Swamp Gator,
Nice stuff; you clearly have better stuff behind your house than I do!

Thought I would jump in about teleconverters. I use both Canon 1.4x and 2x; both version III (got rid of the II's) and I am happy with them. They do require micro focusing, so three photos
Snow Goose 600 &1.4x 1/2500 at f8 400 ISO head and feet are sharp to me
Ibis is 600 & 2x at f8 iso 800
The birds head is 300mm & 2x f6.3 ISO is 25600 Correct ISO is 26500 with no noise reduction in processing shooting a 1DX for all

600 mm with 1.4x


600mm & 2x F8 at ISO 800 handheld


300mm & 2x 1/1250 F8 ISO 26500 handheld

Gene51 is correct about photoshop vs LR; however as a wildlife photographer I have shot as many as 2-4000 frames in a day. I find it faster to load into LR, and trim that down to the 200 best, than using bridge or Photoshop for that. Then when I get serious about processing it is exported into LR. I like the features in LR to organize the photos as well. Some photos don't need more than LR which is, I think, the same as photoshop raw.

I can't explain why, but he is published and I am not in that mag. However, 4000 ISO on a 1DX does not have significant noise. Maybe the action was so fast he chose 1/1600, but you would think 1/800 would have done it. Depth of field probably was not a factor as with that lens DoF is going to be large.
I shoot birds with a 1DX and frequently have about the same settings for flying birds and noise is not an issue.

Use Both. For me about 85% of the work is in LR and the rest in photoshop. The $10 per month may sound like a lot, but it is a bargain for these amazing programs and you are always up to date with the latest version.

Auto focus depends on the body. Autofocus works will with 1DX. my other suggestion is to microfocus all your longer lenses and lens extender combos. That helps a lot

Lightroom and photoshop CC; $10 per month for the best.

Might I suggest you look into buying a better beamer. about $70 and it attaches a fresnel lens out in front of your flash and properly set will add fill light out as far as 200-300 feet. I do a lot of bird photography and almost always use it. I also use an external (big) battery for the flash so that I get more flashes when shooting high speed. I'll attach a couple of shot of eagle's nest at over 100 yards, not great photos, but you can see the difference easily. The parrot photo is "too" flashed to suit me, but it surely separates the bird from the background. The parrot was a good 40 yards - shot with 600mm. Small investment and can really help in wildlife photography

no flash


normal canon flash with beamer over 100 yes


better beamer at 40 yards or so

to make a preset: choose a raw photo and "fix" it; here are my settings: Highlight -100, shadow +100, white +45, black -60, clarity +20 or 25, vibrance +35, sharpening 60.
after you have fixed one (and change the above to your taste) then Create a Develop preset

Presets you create are based on the current settings of the selected photo.

In the Develop module, click the Create New Preset (+) button at the top of the Presets panel or choose Develop > New Preset.
Click Check All to select everything or click Check None to deselect everything, and then click to select each of the settings to include in the preset.
Type a name in the Preset Name box, specify which folder the preset should appear in, and click Create.
The preset is added to the list in the Presets panel in the specified folder. Then when importing, select this user preset.

I would not shoot raw if you are not going to post process. That said, why not post process? I have presets so that when I import raw photos, they almost all look better than JPGs right off the bat. And if you screw up the exposure or the temp, you can still fix it in raw.

If you want the best photos, you post process.
Bill

I view high quality lenses as an investment of sorts. Buy carefully and you will not loose a lot of money. I had a canon 600mm F4.0 for several years; a lot of time in Alaska with some wear on the $100 cover, but glass was good and I sold it for $1500 more than I paid for it. My experience is that bodies drop in value, but high end lenses keep their value. That said, you have to be able to tie up significant amount of dollars.

There are several. Look near your home. Borrowlenses.com has several locations.

I used to have the 100-400 and got good photos; like others I did not like the push-pull zoom. Sold it and now use 70-200 f2.8 and sometimes use 1.4 or 2x extenders. Microfocusing each lens and combo with extenders is essential to get tack sharp.

I would suggest breaking the bank and consider the 300mm f2.8 the focus is so fast, so good and super sharp. I got a grey market model and saved a few bucks. An investment, but it will hold it's value. When you add extenders to that you have up to 600 mm lens of very high quality.

Hi, I have done a lot of photography in Alaska. There is no substitute for good glass and micro focusing every lens in bag. Canon "L" lenses are excellent, but expensive. I do use an extender both 1.4 and 2x which are the latest canon series III and when micro focused are good. If your trip is not long, consider renting either a canon 300 f2.8 or 600 f4.0 or the 200-400 with built in 1.4x and if on a good tripod, your results will be better than anything you are discussing. See birdsasart.com for micro focus information. I'll be happy to share more of my experience if you wish, but zoom's with big range don't remotely compare to lenses recommended above.

$100 is cheap when you consider how it will keep your lens looking great when you want to re-sell