thanks

Two totally different issues - CVS has also stopped carrying coffin nails (cigarettes) - also for health reasons - so this is one more positive move.

I agree in this case - CVS is a client telling a photographer (who they have hired directly or indirectly) to produce product images the type of photos they want (i.e. not manipulated is such a way as to create illusions of perfection in their models that are unrealistic) - how is this different than any other clients with specific requirements and standards for advertising purposes?

So, what you are saying then is that a client who uses your photos in advertising of products should have no say about those images - they should have to accept them as you decide best?

I don't really think that is such a difficult issue - avoid the manipulation that alters the way the model actually looks - creating unrealistic ideals that actually don't exist in real life - I think the intent of CVS is pretty clear.

Not really the same thing - Adams "manipulated" his images in the creation of an artistic rendering of landscapes - what CVS is talking about is manipulating images in a way that misrepresents how real women look - creating an illusion that the models are far more "perfect" than anyone can truly be. There is ample evidence that this causes issues with some young women who get an under the radar message that if they don't have that same perfected look that they are somehow lesser for it - and what really is the point in doing that? I think this is a good move on the part of CVS.

When I have explained the exposure triangle I usually start out in very general terms and then gradually flesh out the settings with specifics once the concepts are clear.

For example - I would generally start out defining what we mean by "exposure" - very simple terms - how light or dark the photo is - too much exposure the photo is way too light and washed out - too little exposure the photo is way too dark and muddy looking - somewhere in between we find the "correct" exposure where the photo appears the way we want it to appear.

Next - more light into the camera results in more exposure and a lighter photo - cut back on that light getting into the camera and the photo is rendered darker.

What are the controls on the camera that regulated how much light gets into the camera?
1. Lens aperture - which is a measure of the size of the opening in the lens - bigger opening allows more light into the camera - compare to a round window on a ship (porthole) - bigger window, more light - smaller window, less light
2. how long we allow light to enter the camera - longer period of time, more light enters - lesser period of time, less light enters
Combo of the two determines how much light overall can enter.

How sensitive is the camera (or more specifically the CCD or CMOS sensor) to light - introduce concept of ISO as a measure of how sensitive the camera will be to the light entering the camera.

So far - no numbers or mathematical ideas used at all.

Once the basic concepts are clear - introduce the idea that the end result on exposure is a combination of the factors just introduced. I have found that a useful (as well as very easy to draw) diagram is as follows:

Draw three vertical lines side by side - label the three as ISO, Aperture, Time (Shutter Speed)
Draw about a half dozen hash marks to divide each vertical line into segments (make sure the hash marks all line up and are equally spaced
Indicate that as we move upward on any of these lines the photo will get lighter and when we move downward the photo gets darker
Now define each hash mark as a doubling of light for each hash mark in the upward direction or a halving for each notch downward.
Put a check mark next to one hash mark on each line (somewhere around the middle in each case) and ask the class to assume that this combo is the "correct" exposure
Now point out that a move up on any one will result in a lighter photo and a move down will darken the photo
Next concept - if we move up one of the factors by say 3 notches (leaving the others alone) the photo will get much lighter (and probably washed out) - We can correct for the now too light photo by moving either of the other two factors (or both in combo) a total of 3 notches down to achieve the same exposure as we originally had - just a different combo of the 3 factors. (Note: I often compare this to using a wall mounted dimmer switch some of which you slide up or down to change the light.)
Now flesh out the diagram with the numbers - Highest ISO, Widest Aperture and Slowest Shutter Speed at the top of each vertical line.
The "math" is really pretty simple and intuitive for ISO as well as shutter speed
For aperture - seems counter-intuitive so you will need to point out that the aperture settings are actually in the form of fractions - the top number is represented by "f" and does not vary unless you use a different focal length - so as the bottom number gets larger the value of the fraction gets smaller (as in smaller diameter lens opening letting in less light) - make the concept simple by using the slicing of a pie as an illustration - the whole pie is "1" in the numerator - as we cut the pie into more pieces (4 pieces, versus 6 pieces, versus 8 pieces) the size of the pieces get smaller.
Last concept - there are many combos of aperture, shutter speed and ISO that will give us the same "exposure" but not really an identical photo - this is where you explain how aperture effects depth of field, how shutter speed impacts motion (or lack thereof) in the photo - subject movement and/or camera movement implications, and how ISO effects overall image quality (noise, etc.)
Anyhow - hope this is helpful to you.

About a year and a half ago I went to Disney world with my son, daughter-in-law and my granddaughter. I really think you should consider taking far less gear - there is a great deal of walking around, it is often hot and humid in the park (as well as crowded) and a lot of big and heavy gear may well limit your enjoyment of the day (I often find that the less gear I carry the more photos I actually take and the more I enjoy it - not hassling around with being a pack mule.) As well, these are family photos and probably not photos that will ever be blown up to gallery sized prints - so do you really need the very highest quality gear? I haven't touched any of my Nikon DSLR cameras since I started shooting with mirrorless cameras - I have both a SONY system and a Panasonic LUMIX (micro 4/3) system - at the time of my trip I had just gotten the LUMIX G7 and had only the basic kit lens that came with the camera a 14-42mm lens - (which would be the equivalent of 28-84mm on your full frame DSLR) - I can tell you that the focal length range was great for what I was doing - not once did I feel hindered - and the shots I was able to capture were excellent. As to carrying that camera all day - I hardly felt it - it is so very light. As to fill flash - for some of my outdoor family shots I did use the pop up flash and that also worked out very well.

Sorry that's not correct - the 28-300mm is very definitely an FX lens - you may be confusing it with the 18-300mm lens which is DX

Many years ago I owned an LP record of this concert - listened to it over and over again and tried to emulate Benny Goodman on the clarinet - also was amazed by Lionel Hampton. Some years later my late wife asked me if it was ok to loan the record to one of her colleagues who was a big fan - never did get the record back.

I have adapters from both my SONY A6000 and my Panasonic LUMIX G7 so that I can use my older Nikkor lenses - the adapters were purchased from FOTODIOX.com and cost around $30 per - so the manual focus nikkor lenses can be just as easily adapter for use on either system

I currently own both a SONY A6000 and a Panasonic LUMIX G7 - for the A6000 I have the 16-50mm kit lens that came with the camera (I rarely use this lens - it's just so-so on quality) as well as the 20mm f/2.8 and 28mm f/2 FE lenses. With the G7 I have the 14-42mm kit lens (actually a pretty decent little lens - although I shoot almost exclusively with primes), the 19mm, 30mm and 60mm Sigma ART lenses (all are f/2.8) and just recently added the 17mm f/1.8 Olympus M.ZUIKO lens. For both systems I have adapters that allow me to also use my older Nikon manual focus lenses.

OK - so how do they compare, which do I prefer and so forth?

I find myself gravitating more and more to the G7 - I find the image quality to be excellent and the ergonomics of the camera are superior (IMO) to the A6000, at least for the way I tend to shoot. I like to shoot often in the manual mode - the G7 was two dials on the top plate - I have the one up front set to change the aperture and the rear one to vary the shutter speed. The rear dial also has a small button on top - when pressed it allows the front and the rear dials to set the White Balance and ISO respectively - so all the controls needed reside with those two dials.

The biggest complaint I hear about MFT cameras is that the smaller image sensor results in poorer low light (ie - high ISO) performance. I agree that the high ISO performance (amount of "noise") is not as good on my G7 versus my A6000 when the same ISO is used and compared. I find the difference to be equivalent to one stop - let me elaborate. We often determine the aperture to use based on the depth of field we need for each capture. Keep in mind that on a MFT camera the depth of field you get is similar to the depth of field you get on an APC sized sensor (like that in the A6000) with a one stop smaller aperture - so, f/5.6 on my G7 gives me about the same dof as f/8 does on my A6000 - if all other factors influencing dof are standardized. So I can also drop my ISO setting by a full notch (on the G7 versus the A6000) which helps to overcome the high ISO performance issue. A better comparison would be to compare ISO settings with this one stop difference.

Overall image quality? Obviously the quality of the lens in use has much to do with this matter as well as your technique in actually using the camera. Your end use for the photo also needs to be considered. If, for example, your use of the photos is to post them to social media sites for viewing (FB, Instagram, Flickr, etc.) you will be very hard pressed to see any difference. On paper prints, you would need to push past 16x20 to see any appreciable difference, and even there the difference is seen mainly when doing a hyper-critical side by side comparison (kind of an on-paper version of "pixel-peeping") - not so much if the enlargements are viewed as we would normally when hung on the wall.

Those are my thoughts - for what they are worth.

No - too many variables and scenarios to give the edge to any particular focal length.

The SB-26 is not an iTTL model flash - will not work in TTL mode on a D5200. Needs to be used in either manual mode or "auto" mode.

Authorized Nikon dealers who carry refurbs get those cameras direct from Nikon - so the only issue is in dealing with a reputable store and avoiding the scammers - check the dealer ratings before you buy.