Hi Dennis,

1. Its your image, especially so if its your sky and not someone else's

2. To my eye, the subject is the rock formation in the foreground, right?
I think the red sunlit sky takes away too much contrast from your subject, sky and mountains.

I would leave it as original, or use a much less busy sky. I like the deep blue.
How about just some interesting clouds?

My experience: Its not the macro capability per se thats most important for insects. Its how close you can get. I take a lot of dragonfly shots with my Nikon 70-300mm at about 5-6 ft (min focal distance). I'll prob get an extension tube, but you know what? How do you get closer to the dragon fly?

How close do you want to get to a wasp or bee? How close can you get to a hummingbird? So as usual, horses for courses. If you're taking close ups of snails or watches, an 85mm macro may be best. Or you can go cheap for the extension tube on your medium zoom. If you're doing birds or wildlife, longer is better, say 650mm to get really small details.

Pixels in the camera sensor plus the camera and lens quality are also factors. My 36mp D800 shows details in flash portraits that are crazy, with my 50, 24- 120 or 70-300 Nikon lenses.

I went from the 3200 to a 5300 and now use a D800. Nikon makes you pay extra for every feature. Overall image quality went way up with the 800, but I think the 5600 should be competitive with any other APS-C camera. Easy menus. I originally upgraded for in camera HDR- very effective and easy, even handheld. Size and weight are real easy to deal with on all day trips.

Suggestion: Look into FX lenses for your DX camera. More expensive, heavier, but better image quality.
When you decide to go full frame, you'll be ready.

I switched from a D3200 to a D5300 about 3 years ago because Nikon offers a little more at every price point and I was looking for in camera HDR. I added a couple of FX lenses. They are heavier (not what I was looking for) but usually have more aperture blades, are sharper, better autofocus, better bokeh, etc. Then I went to a Hasselblad workshop and my 5300 was no longer good enough. For any kind of photo. I borrowed and then bought a used D800. 36MP, more advanced focusing, better weather proofing, and again, a lot heavier. I love this camera. The detail with FX lenses and the 36mp sensor is astounding. I am doing less work in post cause the pics come out of the camera so much better. Also worth trying- prime FX lenses. Not all of them will autofocus on a DX camera but all Nikon lenses made in the last 20yrs or so will work perfectly with the full frame cameras.

GAS is a natural side effect of this hobby. You take more pictures, get better images, learn more about the camera, lenses and light. If you can, borrow or rent a D810 or D850 with an FX lens and take a few hundred shots.

Good luck with your new camera.

Underexposure in RAW plus opening the shadows in post will always result in increased grain. If the images look dark on the camera screen, increase the ISO or decrease aperture- I would keep with fast shutter speed for birds.
Post process sharpening will also result in increased grain.
You can balance this with the luminance setting in camera raw- you may lose some detail but may improve the overall look.

I like to research attractions in a new travel destination. This works especially well for vacation- as I can go out before sunrise and be back before the wife finishes breakfast. Asking the hotel concierge can also be helpful, but there is usually a list.

I like to research attractions in a new travel destination. This works especially well for vacation- as I can go out before sunrise and be back before the wife finishes breakfast. Asking the hotel concierge can also be helpful, but there is usually a list.

Very simple for me. I've recently been on trips to Belgium, Nashville, Colorado and Florida and didnt want to take a chance that camera failure would ruin perhaps only chances to capture images. A D800 is now my primary, and I keep my D5300 as backup. As long as there is room in the luggage, I will take 2. Locally, I usually take only one (I can't carry both at the same time anyway), cause I can go back as many times as I want. They can both use the same lenses, tho older Fx lenses without motors will not autofocus with the crop sensor bodies and DX lenses do not address the whole sensor on the D800. There is also the infrequent event where I like to carry 2 mounted lenses- so one on each body. Not often cause the pack is too heavy for me to carry around.

Very simple for me. I've recently been on trips to Belgium, Nashville, Colorado and Florida and didnt want to take a chance that camera failure would ruin perhaps only chances to capture images. A D800 is now my primary, and I keep my D5300 as backup. As long as there is room in the luggage, I will take 2. Locally, I usually take only one (I can't carry both at the same time anyway), cause I can go back as many times as I want. They can both use the same lenses, tho older Fx lenses without motors will not autofocus with the crop sensor bodies and DX lenses do not address the whole sensor on the D800. There is also the infrequent event where I like to carry 2 mounted lenses- so one on each body. Not often cause the pack is too heavy for me to carry around.

A friend with a small Sony A77R gets little attention and is not afraid to approach his subjects and get a backstory. My camera/lens combo is much more noticeable and I am not as intrepid. I always look like a tourist in NYC despite living on Long Island my whole life. Don't stare at people through the camera so targets shouldn't think I'm completely creepy. Now I'm thinking of a photo vest for a more finished tourist look.
Aside: At the West Indian pre-parade 2 years ago, a lot of costumed folks got the impression I was there on assignment and were only too happy to pose and be real friendly as well! A great day.

I carry 2 lenses for street and most everything else. Nikon 24-120 and 70-300 zoom. This gives me a choice of including more of the scene, or being more anonymous and shooting from where subjects wont notice me. Both lenses are very sharp. I sometimes bring a 10.5mm fisheye for interesting architecture shots.

I dont know much about Leica but have shot with and know an owner of a couple of Hasselblads. Are they expensive? Yes. At the same time, image quality is far above my D800. Colors are more natural, there is less post process needed. The lenses are super sharp, and the detail is incredible, almost a 3d feel. The difference here is that comparing a medium format Hasselblad with a 50 or 100MP back to a 35mm format Leica is unfair.

I don't know anyone who shoots Leica. I do know that lots of pros use Hasselblad or Phase I cause they want the best IQ possible. Because its their livelihood.

I dont consider a Hasselblad 100MP with 120mm lens for $40k overpriced for what it is and what it does. Even if can be a pain in the butt to use. Wouldn't want to use one for street photography. Too heavy for me to carry around and too expensive to risk on the street.

But if you have a studio, spend a lot on lights, models and sets, where do you want to cut corners?

We also drove up to Safari Park- not too far away. Great pics of wildlife without fences, except for the lions...

Still nothing to do with cameras, but another stand for tube based audio:

Tube amps can have quite good transient response. Modern amps with stiff power supplies will sound better on drums or piano strikes than transistor amps, which will sound more spiky. Damping factor is speaker impedance divided by amplifier output impedance. A tube amp will often have 0.5 ohm or more output impedance. If the speaker is at 4 ohms, thats a damping factor of 8. Damping is a measure of how well the amp controls (stops) the woofers. Transistor amps may have damping factors of 100- 1000 depending on feedback strategies. So in the bass, transistor amps have it all over tubes for controlling woofers. Except that bass transients are actually in the midrange and treble.

Finally, a good tube amp will crap all over any solid state amp from 100Hz up in terms of bloom, musicality and fidelity to the original sound- getting the notes right from start to finish.

Regarding digital vs analog audio. Also a dedicated audiophile, there have been huge improvements in record playing equipment since the 80s. My Zyx low output mc cartridge/VPI player/step up transformer is almost always more natural sounding than CDs, or even hi rez digital (24-192 on Qobuz). I blame engineering and mastering for the poor to adequate sound on most CDs- there's no dynamic range and also no scientific reason that some vinyl made from digital masters sound better. But there's a humanity on vinyl that is missing on digital. Could it be something added by the playback system? Sure. Also, there are a lot of bad records that sound like crap.

To both of the last posters- Listen to a reasonably good turntable cartridge combo, preferably with a decent tube preamp. Use records washed in a vacuum cleaning system. You will be surprised at the fidelity, dynamics, quiet backgrounds, and even frequency extension of well engineered records. I put a minty original Simon and Garfunkel album the other day, there was plenty of info going to the subs. Guitars sound like my Martin- this was recorded with microphones instead of the acoustic guitar pickups used now.

Pace.