manual focus lenses, then the A7ii will do fine, but if there is a chance you are going to get an autofocus lens, you may find the fast autofocus tracking on the A7iii to be addictive.

I suggest you bring the camera with your best lens, and get a few poses outside using the "full auto" mode (the green square). If you shoot any pictures inside, get a big flash that you can put a diffuser on, angle it up at the ceiling about 45 degrees, and fire away.

Program AE is similar to full auto, but you can bias the exposure toward larger apertures by turning the main dial. Most people love it, but if you hate it, you can pop back to the green square any time.

The Canon 60D also has a Creative Auto mode that allows you to select the ambience you want (like "vivid"), and dial it up from 1 to 3. Most people love that as well, but I wouldn't recommend using it at a wedding until you have played with it for a while, since it might give you some unfixable files.

I suggest that you also hire a photographer. In addition to supporting the profession, you will be able to appear in the pictures, you will be able to set your camera down whenever you want, and you will be able to ask the professional for advice any time you want.

The 24-70 will give you more use indoors, and better looking "out of focus" areas. I would stick with the faster lens for city work. (You will not see as many birds in flight as you will see interesting people in dimly-lit rooms.)

If you have a situation such as a long-distance portrait, where you absolutely need 300 mm, then keep the 28-300 on standby in your luggage. I would rather wear the same jeans over and over than try to figure out a 300mm portrait with a 75mm lens.

My general impression is that we are shooting through so much atmosphere, any picture of the moon (from Earth) is going to be limited by atmospheric distortion, rather than by the resolving power of the lens and camera. In order to get the resolution that your sensor is capable of, you would have to set up some motors, track the moon over a period of several hours, and then use a computer to average out the distortion.

The highest resolution photo of the moon (other than close-ups) is the topographic map that NASA developed in 2011 using an array of earth-based telescopes, and each pixel on that represented about 320 feet.

I think both pictures are very good, but the second is subjectively better because of what looks like better dynamic range.

I would recommend that you discard all the color information and shoot in whatever balance gives you the best resolution. The moon itself is almost completely colorless, so any color that you see is from our atmosphere. Go ahead and get the resolution you want, and then tint the photo in post to create whatever color you remember.

Ha, I am with you. I do "impact tests" on some of my equipment from time to time as well.

Definitely not a red-tail hawk or zone-tailed hawk. In each case, the tail feather pattern is much more distinct. If it were a bald eagle, you would be able to pick out the distinctive white head and white tail feathers.

There are only a few birds with a similar size and shape to the turkey vulture. Turkey vultures have pale feathers on the underside of their flight feathers, giving them a two-tone appearance, which is seen in your picture pretty clearly.

The only other bird it could be (in my opinion) is a golden eagle, and the coloring and wing shape is not quite right for that either. But with a little photoshop, you can have yourself a good picture of a golden eagle...

Great pictures.

The two logical choices to me would be the Sony RX10 (IV), and the Panasonic FZ2500. Both are fantastic cameras. The Panasonic is a little cheaper (although neither is particularly cheap), and the Panasonic features a built-in ND filter.

The Sony features a (relatively insane) 1000 FPS slow motion, but the 120 FPS on the Panasonic is more than enough. The Sony max aperture is F2.4, but the 2.8 on the Panasonic is almost the same in the real world.

The Sony goes up to 600mm, but the 480 mm on the Panasonic is pretty similar. If you are used to the Panasonic, I would seriously consider the FZ2500.

As you mentioned, the improvements in technology over the last few years have been amazing, but the FZ2500 (which is now two years old) is still running neck-and-neck with the Sony.

Here is my best advice:

1. For travel, I find it is easiest to keep the 16-35 on the camera. This is a nice tiny lens, and offers good sharpness, good color, and a good zoom range.

2. I find it best to shoot in JPG, and allow the camera to correct any distortion.

3. Consider full auto in any situation where the amount of light will be changing. If you are fiddling with low-light shots, then it might be worth switching to manual, so you can decide how slow you can shoot. My camera tries to shoot at 1/60 in low light, for example, and I am usually not steady enough.

4. I use AF-C, but a lot of people prefer AF-A, which offers some of the same advantages.

5. I prefer to set the drive speed to low or medium, so I can fire off six or seven shots just by holding down the shutter. This is useful in those situations where I can't tell if someone is blinking, so I just take a few extra. Some people leave this in "single shot" so they can recompose each time. Recomposing is a good habit, but memory cards are big these days, so you can do both.

6. If you are going to be doing a lot of indoor shooting, get the 35mm 1.8 or the 50mm 1.8. The extra aperture will allow you to shoot in much darker conditions.

7. Get an extra battery. One extra battery in the pocket frees you up to walk around most of the day with the camera on (if you like). There is nothing worse than missing a shot because you were trying to conserve battery life.

8. Don't forget to put the camera away every once in a while and just enjoy the day. If you see a great sunrise, for example, enjoy it first. Then take a picture so you can remember how much you enjoyed it. The picture will never match the sunrise itself, and you don't want the only memory to be fidgeting with the camera.