I never convert my images to the .dang format, because if you want to use non-adobe processing application, you sometimes find you can’t.

You keep promoting Benro gear without offering alternatives. Why? Have you ever considered other options?

Recommending a tripod without considering the photographer's requirements is irresponsible. Factors that must be considered are: The photographer's height; the longest focal length lens that will be used (now or in the future); the highest megapixel sensor/camera that will be used; terrain (level ground, mid-stream, or hillside); maximum equipment weight; and possible wind or vibration (near a road) environment.

1. Unless you were indoors, used a tripod, and used a remote shutter release or shutter delay timer, your shutter speed was too low to prevent movement blur.

2. In general, and specifically in the case of old lenses and teleconverters, you are better off cropping the image than using a teleconverter.

Crop the image taken without the teleconverter so that the number of pixels shown on an edge is ⅔ the number it had originally. Compare that image with the one taken with the teleconverter. The difference will show the effect of the teleconverter.

During summer, if you want to avoid the crowds, sleep during the day and photograph while everyone else is sleeping. Light will great at night when the sun is low on the horizon.

Jim,
I would take the 24-85mm and the 70-300mm lenses. The 24-85mm lens will be best for landscapes, people, and streets photos. The 70-300mm lens will be best for birds (lots of eagles up there) and smaller landscape scenes (zooming in on glaciers and other landscape features). Don't bother to take a tripod. Have fun.

You will encounter significant vignetting when you stack three filters.

I have both lenses. The 100-400 is easy to travel with; the 200-600 is not. The 100-400 is lighter and focuses fast on both my A1 and A7RIV. The 200-400 does not focus as reliably on my A7RIV as it does on the A1. I can crop 50% on either camera and still get a high quality large print (17"x22") with the 100-400. I've seen recent test info that says it is better to crop than to use a teleconverter.

It doesn't make any difference 99.9% of the time. 1) it depends on the lens; 2)Subject, composition, lighting, depth of field, and exposure time are much, much more important; 3)You will only see a difference in image sharpness if you are lab testing the lens or shooting at multiple f-stops and pixel peeping; 4)No one has ever looked at a photo and criticized it because the photographer didn't use the f-stop that was sharpest for the lens used.

I use both Sony and OM systems. The OM system is much lighter and more fun. The OM system has features that no other camera system has; the most useful is Pro-Capture. Note that with any system, there is a significant reduction in lens weight by buying f/4 lenses rather than the f/2.8 Pro or GM lenses. Also you can easily span the 24-800mm focal length equivalent with OM with just 2 lenses (12-100mm and 100-400mm). The OM system has much better stabilization and will make high quality, sharp prints up to the largest I can print with my Epson P800 [17 in] printer.

I use both Sony and OM systems. The OM system is much lighter and more fun. The OM system has features that no other camera system has; the most useful is Pro-Capture. Note that with any system, there is a significant reduction in lens weight by buying f/4 lenses rather than the f/2.8 Pro or GM lenses. Also you can easily span the 24-800mm focal length equivalent with OM with just 2 lenses (12-100mm and 100-400mm). The OM system has much better stabilization and will make high quality, sharp prints up to the largest I can print with my Epson P800 [17 in] printer.

I think the image is a little bit unrealistic because the buildings and cemetery are too bright considering that the source of light is only the moon and the moon is behind them. However, as a work of art, it works for me. The brightness of the buildings and cemetery balance the brightness of the clouds. I would love to see a print from the negative without processing by dodging and burning. I do like more his print of the clearing storm in Yosemite.

Very interesting. Thank you for publishing it here.

It depends, of course. Using a tripod can allow lower ISO images and longer exposures for landscapes. But the tripod does have some disadvantages for landscape photography. In addition to a tripod+head weight limiting the distance you can comfortably hike, if you are totally dependent on a tripod, you unconsciously limit the number of perspectives and subjects you photograph because it is cumbersome to move and readjust the tripod. I always try to shoot without a tripod when conditions allow. I know how steady I can hold my camera and how high an ISO I am comfortable with. The effectiveness of IBS depends on the camera. I can lower my shutter speed and get sharp images with both my OMD (Olympus) and my Sony cameras with IBS on, but the IBS in the OMD camera is two stops better than the IBS in my Sony camera.

Both are not processed! Raw data is, by definition, unprocessed and cannot be displayed as an image. JPEG, TIFF, and other image formats are developed by processing the raw data. A JPEG file/image is created by a process that irreversibly degrades the information from the raw file to produce the JPEG file. Further processing a JPEG file furthers degrades the quality of the resulting information and image.