There are a lot of great posts and good information already in reply to your question- I would ask you to consider:

"What type of photography are you MOST interested in?" you mentioned nature - does that include landscape, wildlife & astro-photography? What about on the small side of things - tiny plants & bees macro photography?

"Are you thinking about shooting wildlife?" You'll need a long, fast, quick autofocusing system for birds and just about anything else that moves and you're going to shoot from a distance! You'll be using a tripod/monopod with a big lens, so camera size/weight doesn't matter much

"Are you interested in carrying your camera with you for lengthy periods of time?" You might want to consider a smaller format camera if you're retirement age (like me) and plan on using your camera all day long. I'm seeing some pretty big names going for micro four thirds (MFT) these days. I'm using an APS-C system for on the go work.

You can't really go wrong these days with mirrorless, DSLR or even medium format systems like Fuji (your budget might be a constraint for new gear in medium format). However, it IS pretty important to choose a SYSTEM and stick with that. My Full Frame and APS-C lenses have the same mount so there's interchangeability. THe major benefit I see to a MFT system is that there's no vendor-specific mount so any MFT lens will fit on any MFT camera - unlike Nikon, Canon, Sony, Fuji etc. systems. I'm a big proponent of third party lenses as well - there's really no comparison in pricing and performance varies - but you'll find acceptably performing lenses compared to the typically more pricey camera brand alternatives.

Hope this helps!

Pretentious of me to forward a serious answer, but for a collection of lenses wouldn't that be like "macro" "zoom" "macro zoom" "super zoom" "fixed" and so forth?

This UHH topic http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/t-181877-1.html prompted my question at this time. I had no idea that new jpeg standards come and go, but my thinking on DNG is that in 20 years I could be in the same boat as I am now with PCD.

Thanks for your input!

What am I to do with my film negatives, slides - and Kodak PCD images?
What FORMAT to use for archival: TIFF or the new JPEG standard or something else?

I've been into photography since the early 80's and switched to digital around 2002. Most of my work was done on slides, but I have a few thousand slides & negatives from Seattle Filmworks & Dale Labs that I need to scan/convert/archive in a "standard" digital format (one that will still be around in 20 years).

Back in the late 90's I spent the extra coin to have all my (new) photographs professionally processed to PCD format which was state-of-the-art at the time - NOW, you can't hardly find any software to deal with PCD. I have about 40 CDs of PCD images as well.

I need advice about storage formats appropriate for post processing, so I'd be looking to send my originals to a pro service. I have a couple of scanners and a slide scanner but the image quality isn't as good as I'd like and the time constraints for doing it myself are too cumbersome.
Thanks for your input!

I did the trip in 2000 - adding Lake Titicaca at 14000 ft.
Test shots aren't going to do you any good unless you go up 8500-11000 feet and shoot with full sun.

Geez, what about the big buzzards around the Ark-La border areas. Remember having to actively avoid turning one into a hood ornament - often you'd see a trucker sporting a couple of big ugly buzzards in his grille.

KUDOS to the OP for making his decision and "stickin' to his guns". Regardless of the rest of our opinions on the technical side of the equation might have been, we can all certainly agree and support that it is the individual photographer's unique situation requirements that ultimately determine what's "best". Congratulations on your new purchase and Thanks for sharing the discussion.

What about Sigma 16-35 f/1.8 zoom?

Two points:
1. you don't need the higher (24-35) end of the 16-35 lens, that's already covered @ f/2.8 by your 24-70;
2. you don't need a slower lens.

Off topic: unfortunate you're not open to considering even faster lenses in that range :(

My thinking is that #2 has the best chance of winning based on widest mass appeal, The eyes and perspective of #1 are captured uniquely and magnificently- very "artful" to photography enthusiasts and birders. In a contest, one wonders background the judges have. Just a thought...

I've been looking into those same kind of cases for an overseas relocation. Everything has to go: cameras, lenses monitors, computers - everything. Once overseas, I'd be hauling everything to a new locations every 6-12 months.

I'll be packing ALL my gear in Pelican cases.
Pelicans are very sturdy, great for everyday use, but not really large enough for all my needs - so I'm leaning towards a "smaller" (half pallet) size ATA airline cargo case to load up with all the gear cases and other stuff

Bottom line: whatever hardshell case you opt for, customize the internal foam padding for each trip & keep the extra pieces - if your case isn't reconfigurable on the inside you can find material at the Container Store or online.

Thanks for the info on derivative works in photography - it's completely different for published music, obviously.

This may seem like a trivial question, but how do museums "get away with" publishing derivative works of the art in their collections with the fancy coffee table photo albums on sale in every gift shop?
When an original work of art is SOLD - doesn't every right go with it? If a museum owns the work, I can see where they could control photos, publication, etc. and freely use images of the artwork as they see fit, and protect their rights from infringement.

In the case of borrowed works, or those of a living artist, are there various "rights" and/or obligations held by the artist as well as the museum, like photo reproduction & merchandising (remember the King Tut stuff)? My guess is that all those things are determined in a contract prior to placing the exhibit on display, subject to some limited use assignments of rights.

And finally, do photos of (outdoor, public) sculpture constitute derivative works? I can see the argument inapplicable since no plane image of the 3D structure is substantially representative of the structure itself. I can also see that a derivative work from a photo of sculpture might be the same type of infringement on the rights of the photographer as the original question here.

This brings to question of how/if photographic reproduction may infringe on the rights of the owner of the sculpture, and would there be any effect on the rights of the artist/sculptor?

My modus operandi is "Let the pictures speak" - it's the one behind the camera not the equipment

DEFINITELY take polarizing filter and UV - altitude and the lake make for excessive sunshine. If you hike an island on the lake (Taquile, Sol, etc.) you'll really have some great super-wide shots and super-tele shots. Make sure you've got wet gear for the boat trip (anti-nausea band might also be a good idea).

joe

We ordered custom imprint christmas "new address" announcement postcards on Dec 10th with 7-day expedited delivery costing more than the cards. Watched the package sit at UPS terminal from the 18th-24th before they delivered to local P.O. on the 24th for delivery to me the 26th.

Full refund from Vistaprint for expedited shipping just for asking! Nothing like late Xmas cards...
ganjoa