In your private air? The sky is a highway and its use must be regulated for everyone's safety! This is not a question of infringement of your rights so much as a question of my safety.

Over the decades I have enjoyed many types of photography: travel photography, including the architecture and people of far away places; landscape, particularly waterfalls and fast moving streams, but mountains and trees as well; flowers and all manner of pretty growing things, particularly very little growing things (macro); wading birds (which are the easiest of wildlife, for I lack the one tool all great wildlife photographers always have in their kit in order to photograph shyer animals - patience); and when I had the studio, we did lots of product photography.

But I have always been first and foremost a photographer of people. Not so much a portrait photographer, which I'm pretty good at, but a photographer of people going about their everyday business, or celebrating extraordinary happenings! People at weddings, or enjoying themselves at a dance, a family reunion, a retirement; or candids of people at work or in schools - photos of teachers and students interacting, and gaggles of students gossiping or horsing around.

And all manner of sports. Mostly high school and college sports: football and baseball and basketball and soccer, and wrestling, and golf, and fencing, and gymnastics, and swimming and diving, and field hockey as well as ice hockey, and la cross, and volley ball, and ... And always the pretty cheer leaders!

But I've slowed down and now I'm pretty much limited to taking pictures of great grand children at play, and when I can be with them, those of my grandchildren still young enough to be doing sports at school, and in their communities. But, now that you mention it, I think I'll get out there and do some scenery and maybe some birds. Just take some pictures for the joy of being out there, and the challenge of doing it right!

Mine was a 77 mm Circular Polarizer HMC-Super Thin Filter that cost $150-200! I had gotten it during the winter and didn't have occasion to use it til the following summer when it "disassembled" the first time I tried to use it. It was well past the time when I could have returned it! So I tried putting it back together but, in the end, had to take it to a camera shop where they reassembled it, but advised that it could come apart again at any time. Needless to say, I use it very sparingly. (I most often use a CPL filter on a 67 mm lens, and have purchased a much cheaper version for it.)

Let me repeat that: "THE IMPORTANT FACTOR IS CONTROL AND UNDERSTANDING!" If you knowingly use the tools, the mode, the settings, that give you the desired results, then you are making a photograph!

Years ago, when I did a lot of cold weather shooting with film, I wore a pair of polypropylene "glove liners" that kept me pretty warm and allowed me to change film, et al, while wearing them. But, when I wore a hole in the shooting finger, I tried a pair of silk glove liners on a shoot in the Grand Canyon during a snow fall - they did not keep me warm.

Just recently, watching an episode of "Wild Photo Adventures" shot in the Yellowstone winter on PBS, the host talked about clothing needs and recommended "running gloves". I picked up a pair by Head, and though not as tactile as my old polypro liners, it appears they may be viable for pushing the shutter release and "back button focusing button on my D800. We'll see.

JohnFrim, thank you for an provocative post; BurkPhoto, thank you for you usual incisive, informative, and articulate response!

Some four decades ago, when I chose an Olympus OMn2 for my next camera, because it was fully manual capable as well as aperture preferred auto, my friend thought I was daft. "Manual exposure!" He reprimanded me, "do you think you are smarter than the camera?"

Yes, I was and am!!! But, that camera, and those I have used since are pretty damn smart.

A salesman back then, pushing an all manual camera (built in "match needle" metering system) told me he just metered on a neutral (i.e.' green grass, etc.) surface, and used that setting for hours. And it worked, if you were using negative film. The lab would do the necessary "post processing". But I soon learned that slide film needed greater "up front" control, particularly in changing lighting. Digital has a similar (lack of) latitude!

I rely on auto focus much of the time. I shoot a lot in Aperture Preferred mode. And I use "manual everything some of the time. But, then again, if I'm photographing a subject in fully manual mode, and I decide on fill flash, and I use my speedlight set to - 1 1/3 stops, I'm no longer in manual, am I?

Which gets us back to the definition of "Manual" requested by the poster, to which I respond, "Who gives a [insert your favorite expletive]!"

True, but two decades ago when I began shooting high school and college sports, you were required to have a good flash. When I started, we were shooting Tri-X; in a pinch you could push it to ISO 1600, but only in an emergency. Color film limited you to ISO 400! In the gym, you could not stop the action without flash! So all indoor sports were shot with flash. Some (Volley Ball, Gymnastics, Diving, Fencing, for instance) were shot during warm ups, so as to not disturb the athletes during competition, but Basketball, Wrestling, and Swimming were all shot with on camera flash.

When we first moved to digital, the lack of quality at higher ISO's still did not permit available light photography. (I did experiment with a second off camera slave which improved quality.) Eventually, better camera sensors and better gym lighting did permit flashless photography in some cases. But I retired well before today's high ISO capable cameras were developed.

In event photography (i.e., Wedding), I worked with a number of photographers who shot everything - indoors and outside - with two flashes, one on a bracket above the camera, and a slave manned by an assistant, equidistant from the subject, 45 degrees off to the side of the shooter. (These photographers often shot at f/11, so they took almost all shots at or beyond the hyperfocal distance. And that bracket was used to keep the flash directly above the lens, throwing the shadow down behind the subject, where it couldn't be seen, not to "improve" the light by getting it higher.) I was fortunate, however to have been mentored by several photographers that emphasized bounce flash (which then put a premium on focusing).

Last year, I attended a Granddaughters wedding, and was not surprised to see the very professional wedding photographer using a modern DSLR ("35mm" full frame), but was astounded as the light at the outdoor reception at dusk got dimmer and dimmer, but they never broke out the flash gear, just upped the ISO. (Fortunately, there was a high overcast to keep the natural light, even as it faded away, soft and even.)

"Getting it right in the camera" has taken several turns over my photographic life. Forty years ago I joined a camera club and went from "Surprise, look what I did" when the prints from a roll of print film, or, occasionally, a box of slides came back from the camera store, to trying to get it right for the monthly club contests.

In addition to the other tribulations of a learning photographer (subject matter, composition, exposure, et al), I was plagued with a camera viewfinder that only showed 94% of the picture area. Thus, I would often find unwanted picture elements peeking in around the perimeters of the slide. Eventually, I learned to remount my slides in special masked mounts, to eliminate these distracting elements.

Then I became owner and chief go-fur at a studio and lab. There, I learned to leave a little room for cropping when shooting print film. Later I was a school photographer for a period of time; there they provided me with a viewfinder mask for my Mamiya RB, outlining the placement of groups for optimal printing.

Eventually, I went digital, and relearned the value of leaving a little room so I could refine my composition in post processing. And I am always very aware of the different dimensions a print might take (not forcing the print and frame to fit my composition, as Wrongo suggests). There are only a few standard framing ratios to be concerned with: 3:2 (i.e., 6"x4" ); 4:5 (4"x5", 8'x10", 11"x14", 16"x20", et al); 5:7 (5"x7", a bit of an orphan, but there are a lot of prints this size made); and square!

Although I know people who just want 6"x4" prints to slide into the pages of their ready made "Photo Albums"", I pretty much ignore this print size. I shoot for the 5:4 family of print/frame sizes, but with an allowance on the long dimension for those who ask for 5"x7" prints. And, occasionally, I find a composition that begs for the square format, or even (if I'm custom mounting & framing), circular or oval!

In every case, it is up the photographer to leave enough room around the perimeter to accomadate cropping in post processing!

Back when I was breaking into photography as a new career, I made myself available to a few organizations including the local Chamber of Commerce. This was in the film era, and they had to pay for film and processing, but this got me known, got me a few paying jobs, and helped me hone my skills.

Now, having pretty much retired, I will occasionally show up at an event with my cameras and offer my services. Unless there is already a paid photographer (just pack up and leave or stand back and watch), I am welcomed. A CD sent at the end makes the organizers very happy. The biggest problem comes when the event rolls around again, and you feel obligated to do your part, even though that interferes with something else on your agenda - just don't over promise.

Once in a while, the desire is for prints of individuals or groups in attendance to be given out at the event. Great PR but a logistical nightmare! Making time to do the printing is near impossible. I did it for pay a few times, but the headaches were not worth it.

I've been bouncing Nikon Speedlights in TTL mode for decades! Works great. (You do have to stay within the light output capacity of the unit. But that's the same in manual mode!)

My congratulations to BruceWells on his decision. I too would probably have gone with a crop body to go with his D610. The D7100 gives him a viable backup for most any situation (depending on the shot and his available lenses, it may leave him lacking for wide angle shots), and provides the same 24 mg, so no fall off in that area (though that isn't all that important), and he has the crop factor to enhance his long shots.

I have been carrying, or at least having available, two bodies since the early 80's. Back then, I only had prime lenses, so carrying two cameras to avoid missing shots during lens or film changes saved many a shot.

But unlike several other responders, I have needed that second body due to a camera failure. First time was on a backpacking trip with my son; my camera body had been cracked when I fell, and began acting up in the moist Pacific Northwest air. Fortunately, a point in shoot I had bought him, saved the day.

A few years later, my F100 quit working mid shoot, but I finished with an old N8008 (repaired after that backpacking problem) that was in my bag. And after going digital, I wore out two shutter boxes (D100 & D70) and had to go to back ups mid-shoot in both instances. So, if the shot is critical, Murphy's law will control! Its not a question of IF, but WHEN!

The NX2 installed on my Windows 8.1 machine seems to have survived the OS upgrade to Windows 10 and continues to work just fine.

There would appear to be only two reasons to choose a D7100 over a D610: purchase cost and carry weight! As you already have the D610 and FX lenses, the cost to purchase is eliminated! And if carry weight is the deciding factor, then selling your entire kit and going to a mirrorless design (perhaps with a smaller sensor) would appear a better option.

I have no personal experience with any of the mirrorless systems, so I would not presume to advise you further in that direction, but I have been given to understand there are several high quality choices.

As a Nikon shooter for the past quarter century, and a digital photographer for a decade and a half, I was very happy when I was able to upgrade to a Full Frame sensor (and 36 mega pixels), regaining the whole useable image area projected by my FF lenses. At the same time, I would like to upgrade my D200, which I still use as a backup, to a D7200. This would give me a 24 mp camera that would provide the apparent "reach" advantage of a "crop sensor" when using long lenses. (That "reach" advantage is available on my D800, shooting in "crop mode", but at a lower 16 mp and I still need that updated backup.)

I am no gambler! I only purchase equipment from somebody who has been around for a while, who will be here tomorrow; someone that gives a reliable guarantee. That pretty much eliminates Ebay, and sellers I have only met on-line, and that I don't have a long term relation with!

The used camera market is a tough way to make a living. KEH and B&H are very good at it. They are very tough graders of equipment they buy. They then clean and make necessary repairs, and then put it into stock, market it with a conservative rating, guarantee it, take on-line or payment by personal check, and package it up and ship it to the buyer with return rights. The standard retail mark-up on used camera gear is 40-50%! At that rate, they are making a reasonable profit, not ripping anyone off.

Yes, you can do better, price-wise, as both a buyer and seller of used equipment, in the private market place. But price isn't the only criteria. I have a friend who got stuck big time ($$$$ bounced check) selling some medium format equipment through the internet, and buying from relatively unknown sources can be fraught with pitfalls as well. So, depending on your tolerance for risk and hassle (mine is pretty low), KEH or B&H (I can't endorse any other resellers of used equipment) can be your best bet and a bargain at that.

We had a lengthy discussion on this subject maybe a week back. I use a ballhead as it provides for tilt (I have tried working just on the monopod with no head, tilting the monopod as needed, but found that to be uncomfortable) and allows turning the camera 90 degrees to the portrait orientation quickly. One of the other posters pointed out, quite correctly, that if you are shooting with a longer lens with a tripod collar, a tilt head works quite well.

Normally, on a monopod, your ballhead OR tilt head would be tightened sufficient to provide drag, but not to be a solid, rigid connection, your left hand is always keeping everything in position, and when actually shooting, you have both hands on the camera. This provides you with great support, helps steady the camera, and yet gives you the flexibility to handle just about any situation.

Oh, and Amfoto1 is absolutely correct about the panning function!