I've had 2 cards fail. One with a "photographer's error" by not having the second card as back up, and one with the second card set properly. All I can say is after experiencing that, there is no way I'll ever do a wedding with just one card.

I'd rather have the automatic back up and never need it, than to have a failure, and not have it.

I know nothing of Canon gear, but as for Nikon, even if they came up with a mirrorless full frame that would somehow take advantage of my glass, I still wouldn't switch if they were limited to one card. It isn't worth it to me.

If you are dead set to go that route, it's up to you, but I would suggest you go back to using several smaller cards, and switching often like we used to back in the day, so you only risk losing a few photos instead of a whole wedding.

bk

Things have changed a lot with digital photography. started my career as a film shooter. I shot Nikon F3 for 35mm and Hasselblad for medium format. I never worried about seeing the images as soon as I pressed the shutter of my Nikon because I knew how to operate the camera and choose an aperture and shutter speed that would give me an acceptable exposure.
When i was shooting with the Hasselblad I used A12 backs which gave me on 12 exposures on a single role of 120 film. To check the exposure I had a polaroid back that would allow me to "Pull a Roid" to check exposure before going to film. So, things have gotten easier in a lot of ways with the latest digital technology.

I like the two card slots so I can use the second for backup. Having that second copy of the RAW file has saved me a couple of times. I also cary extra cards the same way I use to cary extra film just to be prepared for anything...

I am quickly approaching retirement and plan to spend most of my time enjoying nature/wildlife photography. On a fairly tight budget and haven’t upgraded recently. Latest was a Sigma 17-70mm 2.8-4 which I’m very happy with. I purchased my onetime dream camera sometime ago, Canon 7D, but really see no reason at this time to change it. My other zoom lens is the Sigma 170-500mm 5-6.3 APO DG. Of course, a short time later they came out with the OS version. I’m wondering if I am missing the chance for better quality photos and should upgrade to a Tamron 150-600 G2. Reviews seem to favor it over the Sigma Contemporary and I wouldn’t consider the Sport because the much higher cost. Part of me thinks it’s a no brainer and just do it. But will the VC/OS and extra 100mm make that much difference? Is the quality also that much better? I try to use a tripod or monopod whenever I can currently and keep a pillow handy in my car for those opportunities. Also always make sure to use a high shutter speed if I try to handhold. I know the new lens should help in that area.
I’ve learned so much since I started following UHH and felt what better way to get advice but to post my question. Thanks,

Oh by the way, is it common for a Snowy Owl to take up residence as far south as mid-Michigan? Saw quite a few this past winter and was quite surprised to see a redwing blackbird attacking a Snowy a few weeks ago in the same area I saw it in winter/spring.

Looking back on my own learning experience, I would advise newbies to start methodically with manual mode. Either use self-taught trial and error or use a more studied, formal approach. Digital film is cheap, take lots of pictures and be self-critical. I skipped most of this advise and, after 50+ years, am still pretty much an advanced snapshooter. And study the light whether indoors or out. Planning ahead will result in more successful shots and eventually become automatic in your process. Those are my thoughts.

I’ve had my share of buying and selling equipment trying to get that perfect “kit” for my passion of birding, wildlife, floral photography. I am not what you’d call a professional but I have had a show at a local gallery and have sold some of my prints. I have stuck with DSLRs for the most part...but was once pulled to the mirrorless side by Fujifilm when their X-T2 was released. I loved the ergonomics of that camera, the EVF, the weight (although with the 100-400mm, the difference was minimal) and the quality of the images I got in MOST situations. My concerns were with the AF performance for BIF (which very well could have been improved by firmware updates since then) and most noticeably the battery life EVEN WITH the addition of the battery grip.
So, here I am a few years later using two awesome Nikon DSLRs (D850/D500) and some beautiful glass and I’m getting that “itch” again.
I’m not asking for you to tell me that I should or shouldn’t switch because we all know that doesn’t work.
What I’d like is to hear some REAL detailed feedback from any serious bird/wildlife photographers about their experiences with any mirrorless systems that do or do not live up to the hype and do or do not compare to their previous DSLR setup.
Really hope this doesn’t turn in to a big debate. Just some good conversation would be nice. Thanks!

Everyone, well maybe not every one, is waiting for the big announcement about the soon to be newest MILC cameras from Canon and to some extent, Nikon. There are articles speculating on what the big camera manufacturers have in store and what we should do with our current gear. I read something about Canon finally stepping up to the plate and finally offering a mirrorless camera people will actually buy. I found that article a bit odd and insulting since I own a Canon mirrorless and I'm a person.

So, am I supposed to try to sell my EOS 5D IV on eBay for the best possible price before it's too late, before it's considered next to worthless because everyone else is doing the same thing so they may jump onto the mirrorless bandwagon?! Are the images these MILC'S produce really any better than what I can get out of my D500 or 5DSr? If not then, what's the big deal?

I noticed from the first time I used the YN 685, that while taking one of the 2 I have off the trigger, that it was just a little finicky.

Well, I had a photo shoot for a 4 year old, who's parents wanted her to have her photo taken while riding on her bike. It was bright sunlight, so I decided to throw the 685 (just grabbed the one in the front) on my D-500.

Well, guess what, when that part of the shoot was over, and it was time to do photos of just her, and then her with the family, uh.... the 685 would not budge. I've gotten spoiled with using the Yongnuo flash system, and remember NOTHING of the Nikon CLS, so I couldn't use the 685 as a master to the other flashes, so I ended up just doing my best with an on camera flash with a flash bender, and a reflector. I got home, and after about 2 hours of trying to not ruin my D-500, I ended up carefully taking the screws out of the bottom of the flash, then disassembling the entire foot, to get the thing off. I put it all back together, and it works... it even comes off my YN triggers easily like the other one.

My lesson here is, this could have been disastrous to my new camera body, or worse yet, during a wedding. This is why:
1. We always need to carry a spare body and extra flashes
2. (new lesson) if something is "finicky" send it back right away, or fix it before you use it on a job, any job...especially weddings.

Thankfully, all's well that ends well, but sometimes we get a little to complacent in thinking that our equipment will work, because "it always did before".

Special note to Tim Stapp. You may want to check your 685s, because I know you are a fan too. I don't know what did or didn't happen with that pin, but it's pretty scary when it gets stuck. I'd rather get it stuck on a light stand, than my camera body again, so...no more on camera flash, at least with those beauties.

bk

I am including 2photos with this reply to help define my point. 1st is shot from a helicopter at the rear side window with an 18 mm focal length. The lens was an EF-S 18-200 3.5-5.6 IS. Not as good as the 16-35, but at that point it was what I had.
The 2nd is a shot from a Cessna 206 with the 16-35 L at the focal length of 16 mm, from 9000 ft. Lightly cropped for leveling.
The view you have and the shots you can take will depend on where you sit, which is always up to the pilot or loadmaster. I personally want as much width as I can get with the ability to zoom in if needed. But everyone has a different perspective when it comes to photos. I agree that the OP would get good photos with the 24-105. But the extra few mms can be useful too. Some shots will have aircraft features in them, but IMHO they help tell the story of the photograph.
And no, they do not allow people to take an extra bag.

Hello! I am a senior woman whose strength is less than when I started taking photos at age 8! An avid amateur. I am taking a trip to the Inner Passage/Alaska. Was going to bring Canon 5D M4, 24-105 mm and the Canon G3X with the 600 optical zoom. Also a travel tripod...carbon Sirui...carrying it all in a Think Tank Speed Racer 2. (They are amazing to work with...not affiliated). Taking the smaller camera as my older 5D broke on the first day of another amazing trip! Question is...is it redundant to take the 16-35 lens? Not whale watching...taking a helicopter to a glacier and then taking a dog sled ride. Also taking trips into towns and gardens. Any insights would be most appreciated. Thank you!