What about the right to be able to sit in a park and not be photographed? Sadly yes there has to be an element of giving up rights. You do have the right to not be bothered by unsociable behaviour. Most photographers I see are polite and unobtrusuve, but if one is being unsociable, they should listen when asked not to take photos of someone. They shouldn't start spraying them with laws and rights, which is what this thread seems to be saying is ok.

Wow. Just wow. Why are you attacking me? Ok. Number one I take photos of wildlife over people. Therefore, a group of people standing around holds no interest in a photography sense. A flock of pigeons in a group having a chat, that would be worth a photo. Two, I didn't view them in a sexual way, but scantily clad women in 8c is unusual enough to notice. Three, where did you get the idea that I'm suggesting I'm better than you, for not taking a photo of teenagers having a group chat? Please calm down dude. I'm not saying I'm a better person than you. It would be arbitrary if I did in any case.

A couple of days ago I saw a group of female teenage dancers dressed rather scantily. They were clearly around 15. Now of course I did not take photos, especially as they were not dancing at the time. By law there is no reason why I couldn't, it was a public place and clearly would not have been for any commercial purpose. I had no wish to take a photo, but in spite of the law being on my side, would it have been decent to take a photo of these strangers?

I do get what you are saying. However, there is law, and then there's being a good person. They are not always the same.

Take this example. Should I be allowed to play music late at night loud enough that people can hear, but not loud enough to break any laws?

Please learn that EVERYTHING is arbitrary. Humans make up all our own silly little rules and some are law, some are not. End of the day, we should all learn to get along with others, not expect others to not be annoyed by something many people would be. Be nice to people, have some respect. Your original post here shows neither.

I took this lens from a D7200 to a D500. I noticed a huge improvement in focus accuracy, both with the telephoto and my macro lens. I'd recommend the D500 for this reason.

Anyone stating law on a forum which is worldwide, should have the decency to state which country and area the law applies to. Additionally, this mentality is likely to do more harm than good in most situations. Of course if a crime is taking place, or in a time of war, yes take photos. But while taking photos in a quiet park, show some decency to people who really may not want their photo taken. Nobody should feel like they have to ask someone not to take photos. The photographer should go out of their way to not make people feel uncomfortable.

They'll be in the same photostream, all the video folder does is show just videos.

Do you know how an iPad works? All video and photos go by default into the photostream.

I don't understand how other versions of the same app can be running in the background.

I have real issues getting SnapBridge to connect on iOS, but it seems to connect fine on my Android device, which is odd, as it's a music player.

It was accurate, but it will give some the impression that the effective focal length may differ between a full frame and a crop sensor lens.

That's a completely different lens. It's like someone asking me to recommend an iced drink, and me telling them what my favourite hot drink is.

The bird oriented charities at least in the U.K. recommend putting food out all year round, and not removing the supply. They'll forage anyway as it's in their natural instinct. We build on the land and knock down the trees and plants that they depend on to thrive. If birds will use them, you really should consider putting them back up.

Please don't take feeders down. It's damaging to suddenly remove a food source.

If a third party battery damages your camera, who will fix or replace it? That's one of the main issues with third party. It doesn't matter if the quality is the same or not. Warranty is important here. My ten year old D80 has its own battery and a Duracell, I believe they offer a warranty if one of their batteries damages a camera. It actually performs better than the Nikon.

As you may have seen from my other responses here, I don't require a complete archive, but a backup going back to a point is useful. I pay enough into my work as it is without paying for online storage too, and I do need backups to be web based. The issue is that a useful tool has been made less useful. Not the end of the world, and not anything I've lost sleep over. My personal Flickr stuff, well that's just a bonus which will be no more. The work stuff, I've now switched to google photos. I also do think these things through, that's why a hard drive sat at home on my desk is no good to me, and flash memory isn't recommended for long term archival storage. My work doesn't pay for online storage, and any accessories need to come from HQ. As a charity, I wouldn't ask them to go to all the expense.