bob_flood1

My knowledge about this is undoubtedly out of date. We used to send radiation-sensitive dosimeters to overseas locations routinely, but we never used mail. We shipped only by DHL because they were - AT THAT TIME - the only international shipper that did not accept shipments of radioactive materials. All of the others handled regular shipments of radiopharmceuticals and industrial devices containing radioactive material, and if your shipment happened to be placed next to one of them, your shipment would be irradiated. We learned this lesson the hard way - a Fedex shipment of ours spent a night in a terminal in Boston and showed clearly that it was irradiated. Fedex's tracking system was complete enough to be able to tell us that our package was in a room next to another room in which a radiography source was stored at the same time, both of them placed opposite each other against the wall that divided the two rooms. I do not know if DHL still declines radioactive shipments. One disadvantage to DHL is the extent of their service - they don't have DHL-operated pickup and delivery in anywhere near as many locations as the other carriers. It so happened we were shipping from a DHL-served city to another DHL-served city. If your shipment originates in or is delivered to a place not directly served by DHL, they will turn the package over to another shipper that does serve that location for pickup and delivery, and the radiation-free aspect is lost. It is my understanding that most (and maybe all) cargo carriers sometimes put their packages in unused cargo space in commercial passenger planes. I expect that such freight would have to go through the same security screening as the baggage that goes in the aircraft's cargo hold. I'm afraid there's no easy answer to getting film around the world these days.

OK - here's more than you wanted to know. :^) I'm not surprised at the EMULSIVE article. I ran measurements at McCarran Airport in Las Vegas a number of years ago. I managed the radiation measurements program at the Nevada Test Site until I retired, and we were finding employee's dosimeters designed to monitor occupational exposure to radiation showing x-ray exposures that shouldn't happen at the site (no x-ray sources at the time). We traced it to the CT scan system at the airport - people were traveling for business and taking their dosimeters with them (the dosimeter was usually attached to the lanyard used for the employee's ID, which was needed during the travel). I got permission from TSA to run test dosimeters through the gate security machines and the checked baggage scanners, although they would not tell me the voltage settings they used for each kind of x-ray machine. When I was done, I told them what the voltages were - they were not pleased, but I agreed to keep it confidential. We found that we had to put a single dosimeter through the gate security scanner almost 50 times to get an x-ray measurement that could be identified as different from natural background with reasonable confidence. A single pass, or several passes associated with long distance travel wouldn't deliver a high enough dose to make a visible difference in film performance, even for quite high ISO film. On the other hand, the checked baggage scanners were different ballgame. The CT scan uses a rotating x-ray tube that encircles the bag using a continuous x-ray beam and digital imaging to "see" the bag's contents. Then a computer analyzes the image looking for specific characteristics that might indicate something that shouldn't go on the aircraft, and if detected, the bag would be opened and hand searched. The system allows a lot of bags to be scanned without opening them unless warranted, saving a lot of time and a lot of cost. But anything radiation-sensitive takes a hit in the process. We saw an average of about 75-100 millirem per airport baggage scan. A typical round trip between Las Vegas and Albuquerque or Las Vegas and Washington DC (most of our employee travel) resulted in about 175 millirem and was readily identifiable as not only caused by x-rays, but also by x-rays of the energy (voltage) we found the airport scanners used. Looking at the film fogging issue one way, one could conclude that taking film in a carry-on bag is safe; it's only necessary to avoid putting film in baggage to be checked. But that's only valid for travel around the US, western Europe, and probably plenty of other places I don't know of. But if you get off the beaten path, going through remote airports in places other than the US and western Europe, you are taking your chances. After 9/11, everyone agreed that gate security needs to be effective everywhere for the airline security system to be effective, but there were lots of places with no gate x-ray equipment and no funding to get them. The solution was for the major airports to deal with the floor loading issue caused by the old x-ray machines by replacing those machines with the new pulsed beam machines, and the old machines they replaced were given to smaller, remote airports all over the world. They are still out there, and it's difficult to predict where you might encounter them. Another bit of trivia, although it's not trivial. Anything mailed to any federal agency in Washington DC, or to any of a large number of people associated with the federal government, was put through a security system to guard against threats like anthrax. When I was still working, such mail was sterilized by irradiating the unopened mail using an electron accelerator to deliver megarad doses, way beyond fatal to a human being, enough to be fatal to any living material, without damaging the paper or ink on it. Even developed film wouldn't survive - at such doses, there'd be no recognizable image left on developed slides or negatives. I don't know that this practice is still used - technology may offer an easier way to accomplish the same security these days.

Modern gate security x-rays operate like an electronic flash - the x-ray tube emits only a flash of x-rays, and the sensor below the belt captures the image and displays it on a screen. The x-ray dose is so small it can't fog your film, even after multiple passes. These machines operate this way to make sure the security staff that work around them 8 hours a day don't receive risky exposure to x-rays. The older machines had a continuous beam x-ray tube, meaning the beam was on all the time, and keeping staff exposure low required a lot heavy shielding around the x-ray tube. When airport security ramped up after 9/11, putting a lot of those old machines close together like they are today caused floor weight-load issues, hence the development of the newer pulsed machines. Of course, there's a down side. The more modern countries wanted all airports everywhere to implement x-ray examination of carry-on bags. That led to the older continuous beam machines being sent to small, remote airports, those with low traffic. One of these machines might cause some fogging of film, especially if the film has to pass through several such airports. Flying only through major airports won't pose a meaningful risk to your film. The only risk from gate security x-rays would arise if you were flying into and/or out of remote airports in far flung parts of the world. BUT THERE IS A REAL X-RAY HAZARD! Never put your film in a bag that gets checked at the ticket counter. Most US and European airports today put checked bags through a CT scan that most definitely will ruin your film. NEVER PUT FILM IN A BAG TO BE CHECKED.

I use my 300D on a D610 and D7000. These two cameras use the same autofocus system. How important the effects of a teleconverter are on image quality depends very much on what you do with your images. If you want to print 24X36 inch posters, then a 1.7X TC isn't for you. I print my images in coffee table books I have printed online, where the image size is limited to no larger than the 11X13 inch page. Under those conditions, I find my TC14EII and TC17EII do just fine. I even have images using the the 1.7X and then cropped to 650 and 700 mm field of view that print well in the books. Images using the TC14EII are indistinguishable from the bare lens itself, although there may be discernible differences in images printed larger than I do. I also find that autofocus typically works as well unless shooting is rather low light where the difference between f4 and f5.6 makes for a significant issue. The 1.7X has a distinctly larger effect on autofocus. Both cameras take longer to lock focus, even in solid daylight, and using it in low light like sunrise or sunset requires patience and care. Frankly, I find I usually skip using the 1.7X in low light because I get more reliable focus using the 1.4X, and cropping to get the framing I want has proven more reliable for me. In general, I find using the 1.4X for birds-in-flight to be as successful as the bare lens, but the 1.7X does poorly with subjects where the distance to the subject changes quickly. I find the 1.7X does splendidly shooting vintage car races, as the distance from me to the car doesn't change as abruptly.

Camera/lens weight is an issue for me, too, and a monopod is a major help. It doesn't have to be an expensive one - my first was the best monopod $20US could buy at Walmart. Look for one that collapses down enough so it can be used at its shortest length inside your car for shooting through the window on the opposite side. You can even use the long end of the lens to move your husband out of the way if necessary :^) A ball head can do nicely even though a gimbal is better (but gimbals tend to be expensive for well made ones). Even a bare monopod with no head on it provides a surface on which you can rest the lens to improve steadiness, and it will make the monopod assembly shorter for use inside a car.. I also recommend the item below for shooting out the window beside you. It's intended for hunting - the bottom can rest on a tree limb, fence rail, etc and the rifle barrel goes in the slot on the top to steady the rifle. Turn it upside down and the slot goes nicely over a half open window, and provides a nice beanbag surface to steady a long lens. Purpose-built window camera supports tend to be expensive. I got this at Sportsman's Warehouse for $16. There's one other thing that a photographer has to do when using a long lens - practice, practice,practice.

Since autofocus better than your D7000 is a stated goal, don't be tempted to pick up a D610, even if it's offered at an attractive price. I own and use both the D610 and D7000, and I can say with confidence that the D610's autofocus is no better (and no worse) than the D7000. Something to consider when choosing - look online at Nikon's photos of the various bodies you'd consider and pay attention to the layout and location of the controls on each camera's body. Some are very much like your D7000, and some are quite different. If the differences don't bother you, that makes choosing easier. But if you find the idea of adjusting to an entirely new layout of controls unattractive, you'll be better off making an informed decision.

I have posted about this in the somewhat distant past, but it bears repeating. The ramping up of airport security and the screening of checked baggage and carry-ons has led to major changes in the hardware used these days When airports had to install a large number of x-ray machines at gate security checkpoints, the weight of the older, continuous beam x-ray machine was too much - the lead shielding in those machines to prevent high radiation exposure of the staff that worked all day at the checkpoints was never part of the design of airports - the floors weren't intended to carry that much weight. So machines were developed that used computer control of the x-ray-generating tube and the resulting images. The x-ray tube now fires like an electronic flash - a pulse of x-rays so short that lead shielding isn't needed to keep worker exposures very low. The computer captures the x-ray images and displays them as long as the operator wants, including synchronizing the displayed image to the location on the conveyor belt. The result is that there is no meaningful x-ray dose to film put through the gate security x-ray machines. However, this is NOT true for checked baggage. Modern airports today use CT scan systems to examine checked bags without opening them. A computer analysis of the CT images is used to identify bags that warrant opening for a hand search. In 2012 when I retired, some airports scanned 100% or checked baggage, while others scanned a random sample. I suspect that the number of airports scanning 100% has increased since then, but I have no data on this. Until I retired, I ran a radiation dosimetry system at a federal facility, and had to contend with these effects for people who had to travel with their dosimeters. We ran some experiments, including putting some dosimeters through gate security machines 50 times and still found no measurable dose. But a single pass through a luggage-scanning system delivers 75 or more millirem, and that will fog film. Going through scans twice (going and coming back) will thoroughly ruin your film. So if you still use film (Bravo!) and travel by commercial air carrier, take your film in your carry-on bag, and NEVER NEVER NEVER leave it in a bag to be checked at the ticket counter. Another caution: when the industrialized world increased the rigor of screening, they wanted the rest of the world to do so as well - otherwise, remote, small airports would become the obvious points of entry to the passenger system while avoiding tough security. Many of those airports told the industrialized nations, if you want us to do these things, you need to provide us the hardware. The immediate solution was to give all those old, continuous beam x-ray machines to the smaller countries. So you may yet encounter x-ray problems for your film - the farther you get from the beaten path, the greater the risk. Of course, my information on this may be past its expiration date.

I suggest you look at Brad Hill's blog, Natural Art Images: Voice: Brad Hill Blog He is a wildlife and sometime landscape shooter of admirable skill. He has just posted a blog about his experience in the field with his D850 and Z7. He goes to some length to ensure that the reader understands that the features he values and those he doesn't stem from how he uses the cameras and conditions under which he shoots. So I wouldn't regard his opinions and recommendations as universally applicable (and he doesn't either), but you'll know know more about both cameras when you are through reading.

I just did a quick cruise through my Grand Canyon shots looking at EXIF data, and I find that I have used the entire range of focal lengths of my 16-85 Nikon zoom on my D7000, a crop sensor body. When I say the entire range, that includes a nearly uniform distribution of focal lengths between the max and min, not just at the extremes. And while I have longer lenses (mainly for wildlife), I haven't used them at the canyon except for wildlife. The 28-200 would be a very practical range for the canyon in general, but I have many shots at 16 mm (24 mm FF equivalent) that would be disappointing if copped to a 28 mm field of view. I am not bashful about merging multiple shots to get a wider view, so I'd probably go with the larger body and the 28-200, planning on shooting pano shots to be merged when I get home, but that's just me. If making merged panoramics isn't to your liking, then I strongly suggest you take the 24 mm option AND the 28-200 option. You'll miss the longer end and the shorter end if you don't. While you are here in Vegas, you may want to check out Valley of Fire, a state park about an hour's drive northeast of the city. There's also Red Rock Canyon, much closer, on the west side of the city, and a small ghost town at Nelson, about an hour out of town (southeast), Have a great time.

Witness protection program?

Good shot - I like including the statue and people to show some context in the community. The verticals aren't quite vertical - a 1 degree rotation to the left (CCW) fixes it. I think the statue would benefit from lightening shadows, but it may prove difficult to gain some detail in the statue without also creating a halo effect around it. Hard to say without the original raw file.

30-40 years ago, Nikon sold far fewer cameras and lenses than they do today, and were nicely profitable. I have no worries for their future in the reduced DSLR market. Nikon has been making other products for a long time, and they will continue to do so. They make excellent microscopes - I have seen many in use in laboratories where I conducted accreditation assessments for 20+ years before I retired. And I and many friends have Nikon rifle scopes, regarded as among the best available. I see no reason for my D610 to become a collector's item.

I don't have D850, but a couple of things apply no matter what body is involved. First, it WILL turn off if you remove the battery. Do so, and keep the battery out for a minute or so to allow any capacitors inside to drain stored charge. Then put the battery back in. Does the camera come on even though you haven't used the on/off switch? If it does not, then turn the camera on. Does it turn on? If so, can you now turn it off? If you can, keep checking the on/off for a few days to see if the problem arises again. If you get no good results from all that, then a 2 button reset would be appropriate. Consult your manual to get the correct procedure and do the reset. Then test to see if the problem persists. If these don't work, I suspect a trip to Nikon's service center will be necessary.

Some general ideas about your visit: In June, the park will be quite busy every day of the week, but especially on weekends. Funny thing about crowds - they don't seem to like getting up early. So getting out for sunrise to shoot and begin your walks will offer you some much less crowded time. If your schedule and transportation plans allow, allocate at least a day in Jackson Hole immediately south of Yellowstone NP. When an animal (or herd of animals) find grazing that they like today, it's a good bet they'll be back to that spot tomorrow. Ask the rangers at the visitor centers where animals of interest to you have been seen in the last day or two. Such spots will be a good place to start the next day. The animals cause traffic jams. A bear feeding near a road will cause everyone to stop and get out to see and take pictures. Some of them never seem to grasp the concept that these are truly wild animals and not Disney characters in costume. Expect one or more rangers to show up at any bear jam and go to considerable trouble to keep the tourists from getting too close. You don't ever want to find yourself between a momma bear and her cub!

You've replied to a discussion that's years old. Nevertheless..... You have to distinguish between gate security x-ray machines and the x-rays for checked luggage. At gate security, there are employees that have to be in the immediate vicinity of the x-ray machines the entire work day, so dose rates from those machines are an important occupational safety issue. The massing of x-ray machines in small areas for gate security after 9/11 created a problem - the old continuous beam x-ray machines required a lot of shielding, and massing those machines meant putting a weight load on a small floor area that was never designed to carry that much weight. The solution was pulsed x-rays. The gate security x-ray machines all over the US, Canada, most of Europe and the major airports of the rest of the world now use a pulsed x-ray beam that fires just like an electronic flash. The detector system below the conveyor belt puts the x-ray image onto the screen the operator watches, allowing the operator to examine the x-ray result. The image acquired is larger than the screen can display, so the operator can move the image back and forth to see all of it, and the belt moves in sync with the image so the operator can identify the location of an item on the belt accurately. The flash of x-rays is so short that the doses to the people who work there all day are unmeasurably small. I know - I measured them. Checked luggage scans are another matter altogether. Airports in the US and major cities around the world now have automated CT scan systems to examine checked bags. Many of the airports do these scans on a random sample of bags, but I know that some in the US airports scan 100% of checked luggage - Las Vegas, Albuquerque, and the airports around Washington, DC. There are undoubtedly others that I am not aware of. The CT scan delivers a film-ruining dose - never put your film in a bag to be checked. The scan results are examined by a computer algorithm that keys on specific patterns in the images and flags bags for further examination (meaning they get opened). As for doses at altitude, your film isn't at risk - the doses aren't high enough unless you spend so much time flying that you'll be broke the rest of your life. Airline flight crews do receive doses in the hundreds of millirem per year, but that not enough to disturb the universe. To give you a sense of scale, the average dose for the US from naturally occurring radiation is 350 millirem per year. But it's double that - 700 millirem per year - in Colorado (all those granite mountains and the high altitude). If an additional 350 millirem above the national average could harm your film, photography in Colorado would be awful. And - and - and - the incidence of cancer in Colorado is lower than the national average - these dose levels aren't enough to bring cancer into play. There are more extreme examples. There's a region in India where the soil doesn't contain silicon-based sand - the sand in that soil is thorium oxide, which is naturally radioactive. The average dose per year in this region is about 1,400 millirem, and comprehensive study of the people living there shows cancer rates comparable to other rural agricultural regions around the world. And there's region in Argentina with the same kind of sand and average doses are around 1,800 millirem per year, and still no elevated incidence of cancer. So, there's no doubt that you get a bit more radiation exposure when you fly, and people who fly for a living get doses higher than typical nuclear power plant workers, but those doses aren't large enough to exceed doses that people on the ground at various places around the world live with every year. As for your lead-lined bag, it's not useless - but, lead is not completely opaque to x-rays. It just dims the brightness of the x-rays. So film in your lead bag will receive less dose than it will riding unprotected in the gate security x-ray machine. But riding unprotected in that gate security machine (i.e., no lead-lined bag) won't cause any visible harm, either. However, your lead bag will be thoroughly inadequate to protect your film in a check bag CT scan.

Something to consider is what other lenses you have now or plan to buy. I use the 24-85 on my D610, and skipped the 24-120 because of 1) the weight and 2) I have a 70-300 (old) and an 80-400, so the extra reach of the 24-120 wasn't important to me. The 24-85 has done everything I have wanted it to do. If the kit lens you buy will be your only lens, then that lens will be your only way to get to a 100-120 mm focal length - that could be a deciding factor. You know more about your current hardware and what kinds of shots you hope to make - if you expect to need longer than 85 mm and you have no other lenses, the 24-120 is probably your best bet.

I use a belt-loop holster made by Cotton Carrier and have been quite happy with it. It uses something I'll call a button that fits to the tripod socket on the bottom of the camera. The button is not round - when properly fitted, you rotate the camera+lens to horizontal (parallel to the ground) and slide the button down into a slot on the holster. Once the camera+lens rotates to vertical because of its weight distribution, the button cannot be lifted vertically from the holster. To use the camera, the user has to rotate the camera back to horizontal and lift it from the holster. This rig comes with a tether strap that goes around the neck - long enough that none of the camera weight is carried on the neck, but short enough that if accidentally dislodged, the camera cannot reach the ground. When I'm hiking (short hikes) in places like Yellowstone, Glacier, etc, I will carry a camera with a long lens for wildlife mounted on a monopod over my left shoulder, another camera with a kit zoom for landscape hanging in the holster on my left hip, and my cane in my right hand. The holster has allowed me to have the landscape camera handy - handier than in a backpack - with no mishaps or scares in the 8-10 years I've used that holster. I can see how mounting a camera+lens using the tripod collar's tripod socket would be a worry. Since the detachment process is designed to work by rotating the rig, and the weight balance of the collar-mounted rig can make unintended rotation a real problem, I see no option but to attach the button to the camera body. I've spent a lot of years (we won't discuss how many) hiking with a camera + long lens hanging around my neck or carried in my hands, and never had an issue with the weight load on the lens mount. I don't see any danger with a 70-200 hanging on the lens mount. A 600/4 or 800/5.6 might be different, but I have to say, I've never heard anyone I know complain that a heavy lens damaged the lens mount on a camera body.

I assume the 625A you talk about is an alkaline battery. As an alkaline battery is used, it's voltage drops. A standard AA battery starts brand new at about 1.65 volts, and most devices that use them (like the mouse on this computer) will quit working when the voltage has dropped to less than 0.7 volts. Devices that use alkalines are designed to cope with the decreasing voltage and still function as intended. Mercury batteries produced constant voltage, which is why they were so popular among camera manufacturers. Using an alkaline in place of a mercury battery in a light meter will cause constantly changing voltage and therefore constantly changing inaccuracies. You can do a quality control check in open sunshine - the sunny-16 rule would let you set the aperture at f16 and see if the meter indicates a shutter speed equal to the ISO setting. Zinc-air hearing aid batteries (Wein batteries) also produce constant voltage. I used them in my Nikkormats before I went digital, and I got anywhere from 1 to 3 months from each battery, depending on my camera use. A package of 5-6 of the hearing aid batteries cost me $4.95US back them, so the battery expense was negligible. The bonus is that hearing aid batteries are available in just about every pharmacy everywhere. They are generally smaller in diameter than the mercury battery they replace. I found an O-ring in a local hardware store's assortment of O-rings that was a great fit in the battery compartment to keep the hearing aid battery centered.

Let me add a bit to ben_hutcherson's post. As an alkaline battery is used, it's voltage drops. A standard AA battery starts brand new at about 1.65 volts, and most devices that use them (like the mouse on this computer) will quit working when the voltage has dropped to less than 0.7 volts. Mercury batteries produced constant voltage, which is why they were so popular among camera manufacturers. Using an alkaline in place of a mercury battery in a light meter will cause constantly changing inaccuracies. Zinc-air hearing aid batteries also produce constant voltage. I used them in my Nikkormats in the pre-digital days (remember them?), and I got anywhere from 1 to 3 months from each battery, depending on my camera use. A package of 5-6 of the hearing aid batteries cost me $4.95US back them, so the battery expense was negligible. The bonus is that hearing aid batteries are available in just about every pharmacy everywhere. They are generally smaller in diameter than the mercury battery they replace. I found an O-ring in a local hardware store's assortment of O-rings that was a great fit in the battery compartment to keep the hearing aid battery centered. I also agree with the "clean the contacts" advice - and I hope you get the meter working. You have an excellent camera.

My thanks to everyone for the help - I am better educated than when I started. But something new has been added - the threat of a government shutdown (more accurately called a government lockout - end of rant). Several years ago I set up a trip to Glacier NP, and had no-refund reservations, when the last shutdown/lockout occurred. I had access to the park for 2 days and was kept out for the rest of the week by the armed rangers at the gates. That isn't going to happen to me a second time. So my trip to Arches/Canyonlands/etc has been rescheduled for this coming winter, when summer crowds and political posturing should not be a factor.

I did what you don't want to do - I got a $150 P&S for our Disneyland outing earlier this month, and I came away with sensational memories of how thrilled my granddaughter was by her Disney experience, and almost no usable photos. I didn't want to carry a DSLR, and I still believe that was a good choice. But my old arthritic hands couldn't do a very good job of holding and manipulating a small P&S, so my efforts produced poor results. I should have known better. I would have done just as well with my phone. Wet rides - this is a big issue, with an easy solution. First, plan on wearing cargo shorts that have Velcro-type closure on the large pockets. Second, take a sandwich-size ZipLoc bag in one of those pockets. If you are going on a ride that threatens to splash you, put the camera inside the bag and zip it closed, and then put the bagged camera in one of the Velcro pockets and close it. There will be no risk of the camera falling out of the pocket, and splashing won't cause any harm.

I can recommend KEH based on personal experience. They have been in the used camera gear business longer than the internet has been around, and have built and maintained a reputation for their rather conservative classifications of each item's condition. While their prices are almost always higher than individual sellers, the device will come with the 6 month warranty, a solid return policy, and the confidence that if it is classified as in excellent condition, it is in excellent condition. Website selling has its risks. If a price seems too good to be true (a recent Craigslist ad here had a D800, Nikon 24-70, and 70-200 2.8, all for $800 - I suspect its stolen and the thief doesn't know what price to ask), it probably is too good to be true. Safety can also be an issue, especially when a sales price in the $1000+ range is involved. A seller with something worth that much can be a target of someone intending to steal the item. A buyer planning to purchase the item will need to bring that much money to the meeting with the seller - both parties have reason to be wary. The solution is to choose a very public place with witnesses as the meeting location. Places like Starbucks are commonly used for this (because there's a Starbucks everywhere), and for higher priced items, a local police station is a good meeting place. If a seller refuses to meet at such a place, don't go.

I second heimbrandt's post - I moved from a D7000 to a D610 and have been quite happy with the switch. The D610 will do much better in low light, and while the autofocus isn't Nikon's most sophisticated, it's very good. There's an added advantage to the D610 - the layout of the controls on the camera, meaning button placement, is almost identical to a D7000. That makes the move from one camera to the other easier. Buying from a used gear company, like KEH and others, has something to offer. First, when they classify a used camera's condition as Excellent, you can reasonably expect that it will be excellent. Second, there's usually a warranty, like heimbrandt said. A used camera from KEH will cost more than you can get it for on Ebay or from someone selling the camera locally, but KEH's assessment of the condition will be based on an examination by a knowledgeable technician and the company will stand by the item with a solid return policy and a warranty. You get what you pay for.

I have been doing some planning for a weekday visit to a couple of Bucket List locations, Arches and Canyonlands. In doing so, I looked at the Park Service web sites, and they paint a rather pessimistic picture of park overcrowding, unavailable parking, etc all the way through mid-October. I am looking at a trip the first week of October, intending to avoid weekends because of the crowds. I would appreciate hearing some actual experience with these parks at that time of year. Do the parks get as crowded as advertised? Arches warns of sitting in line at the entrance for 30 minutes or more to get in, and parking lots full all day throughout the park. This would get me to abandon the October plan and maybe look at January or February. Other pertinent information: I live in Las Vegas and have been to almost all other parks in Utah, most of them many times. I will be driving to Moab in my small front-wheel drive car - no backroading for me (I won't be bringing any ground clearance with me).

I'm going to repeat a few points already posted by others because they are important enough to warrant repeating. (Long post - I really got rolling on this one!) You already have a certain comfort level with you D70 - what kinds of controls the camera has, where control knobs and buttons are placed, mounting/demounting lenses, etc. Changing to an entirely different system (like a mirrorless) will leave you with zero familiarity as you start your summer vacation. Learning a new camera system takes time and leads to missing shots as you learn. I suggest you consider this when choosing - replacing your D70 with a new (or new to you) camera that has controls very much like your D70 has distinct advantages. If your lenses are AF-S types lenses, each with a focus motor inside the lens, any DSLR camera body Nikon offers will autofocus with such lenses. If you have older, screwdrive type lenses, they will not autofocus with D3xxx and D5xxx bodies (any of them, regardless of how new or old the model is). If you have the older lenses and are happy with how they have performed for you with your D70, you'll likely be happy with them on a new generation body so long as you display your images at the same sizes you have displayed your D70 images. A newer body with many more pixels allows for more post processing options, including cropping images. It's that cropping idea that can easily lead to dissatisfaction with an old lens - enlarging a portion of a 24 mp shot can yield quite acceptable pixel resolution, but may show limitations in the lens resolution you never encountered with the D70. Newer bodies will give you better results at higher ISO settings. I didn't like the noise levels I got from my D70 even at ISO 400. At lower ISOs, the images were great - I've had 16X20 prints of D70 images hanging in my home and none of them had pixelation issues - 6 MP was plenty at low ISO. On your vacation, if you care to shoot indoors in places like churches or museums, you'll need to shoot at higher ISOs because flash is commonly not allowed - that's where higher ISO becomes an issue for your D70. Controls - when you start out with a new camera, you'll be looking for the controls to adjust parameters you are used to adjusting. On D3xxx and D5xxx bodies, you'll have to make some adjustments by digging through the menus on the LCD to accomplish some things you could do with buttons on the D70. The D7xxx series of bodies will be very much like your D70 for controls - newer bodies will offer more controls, and button positions on the bodies may not be identical to the D70. Switching to a different manufacturer (whether mirrorless or DSLR) will entail learning new terminology for many of the functions you are used to, and learning entirely new systems of controls and how they work to do what you want to do. Not unlike learning another language. It will certainly slow you down when you want to take some shots until you build experience with the new system. Viewfinders - the viewfinders on the D7xxx models and all full frame bodies are pentaprism-type. The viewfinders on the D3xxx and D5xxx models are pentamirror-type, and are not as bright as pentaprism models. That becomes an issue in low light shooting. It's a deal breaker for some folks and a no-nevermind for others. I suggest you go to a store that has both types for sale and look through the viewfinders before making your choice - make an informed decision. My ultimate recommendation? I think you'll be happiest with a D7xxx body. The controls will be familiar to you and the viewfinder is what you are already accustomed to. Your lenses WILL autofocus with a D7xxx body. The D7200 is an awesome camera and you'll be happy with all it can do. A D7100 will also keep you happy - the biggest features you give up with D7100 compared to the D7200 is the buffer capacity for rapid fire shooting and some sophistication in the autofocus system - but you've never had these D7200 advantages, so you are unlikely to miss them. I always recommend people buy for the future - if you see yourself getting into sports or wildlife photography to a degree larger than you've done with your D70, the D7200 would be a better choice for your future. If you don't expect to shoot sports or animals, the D7100 will work just fine for you. New? Used? Refurbished? I think you could quite well with any of these options. It comes down to your personal feeling about risk. I prefer have some amount of warranty coverage, so I've only bought new gear, plus some used gear from KEH with their warranty (and never had a problem). Others buy used gear from complete strangers via resale web site and have been perfectly happy with their results. This aspect is a personal choice only you can make.