Tips to keep a camera dry and prevent corrosion:
* Pack it inside plastic a food storage container along with a fresh dessicant pack
* A zip-lock bag with a dessicant pack can also be used, but won't last as long
* Most hotels have plastic showe caps that can be used to cover a camera in the rain.
* At night in your hotel, take the camera out of its case and allow it to dry
* Take the batteries out of the camera when it is not in use
* Do not touch electrical contact surfaces with your hands

Most (all?) have a constant , tiny current drain to operate the clock. In a damp
environment, this creates constant corrosion.

Sealed containers or bags without a dessicant pack are a bad idea--they trap moisture.

Or leave the good camera home and take a few disposable cameras instead.
The lenses are plastic, but the film is very good. You'll worry a lot less
about a camera that only cost around $10.

Over the last year I have seen growing signs that digital photography is moving toward mirrorless cameras and associated lens systems. I have significant Nikon equipment for my bird and nature photography interests including a 500mm F4 and 300mm F2.8 prime lenses. I have a recently purchased D500 I love and have been saving for a D850 - which I have anticipated buying at during the end of the year sales when I hope to see a modest discount to the long stable initial price.

I have come to the realization that at some point there is likely to be an significant advantage such as size and weight of gear - and even technical innovation leadership - to move to a full mirrorless setup.
I understand that there is an adapter to allow me to continue to use my current lenses with the new Nikon mirrorless cameras...but I am not sure that I would necessarily stay with Nikon if I go mirrorless. Steve Perry's evaluation of the new Nikon mirrorless suggested that they are not yet as capable (insufficient burst mode buffering) as current DSLR offerings for action bird photography. I understand that some of the Sony are of comparable capabilities. A friend has a Sony mirrorless and set of lenses that are significantly smaller and more manageable that my gear.

I know from regularly reading the Forum that there are many very thoughtful and knowledgeable members - and maybe some that have already made this transition. So I would like to ask for your thoughts on which companies currently appear to be the true leaders in mirrorless cameras and lens systems - especially as applicable to bird photography. And more specifically, knowing that the technology will continue to evolve, your thoughts on timing - is it the right time to convert or to move forward with my D850 purchase knowing that there will likely come a clear time to make the switch?

Thanks in advance for your thoughts!

Context is everything.

I gave away my massive Bogen 3051 with it's 3047 head - 15 lbs, 2 leg sections which when fully collapsed was 34 inches, or 27" wit the head removed. I used it in my studio when I didn't need the stability of my 250 lb Foba camera stand. It did ok in the studio with relatively short to medium focal length lenses, at lower magnifications. For macro it vibrated too much.

I got rid of it when I started using a DSLR with 300mm and longer lenses. It just was not stable enough. So much for inertia (aka mass) as a criteria for tripod selection.

I was on a limited budget (3 kids in college will do that) but I wanted to do more wildlife photography - especially birds. I had rented an aluminum Gitzo 1500 Tele Studex with 3 section legs and found it to be far superiod to the Bogen - but it still weighed 10 lbs. I then rented a Series 5 carBon and found it just as stable, if not more, when compared to the aluminum - despite the fact it was less then half the weight. So I scoured The classifieds, eBay, Fred Miranda Naturescapes and other active buy/sell websites for over 4 months and none came up for sale. So I bought what I could afford, a series 3 for about $550. It was a beautiful tripod, but, as expected, it was less than stable enough with my 600mmF4. However, it was more stable than the Bogen and weighed a totally manageable 4.1 lbs. While I was close, I had not been able to hit my budget/stabilty/dead weight goals.

It was 2006, and I was running out of options. I sent the tripod back. What was the point of owning an amazing tripod that failed to meet my needs?

I was beginning to hear great things about a new brand out of China - Feisol - so I looked at their top model - the CT-3472. Under 4lbs, thicker legs than the Series 3 Gitzo (so it had to be more stable than the Series 3 I thought), and it had a comparable load capacity 66 lbs vs 55 lbs - in the event I wanted to add some weight for more stability. So I took a chance and ordered one from China. It hit all my criteria - affordability, stability, collapsed size, extended size, build quality. It cost me $540 shipped.

With it's 37mm diameter top leg sections it was in fact more stable than the Series 3's 35mm (as expected), the same weight, and could fit in my carry on bag.

While a comparable Gitzo (Series 4) GT-4543LS will work, it is 1.25 lbs heavier, and currently costs $1000. The Feisol is under $600. So my answer to the original question is- tripods do not have to be expensive to be good. But you need to pick the correct performance criteria - top tube diameter and platform diameter - to match your needs. If you need a tripod for travel with "normal" focal lengths, you needs are quite modest and even a $200 tripod can work. But if you push the stability envelope, you would be throwing money away buying a light-duty tripod for use with long lenses or macro. I use a 2 lb Feisol tripod for travel and backpacking, but it still costs $400. It has a load capacity of 55lb, so if I need to I can always hang my backpack from it, but I find I seldom need to as long as I don't go too crazy with magnification. FWIW, the 2 lb CT-3442 is about as stable as my 15 lb Bogen was.and it has 2x the load capacity. So much for weight, mass, inertia or whatever you want to call it, being everything. It's more complicated than that.

I shoot pro women's soccer on a field that probably has slightly better lighting than most high school football fields. I use a 7DII and the Canon 70-200 f/2.8 and have a 1.4x extender. I only add the extender for day games because losing that stop of light at night really does cause problems. I shoot manual with auto ISO and have that topped out at 6400 (I can live with that much noise). I also try not to go under 1/800 for shutter speed since the ball especially gets motion blur if I do. But I'll drop it to 1/500 if I'm at another field where the lighting isn't as good. You can probably get away with a slower shutter speed since a ball thrown is going to be slower than a ball kicked. That might buy you enough light to think about the 1.4x. I doubt you'll get away with the 2x though unless the lighting is extremely good. But as you said give it a go. But make sure it's about as dark as it will get and try shots of different areas of the field as some areas are darker than others. Good luck!