Adobe uses the same stitching engine in all of its programs. I do not like it in PSE, so I'm not surprised that you don't like the LR version. I've not tried autostitch because I've been very satisfied with ICE. To each their own!

The Sony RX1R has a 35mm lens on this little full-frame p/s. The bushes were about 4-5 feet away.

I have been experimenting with stitched panoramas. At first, I did my stitching with Photoshop Elements 9, but then I heard about ICE. So far, I think I prefer ICE. Yes, the interface could be refined, but the quality of the results is definitely there. I made this image at "Valley View" in Yosemite Valley, which is on Northside Drive, just before the Pohono Bridge crossover. I shot it with a rented Sony RX1R, which I placed on my tripod in portrait (vertical) position. I made four images that I have stitched together. Exposure was f/8 at 1/100th, with ISO Auto.

(Download)

When thinking simply in terms of the body, usually the heaviest component in a DSLR is the pentaprism -- the hump on the top of the camera. That's one of the appeals of the newer mirrorless cameras.

My experience has been that the manufacturer supplies the best software for their scanners. I have the Epson V600 and have scanned hundreds of slides with it. I created my own mask for my medium-format slides. The software is quite versatile and user-friendly.

Amen to all of those mentioned, particularly Signal Mountain, where you can make good use of your wide-angle lens at all times of the day and night. For wildlife, shorelines of lakes and rivers are great to explore.

Yes! I've used the Sony RX10iii, and so long as you don't plan on making giant prints, it is an excellent choice!

For a good value, you may want to consider one of the Amazon Basics tripods. I use the AmazonBasics 52-Inch Carbon Fiber Travel Tripod with Bag. It is less than $100, and it is certainly not perfect, but it is rock solid for the price, and it is reasonably easy to use.

A year ago, I rented an RX10iii to document a church picnic. It produced amazingly good results. It is a bit heavier than the previous two versions because of the long zoom range. It is the size and weight of a DSLR with a moderate zoom. As a p/s camera, it has a nice and large 1-inch sensor with a long zoom range. Results were projected on large screens, and the images were impressive. I can see why you would want to use it for birding. The viewfinder is bright and easy-to-read. Focus was fast. Zooming out to the full-frame equivalent of 600mm, there is no perceptible loss of sharpness, even zoomed all the way out. I loved using it. I spent a few hours learning to use the menus beforehand, and I recommend that you play with it a while before leaving on your trip.

Create a png file without a background layer. You'll have to play with both file size and box size where you'll insert your copy of the png file. Here's my previous answer --

"Quite some time ago I signed my name on a white piece of paper with green fountain-pen ink. Then I scanned it and worked on it in PSE. Using a favorite typeface, I put the copyright symbol and "copyright" above the signature, and then I created a png file without the white background. In addition to the green version, I also have both black and white signature png files, which I use more often. The advantage of using a fountain pen for the original is that there are subtle variations in the color and/or density of the signature, and it looks more authentic in my estimation. I try to place my signature in a small, unobtrusive area."

Quite some time ago I signed my name on a white piece of paper with green fountain-pen ink. Then I scanned it and worked on it in PSE. Using a favorite typeface, I put the copyright symbol and "copyright" above the signature, and then I created a png file without the white background. In addition to the green version, I also have both black and white signature png files, which I use more often. The advantage of using a fountain pen for the original is that there are subtle variations in the color and/or density of the signature, and it looks more authentic in my estimation. I try to place my signature in a small, unobtrusive area.

I rented a Sony RX10iii for a picnic, and the results were very impressive. I suggest that you rent a camera from LensRentals.com to try out for a few days.

I agree with all of your points. Still, as I have searched out the possibilities, I have discovered the NiSi Natural Night Filter. Users say it is quite effective. At B&H, it is every bit as expensive as most filters used for astronomy, but they are available at lower cost direct from China on Ebay for less than $100 US. I've read a few articles on its use and seen before/after examples that are impressive though not by any means perfect.

I am considering the purchase of an enhancing filter. I've known for years that they are used to give autumn colors a "push" in intensity. I'm not talking about so-called "warming" filters that simply lower the color temperature. I'm talking about filters made with Didymium Glass. Recently, I've learned that they are also useful for astro-photography because they selectively eliminate the colors of sodium-intensive lighting that cause most of the light pollution from our cities. According to Wikipedia, "Didymium photographic filters are often used to enhance autumn scenery by making leaves appear more vibrant. It does this by removing part of the orange region of the color spectrum, acting as an optical band-stop filter. Unfiltered, this group of colors tends to make certain elements of a picture appear "muddy." The "Sodium Vapor Process" used in motion picture matte work included a didymium filtering prism in the camera."

The Singh-Ray filters and the Kenko Astro LPR Type II Filters are overpriced. That leaves the Tiffen, Lee, and Hoya filters. Has anyone out there used the Tiffen, Lee, or Hoya filters for fall colors? Which give the best results?

When you're in a camera store, you may also want to consider either the Sony RX10ii or Sony RX10iii. The former has a more limited zoom range and costs less. The latter has a much longer zoom, is heavier, and costs more. Both make superb images.