In general, I think Americans over react to potential dangers in other countries. I was lucky enough to visit Istanbul and other parts of Turkey six years ago and have really wanted to return. I think it might be my favorite city among those I have visited. I loved the sights, smells, sounds, all of it. Since then, however, the political regime has gotten progressively intolerant and oppressive. It has jailed politicians, professors, journalists, indeed, anyone it feels threatened by. The city was extraordinarily safe for tourists then and I felt pretty free to roam with my camera at different hours. There were not a lot of tourists there when I was there, so I got some of my best photos I have ever gotten anywhere. I suppose it is still very safe for tourists now. But, I know I could not have the kind of trip now that I did then because it would be difficult to have the kinds of conversations I had with various individuals of different religions and politics that I had at the time. I still would like to go back, but, for me, not at this time. For others, I suspect the dangers of the city are mostly being exaggerated here. It is possible to fly in and fly out and not see the mess that is brewing under the surface everywhere in the country.

My Canon 16-35 f4 is my most used lens, but I have a Sony 12-24 F4 lens that I really like for European travel on my a7riii. It is terrific with interiors, especially when crowds prevent stitching, etc. I had a Canon 11-24 f4 that used sporadically for landscapes and got some very dramatic effects in some circumstances, but it was heavy and had a large protruding bulb that made it less than ideal for hiking. When I was shooting Nikon, I thought about getting the 14-24, but never did. I probably would have used it if I had it, but in general, I like the 16-35 range.

The only raw files I have had trouble viewing in Windows 10 are from the Canon EOS R--CR3 (also a problem with RP CR3 files). While the new Windows Raw extension mentioned here allows the viewing of some CR3 files, it still does not support viewing files from the R. It is not a huge deal. As others have pointed out FastViewer DPP4, Adobe, other programs allow one to view the CR3 files from the R, but I have a nice workflow I can't use with that camera. Just got the new Sony a7riv, which has raw files I can view without issue, so don't know what is the issue with CR3 files from the R (and RP).

To the OP, I haven't read through all of the replies yet, but I am guessing that others will ask you about what it is that you shoot and what features you prefer in the a7iii. I, too, am primarily a Canon user.

The a7iii was my first mirrorless camera, but I didn't keep it long. I just didn't like the image quality from it--photos seemed flat and dull without much detail. I got a good deal on an a7riii, which I liked much better. As someone who primarily uses cameras for landscape and travel photography, I have never paid too much attention to video features. The one thing I really didn't like about either Sony camera was the fact that they seemed to collect dust, so I was always having to clean the sensor. I got an R for a trip I knew would involve constant lens changes in not great conditions, and I really found myself preferring the image quality and colors from the R. I still have the Sony (and in fact recently got the a7rIV) because I have a fair number of great lenses for the Sony. The Sony lenses tend to be of high quality and smaller and lighter than Canon equivalents, which is great for travel photography. Canon's RF lenses are amazing, but many of the best ones are heavier than I personally like for either hiking/landscape or travel.

Both cameras are terrific, and my thoughts won't be of much use to you because camera ergonomics and results are pretty subjective, but I do want to encourage you if you can to look beyond paper specs before making your choice.

I like your photo of eagles!!!! While I originally recommended taking your Tamron 150-600, I am going to step back from that. I have been going to Maui every Christmas to visit family for the last 20 years. I always do a whale watch and enjoy visiting various places on the island while I am there. I have played with a variety of different cameras and lenses to balance out what I want to photograph, which includes beach and family shots as well as whales, mostly from boats. I think I hit my optimal setup last Christmas when I took a Canon sl2 with a 70-300 II USM lens (non L) and a 10-18 lens. The sl2 with the 70-300 is my kayak camera. It is light and easy to maneuver. I have used both a ff dslr (5dmki iv) and longer L lens (100-400 II) and a smaller fixed lens camera with a long lens (the Sony rx10 III). The full frame and L lens was too heavy, while the rx10 didn't really give me enough pixels to be able to crop in on whales from a boat (or land). I also used this setup to photograph whales in Baja California. I find the ability to move quickly with the camera, especially on a boat, is important. I think your Nikon 7200 should be ideal as a camera, maybe with the 18-200. That gives you both wide and pretty long (though I think 300 is better at the long end). I do agree with you that your 300 might be less than ideal. I was always in Maui in December when the whale season is just getting started and never got very close to whales though I did get frustrated with a lens too long in southern California when the whale was so close, I couldn't get the whole tail in a shot that was otherwise fantastic. The zoom gives you some flexibility. Many of the beaches are rugged and wild--you will want a wide angle for those shots; hence the recommendation for the 18-200. Others have given you great suggestions on where to go. Maui is a beautiful island with lots to do. I hope you enjoy your trip!

+1

I am guessing you don't want to be loaded down with lenses, but you will be there in whale season. You can see them from the shore, but I would highly recommend going out on a whale watch boat. They are not allowed to get that close to the whales, so your 100-600 might be a good bet. There are also many gorgeous scenes where you will want a wider angle lens. I have not had much luck with birds there. It's a beautiful island!!! Enjoy your trip.

To the OP, it looks like you have decided not to switch yet, which probably makes some sense. I moved to the RP, then the R for weight as I do a lot of hiking/photography. My main camera is a 5dmkIV, but I am using it less and less. I also have a Sony a7riii, which is my main travel camera. However, I was going to Bali and didn't want to constantly worry about sensor dust like I do with the Sony and didn't want to end up cloning a lot of dust spots out of my images. So, I jumped on the RP when it came out. I liked it will enough, but the battery life is terrible, and it isn't weather-sealed. When the weather reports started to indicate that there would be showers everyday in Bali (happily didn't happen), I got the R at the last minute, expecting to sell it when I got back. Turns out, I really liked the R -- battery life was pretty good, low light capabilities and DR were excellent. It took me awhile to get used to the autofocus, but I think it was better than the RP. I really like the RF 24-105 lens with it. I decided that the probability that I would use the RP again was low, so I sold it. Though it hasn't gotten great reviews, the R is an excellent camera. My only complaint is not being able to see Raw previews in Windows 10, but they are not a problem for Adobe and other major pp software.

How disappointing to hear they are ending the tours! Your camera and lens will be fine. When I did the tour of the upper canyon three years ago, you had to have a tripod to be part of the tour, so no non-photographers. I guess that has changed. I am glad I had the tripod, as it was pretty dark even during the Spring at mid-day. I agree with those who recommend mid-day by the way. They had already eliminated both photo tours and tripods in the lower canyon when I was there. We took the regular tour, and I was able to get some decent shots without the tripod and people though it was a bit tricky. I would recommend doing both canyons if you have the time. Horseshoe Bend is very easy to get to--just a short walk from the road; hence, lots of people there ready to take photos. It should be a bit better in December, but it is worth the effort.

As several others have mentioned, it is very dusty in the canyons. You will be shooting in low light. I am pretty short, so I ended up mostly standing with my tripod and shooting up the walls. I also ended up cloning out a lot of people in shots where I didn't do this. Enjoy your time here and listen to the Navajo guides. They have been doing this for a long time and understands what works and doesn't work for photographers.

I agree with those who have asked about what other lenses you plan to take with you. I was in Israel two years ago with a 5 d mk iv and a 16-35 f4 lens. I also had a Sony RX 100 V, which had the equivalent of a 24-70 lens on it. This was a travel combination I used frequently until about a year ago. It mostly worked, as a lot of the photographs I wanted were adequately captured in that range. I went on multiple tours of most of the country and walked a lot, so I didn't really want to be loaded down with gear. There were some times, however, that I wanted a longer reach and was frustrated that I didn't have a longer lens. I don't know that I would have taken a 300 mm lens with me, but I definitely could have used a 70-200 in multiple places. I wouldn't have sacrificed the wide angle for the longer lens, but I missed enough to completely reevaluate my travel combo. For the record, I am now using two different sets of gear when I travel: (1) a Canon R with the RF 24-105 F4 and the inexpensive RF 35 F1.8 (I am thinking of getting the 24-240 lens) and the Sony RX 100 VI, that has the equivalent of a 24-200 lens on it or (2) a Sony a7riii with the 12-24 F4 and Tamron 28-75 F 2.8 with the Sony RX 100 VI (which I probably would have taken to Israel had I had these cameras and lenses then, as I really like that Sony wide angle lens). I also might have taken to Israel the 24-240 Sony lens with the 12-24.

Canon has a very decent 10-18 mm f4-5.6 lens that would work nicely on your camera. It would be worth getting if you don't have it already for use in narrow streets (most of the places you will probably visit) and hopefully some interiors that are not too dark.

Much of your camera/lens choice will depend on what you want to photograph. I definitely could have (been allowed to) use a tripod in some places, but mostly I could not. Being in a tour group, I probably wouldn't bother with a tripod, especially if there is a trade off between the tripod and a longer lens.

Good luck with your choices. I really enjoyed my time in Israel a lot and had some wonderful photo opportunities!!!

I don't know that I would call any digital compact "vintage," but I really liked the Panasonic Lumix ZS7. It is a 12.1 mpx camera with a 12x lens. I used and abused it for years. It failed temporarily twice after getting doused with salt water in my kayak though came back to life after replacing batteries and drying it off in a bag of rice both times. It kept taking pictures in below zero weather in Russia one winter when my better and more expensive Nikon failed. I have some great shots from it from Turkey. It still works fine though I have moved on. It was by far one of the best small cameras available around 2010 when I bought it. I upgraded it to two newer Panasonic zs cameras, but was not satisfied with the "soft" image quality in either one. When the Sony RX100 came out with the 1" sensor, I switched to Sony because the image quality was so much better than other little cameras, including the ZS7. I only just sold the rx100 original a year or so ago when I got the RX100 vi. I liked the original RX100 a lot better than most of the models that came out between the original and the vi, partly because it had a slightly longer zoom. It was also a workhorse camera. A friend dropped it on a marble floor at Hearst Castle--dinged it some, but didn't affect it. I got caught in a blizzard with it near the top of Mt. Whitney--it survived just fine. It's not really "vintage" but very good.

I only partially get the idea of a "travel" camera that is distinct from the rest of my gear. If I am going to someplace via plane, I am most likely to be going some place I haven't been to before. I want the best pictures I can get. Thus, my tendency is to use a ff camera with whatever lens I think will give me the most latitude. I rarely carry more than two lenses. For the past six years or so, I have also taken some version of the Sony RX100 with me, as there are times I want a small camera I can fit in a pocket and get very high quality photos (though it is better in the day time than at night). I do get the idea of wanting to travel light and not be weighted down by cameras. On my last trip (to Budapest), I took my Sony a7riii with the Sony 12-24 f4 and Tamron 28-75 2.8 as well as a RX100 VI. The combination worked out really well for me. I didn't really use the Tamron lens very much, as I could get great longer shots with the RX100.

Obviously, what camera you use is a personal preference and dependent upon what you want to photograph. I used a Canon R with the EF 16-35 f4 and RF 24-105 F4 along with the RX100 VI in Bali a few months earlier. It also worked very well for me there.

Israel is one of the most interesting places I have visited; I was there two years ago. I went on several guided and non guided tours in order to see as much of the country as I could. If you are going with a Church group, they have probably already organized what you will see. As many have said here, you will find a fast wide zoon or prime much more useful. Everyone who takes a tour ends up in Jerusalem. It is very old, dark city. To get to the Church of the Holy sepluchre, you need to walk down quite of few streets of traders. The Church itself was hard for me to photograph in, as I was using a 5 d mk iv with the 16-35 f4 lens. The image stabilization was great, but still there were quite a few spots where I had wished i had brought my 2.8 III version of the lens. The Same was true when we visited the sites along the "historic Christian" area -- Nazareth, the Sea of Galilelee and quite a few other Biblical spots.. I had a Sony rx100 v to get a few longer shots, but rarely used it for that purpose; I don't know if I would use the v6 more since it has the longer reach. The Canon 10-22 f3.5-4.5 might be a good lens to take along with Tamron. It is wide and bright and will allow you to get a lot of special photos that would be hard with the longer lens.

In any case, have fun.

I had a professional photographer recommend a baby stroller for zoos. I carried my camera on my tripod; he and several of the other photographers in the group, especially those with the huge lenses, used rented baby strollers that seemed to work well.

I would take the 200-500 if you are going on a safari. I think you will want the reach.