I hesitate to respond here, but I think you really need to seriously consider a new computer/os to process the D850 files. The subscription is nice, but their may be cheaper alternatives, including Nikon software. Everything about newer computers make photo processing, especially of large mpx files much easier, and you can do so much more with the new software. Good, newer computers don't have to cost an arm and a leg. Having processed both Canon 50 mpx files from the 5dsr and Sony 42 mpx files from the a7riii, can stress even my fairly high end computers. This is especially true of the Sony files, which are uncompressed raw. I am assuming Nikon has a compressed raw format that will be faster to process like Canon files.

Good luck!!! It sounds like you have some tough choices to make! And, I hope you can enjoy your daughter's wedding.

Hi Linda, I am curious why you returned the 16-35 2.8 III? It is the lens I use the most for auroras and milky ways. If you had kept that lens, I would say you could get rid of the 16-35 f4, although I have kept mine, as it is one of my favorite lenses and I use it a lot in travel photography. The iq is not much different between the two lenses, though I like the light weight of the f4 version. Unfortunately, it is a little slow for astrophotography. I have had bad look with Samyang/Rokinon 14 mm lenses, though others have found them quite good. the last time I tried to get a good copy though was several years ago so they might be a lot better now. I use the Canon 14 and 24, but I would recommend processing the photos with Canon's DPP4, which does a pretty good job getting rid of the lens aberrations. I would not get rid of the 16-35 f4 unless you really don't use it right now. Another possibility for auroras is the Sigma 14 mm lens, which is excellent, fairly inexpensive, but heavy. Good luck! I would love to go to Iceland for auroras!!!

I, too, am a native Californian and had no clue where Helenville was. I looked it up on the map and found it is north of Victorville. You are miles from any California beaches. As others have pointed out, they are crowded now and it will take you at least two hours each way probably to get to any of them depending on traffic. You are much closer to either Lake Arrowhead or Big Bear Lake, which are in the mountains a bit south of where you will be. I don't know what all you are interested in photographing but Lone Pine might make more sense. It is north of where you are on 395. It is in the Sierras, and you can get to the Mt Whitney portal (though will probably be crowded). The Alabama Hills are also very interesting. This is assuming you want to do landscapes. Joshua Tree is also one of my favorite places. The problem with all of these areas except maybe Big Bear is that it is very hot right now.

Good luck in finding places you want to see. Just remember that traffic on the freeways can be brutal as can the weather at this time of year.

Are there any good camera stores near where you live? Think Tank bags are great, but I wasted money on various bags that didn't work for one reason or another trying to figure them out like you are. I finally went into a Samys camera store (not close, but not far either). I told the guy what I needed to carry, he recommended a bag and showed me how it could all fit and asked me about different lenses I might carry. Each time he grabbed lenses off the shelf and showed me how they fit and how to think about backing them. I have now gotten rid of most of my other bags.

I am living in the Canon and Sony world right now, but have used Nikon in the past. If I were starting out fresh without a large number of expensive lenses right now, I would go for the Nikon D850. I think it is probably the best camera on the market and would work well for your purposes. You do get the illusion of more reach with the D500, which also appears to be a very good camera.

I have been at this for 40-50 years, which I think makes a difference. I remember having to choose film for lighting circumstance (often unknown in advance) and format of output. I did a lot of photographing of artifacts and documents in museums and libraries and used a black and white 1600 asa film. I had to use tripod; handholding wasn't an option. Even then it was hard not to get blurry photos. Outside, I rarely used or felt I needed a tripod, but I didn't shoot much at night.

Enter the digital age, not only do my cameras focus well in low light, they can produce sharp pictures with high isos. I have been able to get better interior shots from my Canons with a 16-35 f4 lens with IS than anything I ever got with my old film camera. The ISOs can go high with care and good noise reduction. Most interior places I have traveled to do not allow tripods or flash so you need to take what you can get. In any case, I think good hand holding skills and hand holding shots make good sense for travel photography. I also prefer handholding shots taking photos of birds and wildlife (mostly whales and dolphins) from my kayak, and hiking, as I mostly don't want to climb rocks with a tripod (younger people can do that). I think handholding gives me more flexibility and the ability to get unique shots quickly. Thinking about handholding makes me less obtrusive as a tourist. Since I take most of my photos traveling, hiking, or kayaking, I rarely use a tripod nor do I feel the need to with modern digital cameras' ability to shoot at higher isos, IS in lenses, and now I have IBIS in a Sony camera. I recently was at a wedding and watched the photographer who took most of the best shots handheld.

That being said, there are still time when a good solid tripod is essential: landscape shots around sunrise or sunset, night shots, and astrophotography. In short, I don't think it is necessarily a question of either I am going to use a tripod or not, but when I can and can't or when conditions suggest I have to.

I would agree with this. I like Op-tech straps and have found it much easier to carry cameras slung over the shoulder rather than around the neck. You can get one on Amazon for around $20.00. This will really help with weight.

I was in Israel a couple of years ago with a ff Canon and a 16-35 f4 lens. That was it. There were a couple of places I wanted a longer lens, but very few. I also had a Sony rx100 v, which gave me a little more reach, but not much. Even with a wide angle lens, you will have more range. When I used Nikon DX cameras, I liked the 16-85, though you may want a faster lens, a lot of my shots were interiors and the Canon F4 with IS worked well. I am sure others who know more about Nikons will have better advice.

I normally would say if you have great equipment, you should bring it with you on great adventures. I am not sure, though, what to say on this one. I wouldn't want to trek with a 200-600 mm lens and other gear. But it isn't clear from your post how much time will be trekking and how much time on a ship. My inclination is that it would be an awful lot of effort to bring it around for zoo photos. I got pretty decent zoo photos in Bali with a 24-105 lens--many zoos in other countries are designed to let you get much closer to animals. As to the philosophy, if you have it, why not take it. If I went on a safari, I would take my longest lens. I don't really see the point of taking it to Europe, though it still gets lots of use in parks and nature reserves at home!

I am editing what I just posted after reading your update: Your choice of a 5 d mk iv, especially at that price makes total sense

Mirrorless is not necessarily a "move up" as many have said here. Mirrorless cameras are different. I currently have both the 5 d mk iv and the EOS R. I prefer the 5d mk iv for birds and wildlife. I got the R as a smaller alternative to the the DSLR, but the lenses still weigh about the same (that may change as more RF lenses are available). It is however much more convenient for travel and hiking. I was basically discouraged from getting the R because "Canon cripples everything and crippled the R." It is sort of true, but fails to recognize what advantages you can get from mirrorless. I basically like the iq from the R better though it's AF is not as good in capturing moving subjects; for still subjects, it is better, which is why I still have my DSLR. I think there is a lot of hype out right now about mirrorless cameras and I have noticed more and more tuning to them as lighter alternatives, but if you are not missing something in your DSLR, I wouldn't be particularly worried about it. Stick with what works for you!

Personally, I think it is wrong to think of those who pp as wanting a "computer fix." Actually, shooting raw and post-processing is more like shooting film and either developing it oneself or working with a developer to get the image the way one wants. The film alternative was taking a role of film to one of those old Fotomat stands that showed up in parking lots. The film got developed but it was in a very standard form, which is sort of where I put jpgs, though jpgs out of cameras can be quite good.

This is true. I pretty much always shoot raw for myself, but I will do jpgs for campus and student events that I shoot, so the people in charge can get them in social media quickly. And, it is easier for others if I just leave the camera on jpg since the camera is shared and others have no clue what raw is. JPGS do have their place.

Hi there, I get your frustration. One of the challenges in switching systems or using multiple systems involves differences in how you post process. I am using three basic cameras right now: Canon R, Canon 5 d mk IV, Sony a7riii. As many people have mentioned, Canon colors are different from Sony's. Even more interesting, I find the R's colors much richer than those of the 5 d mk IV, not to mention the Sony's. I can come close to getting the final photos I want using Lightroom and PS, but I tend to use Camera standards for colors for the mk iv and Adobe colors for the Sony. Even then, I want to tweak sliders a bit differently sometimes, though the basic principles are all the same.

In short, I don't think the problem is necessarily shooting in raw so much as it is a bit of learning curve in pp as well as in learning how to use the camera.

Everyone, including me, will recommend their favorite p&s. Mine have consistently been in the RX100 series since they came out. They are more expensive, which is an issue, but the 1" sensor and the quality zeiss lens give me quality that I can live with, which I have not found in other p&s cameras I have tried. I especially like it for hiking as it fits in my shirt pocket. Sony started putting view finders on the camera with the mk 3 version. It was ok, but the recent ones are much better. The earlier versions which Sony still sells and produces are obviously cheaper. Mostly the improvements are incremental. My most recent version is the VI, which I like because of the long lens and the good viewfinder, but it is very expensive. The cameras are workhorses. A friend accidentally dropped my original rx100 on a marble floor at Hearst castle. A few scratches, but no damage. I got caught in a rain/snow storm near the top of Mt Whitney with the same camera in my pocket--no damage. I sold it last year when I got the vi, but it was still working well and I was still using when I wanted slightly longer reach. I liked the image quality on older Panasonics, but they were much fussier with rain, etc. and I think the image quality was better on the older ones, though I haven't used anything in the LX series. When I got my first Sony, another camera friend got a Fuji with a fixed lens--it didn't zoom, but it had the same kind of image quality I was getting from the Sony's. Most of the cameras out there take pretty decent pictures now, though I gave up on the tough/waterproof sorts of cameras as they just didn't have the image quality I wanted. Good luck--you have a lot to choose from!