A "story" is a narative. Basically it tells us what is happening.

It is simply IMPOSSIBLE for a single photograph to tell a story. A photograph shows just one unique instant in time. It cannot tell what previously existed nor what came after. Any story telling requires multiple images.

Generally any claim of a story is actually related to a narrative generated by the viewer's imagination, not by the image.

That leads to an interesting variation in visual perception. Ambiguity may be either exactly what is desired (to provide inspiration for each different viewer's imagination) or a total absence of ambiguity may be intended (so that all viewers necessarily see exactly the same symbolism exactly as defined by the photographer).

Two different targets... but regardless no single photograph can possibly tell a story.

Works fine, hand held (75-90% of the time for me) or on a gimbal head. Carefully align the Red Dot with the center point of the camera and then use both eyes to find subject (one eye looking through sight). When the reticle is on on the subject, so is the center focus point. No need to move eye to viewfinder. If the subject is stationary you can do that, other wise I just shoot away and adjust the composition and framing in PP. Esp makes finding BIF or aircraft in a hurry easy, astrophotographers also use them to find their subjects quickly. Much better than searching through the small field of view of a telephoto lens.

The two attached images are my 7DII with Red Dot mounted and with a hot shoe splitter so I can use flash at the same time. No you cannot set up off camera flashs when stalking water birds etc around streams and lakes.
Some times I also put on a better beamer. Heavy and a bit awkward, yes, but it works and with practice I got used to it.

My recommendation was similar.

https://www.amazon.com/Digital-Control-dehumidify-cabinet-equipment/dp/B00IG14PLK/ref=sr_1_9?s=electronics&ie=UTF8&qid=1508510934&sr=1-9&keywords=Dehumidify+Dry+Cabinet+Box

If I lived in location like Florida and valued my glass I would definitely consider this option. I have an expensive 500F4 that would lead me into an extended state of depression if it were to be attacked by fungus. As already mentioned, there are way too many people who won't flinch spending thousand of dollars on their equipment buy will cheap out when it comes to protecting it or providing a stable platform (tripod) for their camera and lens.

I post this question for discussion for those beginners in photography regarding upgrading cameras. This is based on other questions I have seen posted on this site. I understand everyone has the opinions and there are those who have to have the best. But I always look at this question based on your level of photography expertise. I have gone thru the process and I am glad I had a professional to work with. I had the opportunity in my time to learn from photography instructors, professional photographers, and Playboy. It really does make a difference!

For example a person has a Nikon D7200 and is thinking about upgrading to the Nikon D850. Money is not a problem. So what do we tell him that is realistic and best for him?

Since this person has said money is no problem why not just tell him to buy it since he can grow into it even if he does not have the experience, skills, or needs the abilities the new camera offers him for what he wants to do with it. Heck why not just tell him to buy a Leica or the medium format cameras. But?

The one thing every photographer knows is that an amateur or beginner has to start somewhere. While camera are so smart they basically become a high price fix lens rangefinder camera with the professional look. Therefore until the amateur or beginner has the following I do not recommend going into the high priced cameras: 1. Developed level of photography basics through some on hands training with another experienced photographer. 2. The photography he is going to be undertaking or specialize in needs an advanced pro level camera. 3. And he is willing to spend the money on the level of glass or lenses that support that camera to its fullest.

After all why spend money on a 44 Magnum when the 9mm can shoot more rounds more accurately and be just a deadly. Maybe because you want to be the big boy on the block. But in real life shooting cases the 9 mm for rounds on target accuracy would win out. Don't forget the other guy will be shooting at you.

So much the same with photography in a way. Right now I own a Nikon D810 after owning since 1973 a variety of Nikon and Canon film, FX and DX cameras; from the very expensive to least. I know that the camera doesn't truly make the photographer but his skills as such. A entry level DSLR can win photography contests just like the professional cameras, and that is a fact.

So I ask myself should I upgrade to the D850? My answer is NO. Why you ask? Because I am a landscape photographer mostly, do not take astrophotography, but still could with the D810, do not really need the extra MP, don't need the little faster motor drive, etc. So for me I will wait for something else to come along. Here I am looking a my needs as a photographer ever though I could buy the most expensive camera in the world; though it would not make me a better photographer. I could go on with other points that I think others to this forum could make.

SO, What does everyone else think?