Just because a camera will go up to an ISO of 25,600 or something like that does not mean the photos will be acceptable unless your standards are pretty low. There will be a lot of noise and the photos will look "muddy". I have a Canon 7D II and I stay below ISO 1000 to keep picture quality good.
The camera manufacturers say that to scare you into buying their higher-priced batteries. I have been using Watson (from B&H) batteries in four different Canon digital batteries with nary a single problem.
I agree with RichardSM. Try Canon's website and look at their refurbished stuff under "deals". I have also used KEH, but since they changed ownership a few years back, they are not quite the bargains they used to be. I have been looking at the Canon 100-400 f4.5-5.6L IS II and I can get a refurb for less than a "like new minus" from KEH. They do not always have what you want in stock, so you may have to keep an eye out for a week or two or sometimes more for really popular stuff, especially in the lenses. I have been shooting with a first generation 70-200 f2.8L IS for about 5 years, now. Before that, I had the non-IS version for about 8 years. I shot rodeos in both indoor and outdoor arenas and used a flash with a "Better Beamer" in the indoor arenas because those types of arenas tend to be rather dark and I also shot some indoor basketball games without a flash in a typical gym. I used the non-IS version for both and came out with good shots. The newer glass did not make a big difference but I wanted the IS more for nature shots. My wide angle is a used 17-40 f4.0L and it gives me wide enough shots on my crop-sensor 7D II. I use the 7D II because of the 10FPS for rodeos. Stuff happens way too fast and it is not predictable (at least not for bull riding, saddle bronc, bareback and calf roping). Just for information sake, I also have a 24-105 f4 L IS. I also have 1.4x and 2x Canon TC's for the 70-200, so I have coverage from 27mm (the 17-40) equivalent to 560mm equivalent (70-200 w/2x). I can use the 1.4x and the 2x stacked but it gets a little soft (the 7D II will autofocus at f8). I would really, really recommend the 70-200 for you and maybe the 17-40 f4. There is a pretty big price difference between the 17-40 and the 16-35 for 1mm of extra "wideness"(?) and one extra stop of speed and I have never missed it. That's my ten cents, and it may be a nickle over priced. I think you will like the image quality on the 5D IV, but it is a little slow on FPS performance for what you will be primarily using it for.
I wish that was my yard. Great images.
I am adding the web address of a well known photographer who used to be associated with Canon. His name is Arthur Morris and he has a website called "Birds as Art". I have been to a few seminars of his that were sponsored by Johnson PhotoImaging in Bradenton, FL and also at the yearly convention of the Florida Council of Camera Clubs. I pretty much take his word as gospel. His web address for his discussion on TC's is: http://www.birdsasart-blog.com/2018/03/01/nikon-af-s-teleconverter-tc-20es-suck-or-do-they/. Just click on the link. He shows some images taken with TC's on long lenses (but they are all "pro" lenses). I have regularly used TC's (both 1.4X and 2.0X) on my Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS. I have even stacked them both on that lens, but with both of them on there, quality suffers. Originally, I used the pro Tamron ones and they were slightly soft (I was a neophyte then when it came to TC's) but now I only use TC's from the lens manufacturer (in my case, Canon). My results have been similar to Artie's, but it took some time to find the best techniques to use. Read Artie's blog using the link and you can save some month's of wasted time. DO NOT use off-brand TC's if you want quality. Also, TC's are only compatible with certain lenses (and they are only "pro" lenses). You can damage lenses and/or the TC's if they are not on the compatible list from the lens manufacturer. I also always use a tripod with the 2X. I am able to use the 1.4X handheld for sports car racing and rodeo photography with good results.
If it is good enough for Artie, then it is good enough for me. There were some good points in Artie's posts and his Q & A. I didn't know he was using Nikon equipment now. Is he no longer associated with Canon. I used to attend his seminars that were sponsored by Johnson Photo Imaging here in Bradenton, FL.
I have been playing with photography since 1962 (Daytona Continental 3-hour sports car race), and have shot everything from races to rodeos (cowgirl daughter), yacht races and tons of nature stuff. I only have "full frame" Canon "L" series lenses, one left over from my film days. I used my lenses on my first digital camera, the original Canon Digital Rebel when it first came out. I only buy "pro series" lenses which are all full frame. Like others have posted, when you are using a "crop sensor" camera (DX), you are not using the full diameter of a "full frame" lens. You are only using the center 50% of the lens, which is the "sweet spot". It is the "sweet spot" because the light coming from the center 50% of the lens is not "bent" as much to reach the sensor (Physics 101), so your image is a tiny bit sharper. I have gone through several iterations of "crop sensor" cameras from Canon from the original Digital Rebel, through a 20D, 40D, 7D and 7D II. My lenses all worked great on all of them. I have upgraded all of my lenses along the way and now shoot with three basic lenses, all professional "L" series lenses, and not just because of the wonderful color saturation, contrast and sharpness of them, but they, and the 7D II, are also weather-sealed, which is great if you shoot in a dusty environment like I did (rodeos and sports car races) or in places where you cannot get back to shelter in a hurry or if you actually are crazy enough (like me) to enjoy shooting in the rain. Nikon's Pro lenses are all weather-sealed too, but I am not sure if your current camera is. It is unfortunate that Nikon's 200-500 5.6 isn't weather sealed but if it was a pro series lens it would be (and it would probably cost $3,000+). There are many ways to get the best pro lenses at a reduced cost. Not one of the lenses, teleconverters or extension tubes I have was bought new. I buy refurbished directly from the manufacturer (in your case go to Nikon's website, and look under "deals") or used from B&H in New York or KEH in Atlanta. I've never had a problem. My current inventory allows me focal lengths that cover from 17mm to 560mm (before the 1.6X Canon crop sensor conversion) using combinations of 17-40mm f4.0L, 24-105mm f4.0L IS, and 70-200 f2.8L IS in combination with 1.4X and 2.0X teleconverters (no teleconverters on the 17-40). For 560mm I have to use the 70-200 with both TC's stacked on the back and the autofocus is a bit slow (no sports car racing, rodeos or birds in flight) and at the long end there is a little bit of softness, but you expect that with that light passing through all those pieces of glass, and you do NOT shoot hand held. I would stay with your "crop sensor" camera and slowly upgrade to all high-quality (pro) lenses. Then if you want to go full-frame, you already have the lenses and you can take advantage of shooting in dusty or wet conditions (since most full frame cameras are weather sealed). The primary reason for going to full-frame is noise and smoother and a little "cleaner" color gradations. If do a lot of telephoto work, you get extra "reach" with your long lenses (it is actually just a "cropped" image) on your current "crop sensor" camera. I wish you luck in whatever decision you make and keep enjoying your shooting.
I sure hope that this post was just for the entertainment value and not serious. If it is serious, you may need a little more than just camera help. Just sayin'...........
I am sure they discontinued it because of costs and because most people don't bother to use it. Most people don't use the rubber viewfinder cover either. I usually use a black washcloth laid over the top of the camera to keep stray light from darkening shots when I shoot from a tripod, or sometimes I will just gently put my thumb up there to block the light. I always have my thumb "handy" (that was really bad, I know).
Most online printers will ship the canvas print rolled up and then you can find a local picture framer to do the stretching.For something that will be unframed, you have a couple of options for the canvas that will show on the side of the stretcher. First, if there is nothing important within 2 1/4" of the edge of the photo, then you can crop and size your photo so that it prints out at about 25" x 85". One other way to deal with the sides is to just add 2 1/4" of black around the outside of the image that will show on the sides of the stretcher. The last way is to create a 2 1/4" mirror image of the outer part of the image around the outside of the original photo. The easiest border is obviously the black one and is what I would probably use.No matter how you approach this, 25" x 85" should be the overall printed image size, because on a gallery-wrapped stretcher of 20" x 80" you will need 2" or so to show on the sides of the stretcher. You will need to have a deep stretcher so the scale of the stretcher matches the scale of the piece. If you use a typical 3/4" deep stretcher, it will end up looking a bit odd. Also make sure that the framer puts at least three extra vertical braces to keep the long legs from bowing inwards. One thing to mention to the framer is that you want a "straight fold" at the corner. I have been doing picture framing professionally since 1975 (yes, I am old) and have done many large photo panorama's, some from my own photographs. Doing a regular frame and maybe a mat will be VERY expensive since only white mat board comes large enough to mat a piece that large without splicing two mats together (a tricky process at best). You better find out from your client which presentation he likes. To mat and frame that piece will be over $1,000 and maybe quite a bit more depending on where you live. It is not something you want to tackle yourself unless you have lots and lots of experience and very large work table. Good luck.
I run Photoshop CC, Lightroom and Photomatix all on Windows 7 64-bit Pro and they all work just fine. My computer is almost 5 years old and I have been running Windows 7 on it since it was first built. I like it because it is stable as hell.
If you are in a good sized town or at least close to one, "Google" "camera clubs". Even as an experienced photographer, I certainly don't know everything and most people in camera clubs are eager to help "newbies". I have been shooting since 1962 and am still learning. That is one of the joys of photography.
For travel, I will always carry a zoom that has some real reach to it, as long as it is a good quality lens. Then you have more opportunities to "get the shot", so my choice would be the 24-200(?). If you are on a "crop sensor" camera, I would look at an 18-200mm so you have a wider angle at the short end.