bob_flood1

<p>A word about crowds - Cades Cove is sensational in the fall, and draws big crowds (think gridlock) on weekends. I strongly recommend going there on weekdays. You can expect weekend crowds in the Gatlinburg-Pigeon Forge area, too. The town of Gatlinburg is in the mountains and fills up on Saturdays when Tennessee is playing at home in Knoxville, but they don't have a home game again until Nov 5.</p>

<p>I agree with Shun's point - the location of controls on the camera are significant to routine use of the camera, and all of the DX bodies have varying degrees of differences compared to the D810. The best bet would be to go to a shop that has Nikon bodies in stock so you could see for yourself and judge how each feels in your hands. If there is no such shop in your area, I suggest looking at Nikon USA's web site for photos of the bodies, or, for even more detail, download the user manuals for the D500 and D7200 to see where the controls are on each. You know which controls you use the most; neither body will have the D810's layout, so only you can judge the significance of the layouts of the DX bodies.</p>

<p>Caroline, you don't say if you would consider buying used gear, or if buying new is your plan. Naturally, it makes a big difference in what cameras people have been suggesting. A body refurbished by Nikon can save some money, but I think Nikon only offers a 90 day warranty with refurbs. KEH sells used gear and includes a 6 month warranty - something to conssider.<br /><br />If your purpose is wildlife, a crop sensor body will help you more than a full frame body, although folks will point out legitimate advantages of full frame under some circumstances. Still, if you plan to have only one camera body, I think you'll be happier with a good, modern DX model.<br /><br />I'm not very familiar with the layout of controls on the D50, but If I were a betting man, I'd say you will find the controls of a D7200 very much similar to the camera you've been using, and the controls of a D500 to be almost like a foreign language. Make no mistaken, the D500 comes with capabilities that would be wonderful to have, but it's control layout is quite different from other Nikon DX bodies. This makes a visit to a store where you can gets these cameras into your hands becomes quite valuable. The one that suits you and feels comfortable in your hands is the one that you will use.<br /><br />Optically, the 200-500 is excellent, and it has wonderful VR - I've had difficulty hand-holding lenses for years now, and I was astonished that I can get sharp images with the 200-500 because of its VR. Tamron makes a 150-600 lens that some folks seem to be getting sharp images with, and it can be had cheaper than to 200-500 (look online at B&H and Adorama), but it is a little more limited in low light. And low light is one of the places where you are looking for improvement. But like you, my photography doesn't make money - it costs money, and that means cost is an object. I recommend winning the lottery.</p>

<p>The fundamental choice is limited to only 2 options. In option 1, you hang the whole assembly by connecting the support to the camera body, which means the weight of the lens is being held by the camera-to-lens mount. This is true whether you attach a neck strap to the lugs on the camera body or attach a more specialized strap to the tripod socket on the bottom of the body or use a Cotton Carrier-type attachment to the camera body - either way, the weight of the lens causes some degree of strain on the lens mount. In option 2, attaching to the tripod mount on the lens - the collar - means that the lens is suspended and the weight of the body provides the strain on the lens mount. I'm not aware of a Cotton Carrier-type system that relies on the lens collar mount being used to attach the rig to the carrier.</p> <p>Either way, unless you have a way to support both the lens and the body, there will be strain on the lens mount. If the lens is heavier than the body, the rig will be better off if the support is attached to the lens. Of course, how much the rig bounces around while walking is also a major factor in the total strain on the lens mount. I think that's the major benefit of the Cotton Carrier and similar systems.</p>

<p>Something else to consider about cloud storage - the band width available in an internet cafe and hotel will require more hours than you can spend to upload a day's raw files, even if you can keep the link open that long. Add to that the risk of acquiring one of the many internet viruses and the cloud doesn't look like much of an option.</p> <p>I'm with Shun on backup - duplicate storage is the minimum acceptable system. I buy portable hard drives in pairs, copy a day's shooting to a directory with the day's date for a name (e.g., 20160714), and once the day's work is copied, copy that directory to the second drive. I open a few files on each drive for a functional test, like Shun, too. The hard drive on my old laptop I use for travel is too small to allow me to use it to hold one of the copies, hence the need for 2 portable drives. I understand the benefit of the SSD types - no moving parts is always better.</p> <p>Paranoia is a good thing - it's been keeping our species alive for over 100,000 years, and works really well for data storage.</p>

<p>There's another aspect that can be a factor in your final decision, but it depends on what you expect to do with your finished images.</p> <p>A 24 mp camera allows for a meaningful amount of cropping while still yielding a decent image. A 24 mp original image can be copped to the same image that can be obtained by adding a 1.4X TC and still give a 12 mp result. If that is enough to meet you printing and display needs, then you can crop a 70-200/2.8 shot to get a 280 mm field of view while still using f2.8.</p> <p>The older 300 f4 AF-S (non-VR) lens can be used this way with good effect. f4 isn't as fast as 2.8 obviously, but it isn't too bad, either, and cropping a 300 shot can give you up to 420 mm field of view at f4 in a 12 mp result. Something to consider.</p> <p>Noise software - not long ago Nik Software was bought by Google (I think) and they made their entire set of image tools available free online. I suggest looking for it and downloading it if it is still available. The noise program, called Dfine, works very well and allows selective application to parts of an image and adjustment of varying degrees to suit the situation - not bad for free.</p>

<p>Your plan will require about 500 miles of relocation driving a week, which can be done in a day - devoting one day in seven to that type of driving seems quite feasible to me. Even better if it's broken into 2-3 segments per week. I think the advice about renting a car in one place and turning it in at another is good - most companies charge a premium for doing so, and I expect that if the start and end locations are in different countries, the added cost could well be a problem. This deserves thorough research before making a decision.</p> <p>Las Vegas would make a good destination to fly to from the bay area to start your adventure. As a major tourist location, there's an enormous number of flights to Vegas, and you have 3 airports in the bay area to choose from. You should be able to find a flight that fits your budget and schedule. The North Rim is an easy 5.5 hour drive from Vegas.</p> <p>You may already know this, but the North Rim of the Grand Canyon isn't open year round. The north side gets only about 10% of the park's total visitors, not enough to justify the cost of keeping roads clear of snow and the facilities staffed in winter. It closes in October and reopens in May. The park publishes the dates on their website for the canyon, but I don't know how far in advance the dates are made public. That's something you need to watch if you want the North Rim to be your starting point. Another option would be to fly into Vegas and go first to Zion (2.75 hour drive) and maybe some of Escalante, and then the North Rim - that would make the rim's opening date less crucial to your planning.</p> <p>A possible plan altering factor - crowds. Yellowstone and Grand Teton suffer from too much popularity. I last visited Yellowstone in mid-May, 2012 for 2 weeks, and the park was uncrowded on weekdays, but filled to overflowing on the weekends. After Memorial Day, the park filled and stayed full the entire summer. Now I read from fellow photographers that bus-based tours and the general popularity have the park crowded all the time, so much so that a few I know have abandoned a planned 1 or 2 week stay and gone home (within the last 2 weeks!) Based on all this, I suggest you examine the possibilities of starting in Yellowstone instead of at the Grand Canyon - the earlier you get there the better the crowd condition will be for you.</p> <p>I agree that snow is unlikely to cause any real problems. Even in Yellowstone, you might see a segment of the park get a few inches of snow, and in May their snow removal vehicles will probably be in Glacier NP - the only remedy is to let the snow melt. But that will only affect a part of the park and probably for only a part of a day, not something that could spoil the visit.</p> <p>One radical proposal - divide the trip into 2 major segments. Fly from SFO to Jackson WY to minimize the crowds in Yellowstone and Grand Teton, and then devise a loop south from Grand Teton to see Utah (Zion, Escalante, Canyonlands) and the North Rim with the goal of ending in Jackson, WY again, to turn in the car. Then Fly to Canada (Banff), rent a car and travel across Canada to Vancouver. This gets you to Yellowstone earliest to help with the crowd issue and avoids turning in a car in another country. It leaves out Glacier NP, which I suggest is a reasonable idea - the only road that crosses the park is the famous Going to the Sun Road, which may be open at the very end of your schedule, but it may not be open until July, and the park can't predict the opening date very far in advance. Something to consider, at least.</p> <p>I envy you your trip. Hope the both of you have as much fun as the trip looks like!</p>

<p>Given all the rust I've accumulated since I last used one, I had to get a Nikkormat off the shelf to test this.</p> <p>On my FTn, with no lens mounted, there's no red "dot" visible on the aperture indexing ring on the side of the lens mount. I mounted a 50/1.4, set the lens to f5.6, fitted it onto the camera, and rotated the lens until the rabbit ear and indexing pin reach top dead center with a very distinct click (clack might be a better word). At that point, the red dot appears at f5.6 on that indexing ring. I rotated the lens aperture ring to f16 and then to f1.4. At that point the red dot aligns at f1.4. That's how it all should work.</p> <p>But just because you can't see the red dot doesn't automatically mean that the indexing isn't working - maybe it's just a red dot malfunction.</p> <p>Mount and index a lens in the normal way, set the shutter speed to something like 1/30 or slower and aperture to f5.6, look into the lens, and fire the shutter. You should be able to see the aperture stop down for the shot and re-open. Then change to f1.4 or whatever is wide open on your lens, and repeat the shot. You'll catch a little bit of motion in there because the mirror moves, but it should be obvious that the aperture stayed wide open, or it closed down (which it shouldn't). If the wide open shot looks successful, repeat the f5.6 shot to verify the aperture stops down again. If all this works, you've got a working camera. If it doesn't, then some of the advice here looks appropriate for trying to free up whatever isn't moving. An alternative is routine CLA service (clean-lubricate-adjust) at a camera repair shop, assuming there is such a thing in your neck of the wood.</p>

<p>I'll second Shun's advice - the old 80-400 is not the lens you are looking for. I've owned that lens for a fairly long time and can honestly say it's a very good 80-300 lens, but if a 300 mm limit works for you, the 70-300 is a better way to get there.</p> <p>My solution was to buy a used Nikon AF-S 300 f4 and 1.4X and 1.7X teleconverters. That 300 f4 is so good for the money that it has become a kind of informal standard by which other telephotos have been judged - every new lens that has come along has been subject to the question "is it as good as the 300/4?". But my solution happened before the current crop of telephoto zooms became available. The 300/4 is as good as its reputation says, and I've been very happy with it, but it's not a zoom.</p> <p>Sigma and Tamron have introduced 150-600 mm lenses and Nikon has its 200-500, and by all accounts they are very much in the same category as the 300 f4, plus they have the versatility of zooming. If I were in the market to upgrade from my old 80-400 today, I'd be getting one of these new zooms instead of the 300/4. The advice about the 200 mm lower end of the Nikon zoom on a DX body being a problem is legit - I think you'll find the 150 mm lower end on the Tamron/Sigma offerings more versatile. If you consider them, be sure to look at the size and weight or each (they aren't the same) - long lenses get heavy - and consider how much you expect to carry the lens around. That might help you choose between a 70-300 and 150-600.</p>

<p>Frankly, there aren't any bad spots. Have a look at the NPS map of the north rim and plan to get to as many of them as your time will allow.</p> <p>You don't say if you plan to hike down into the canyon. If you don't, then I suggest you allow time to hike part way down. The perspective change is significant, and will allow you to get images that folks up on the rim won't. There's a rule of thumb that says plan on 2 hours climbing back up for every hour you hike down. That works pretty well for healthy people - for handicapped old goats like me it's more like 3 hours up for each hour down. If you hike, take water - it's a desert all year round. Don't be fooled by the fact that your don't get covered with perspiration - it evaporates as fast as you perspire, and you lose water at a faster rate than you'll experience anywhere else. So take water. And tell someone where you are going and when you expect to be back. Carry a cell phone and keep it on - even though you may not have service, it can be used to locate you if necessary (cheap insurance).</p>

<p>My wife and I were there 2 years ago. First, the surf: The famous big surf happens in winter and the waves are on the north shore. We were there in July and I was astonished to get to the Banzai Pipeline and Sunset Beach on the north shore of Oahu and find surf that was every bit the equal of the pool in my back yard! During summer, the surf is smaller and comes up from the south. That works well for Honolulu. There will be surf at Waikiki, and school will be out, so there will be surfers at Waikiki. The problem is that the shape of the bottom at Waikiki cause the waves to come up and break a fair distance out from the beach - a 300 mm lens on a DX body wasn't really very good for this - if you want to get surfer shots at Waikiki, you'll need to bring a longer lens.</p> <p>The northeast and east sides of Oahu are not the prime tourist area of the island (it's residential), so there's a distinct absence of tourist-friendly businesses like restaurants. But the landscape is beautiful, the surf is better than Waikiki, and the surf will be full of kids. Pretty country with kids having fun - a good combination.</p> <p>Waikiki is an interesting place to just shoot as the day goes on, but I got some really good sunset shots by walking east along the beach toward Diamondhead and shooting back toward the beach/city at sunset. There's a city park across the road from the beach near the foot of Diamondhead - it was full on kids' soccer teams all practicing and made for a few nice shots with Diamondhead as the backdrop.</p> <p>We also toured the Dole Plantation north of Honolulu - that was so-so - amusing but not a great photo op.</p>

<p>Andrew, I live in Las Vegas, and it's a good central location for getting to the Arizona and Utah parks. Vegas is a 5-5.5 hour drive from either side of the Grand Canyon, 2.5-3 hours from Zion, and it's another 1+ hour from Zion to Bryce. (I don't recommend driving between Zion and Bryce in darkness - too many deer around there think they own the roads.) Page AZ and Monument Valley are another 2-3 hours beyond the Grand Canyon.</p> <p>Yellowstone is another story. When I go there, I drive about 11 hours from Vegas to Jackson, WY and spend the night, The next day I shoot my way through Jackson Hole/Grand Teton NP and into Yellowstone. I stay in West Yellowstone MT for several nights, and then reverse the travel going home - work my way to Jackson WY again for a night and then drive to Vegas the following day. The drive from Vegas to Jackson is an easy one - mostly freeway cruising and good quality roads in rural WY, but it's a long day.</p> <p>If you find the use of Vegas as a start/end point will suit your plans, you can rent your gear here. Check with B&C Camera here in Las Vegas at http://store.bandccamera.com/. I have done a fair amount of business with them in recent years including rental, and they have been good folks to deal with.</p>

<p>Some years ago, Adobe used to make updates available to download that would allow a version of Elements to read NEF files from cameras introduced after that version of Elements. However, unless they have changed policy quite recently, they no longer do this. I believe they abandoned the practice about the same time they abandoned marketing new CS versions and went to the subscription approach. The only way to get D810-Elements compatibility will be to get a new version of Elements.</p>

<p>"the lens resists manual focus when mounted with the camera in autofocus"</p> <p>When the camera is set to autofocus with the lens mounted, the manual focus is locked - the manual focus ring shouldn't be movable at all. If it moves but with resistance, something inside is broken. With the lens dismounted, I can turn the screwdriver slot on the back of my lens very easily - fingertip grip on a screwdriver to turn it.</p> <p>If you have the option to send it back for a refund, I strongly recommend you do that.</p>

<p>If Elements 12 won't open your D810 raw files, then you need a new version of Elements to get the capability - Adobe no longer offers free updates to its Elements products to accommodate newer cameras that come along after introducing a version of Elements (they use to, years ago, but no more).</p> <p>The converter you need depends on your preferences for what you want the converter to do. A current version of ViewNX would allow you to convert raw to tif, but with little capability to make adjustments in the conversion process. And as already stated, you can get a free raw to dng converter. Either would allow you to convert a raw file to one that Elements 12 can read, allowing you to then make whatever adjustments you prefer. When I bought my D610, the version of Elements I had at the time wouldn't read the 610's raw files, so I used ViewNX to convert to tif and then edited in Elements. But Elements has a pretty good assortment of adjustments available during its conversion process, and I missed it. So I bought the newest version of Elements (13 at that time) - it's my preferred way to do conversions.</p>

<p>Another source for a quality vest is Orvis, a longstanding company that specializes in flyfishing gear. One warning about fishing vests - most are made for a person wading into the water, and the vests are rather short to keep them out of the water. Most fall short of the waistline.</p> <p>If a short vest is OK with you, Orvis has mesh types that won't be too hot and that are reasonably priced for the quality. They also make a waist length vest for a bit more that I expect will be good high quality, but it looks to be warmer than a mesh type.</p> <p>The vests use zippers rather than Velcro closures, and I greatly prefer that - ripping open a Velcro pocket can make enough noise to spook animals and spoil a shooting opportunity.</p>

<p>I recommend that you buy for the future rather than the past, and the D7000 is part of the past. It's a good camera (I use one routinely), but buying something newer can help you remain satisfied with its performance as the next generations come up for sale. Getting something that will do want you want for a long time is ultimately cheaper than buying older models that you'll want to replace before long.<br> I assume you have DX lenses and will therefore be looking for just a camera body. I think the best deal right now is the D7100 (the D7200 is over your upper limit of $1,000). A new D7100 body can be had for about $800, but a Nikon-refurbished D7100 can be had for about $550, and it has a 90 day warranty. An extended warranty can also be purchased if you like. Take a look at the specs for the D7100 - when you think about what you'd like over your D5000, I suspect you won't find anything missing in the 7100.</p>

<p>What battery are you using?</p> <p>When Nikon was making Nikkormat FTNs, the meter was designed to use a flat, mercury-based battery that has since been outlawed in most (but not all) countries. It was the nature of mercury batteries to provide a constant voltage throughout the useful life of the battery - the current (milli-amps) decreased as the battery drained.</p> <p>You can buy an alkaline battery that may be marketed as equivalent, but it will not work satisfactorily. Alkaline batteries provide a constant current with voltage declining as the battery is drained. Since the Nikon meters were designed to operate on a constant voltage, the meter will not maintain accuracy as the battery drains.</p> <p>There is a solution, if you haven't found it already. Air-activated batteries made for hearing aids provide a constant voltage, and can be had with a nominal voltage that is suitable for the meter. The down side to these batteries is life expectancy - whether in use or sitting idle, once the protective cover is removed so the battery can be used, it will go flat in a month's time. The good news is that they are cheap (last I looked, under $10 for a pack of 5 or 6) and can be found in pretty much every pharmacy in the country. If the battery is sufficiently smaller than the battery compartment that keeping it positioned correctly is a problem, you can get small O-rings at a hardware store that can fit around the battery to keep it from moving inside the compartment.</p>

<p>I have to agree with Shun - the shutter speeds Mr Hill uses with long lenses are remarkable, and completely irrelevant to my shooting. But if he gets sharp images that way, it tells me what the lens can do. What he can do in the way of hand-holding the lens doesn't mean anything to me and my photography. The fact that he gets good shots using a 400/2.8 handheld in a floating Zodiac tells me his shooting doesn't relate to mine.</p> <p>I see how people can prefer the Nikon 200-500, and over the years I've had a preference for the Nikon brand over 3rd party hardware in general. The only reason I'd pick the Sigma over the Nikon is the additional 100 mm. As Gretzky taught us all, "you miss 100% of the shots you don't take," and the 200-500 won't be taking any 600 mm shots. That extra reach has value, at least to my viewpoint. It's always a personal choice.</p> <p>Shun's right on about the 300/4 focus speed. When I got mine, the improvement it offered over my old Nikon 80-400D was terrific, and I don't shoot birds in flight much at all (not to many of them here in the desert!). I've had some success but only with large birds - eagles, herons, etc. Sea gulls are generally too fast for me, but I suspect that's more my limitation than the lens. I haven't found any meaningful change in autofocus performance with my 1.4X, but there's an unmistakeable loss with my 1.7X.<br> I can also see value in the Sigma being a new lens. I could get a 300/4 AF-S and a 1.4X Nikon TC for about the same money as the Sigma, and the Sigma is new, with a new product warranty. That will attract a lot of buyers, too. </p>

<p>I purchased my Nikon 300 f4 AF-S lens and Nikon 1.4X teleconverter from KEH.com. I have also purchased a couple of other small items from them and sold a couple of items to them. I think that they are regarded as the standard for the used gear market and have been for many years They have a reputation for being very conservative about grading their merchandise - my 300 f4 was graded EX (a notch lower than EX+ and 2 notches below LN- which mean Like New), and, frankly, I found no evidence that the lens, its caps and case weren't brand new. KEH also includes a 6 month warranty on most of their items.</p> <p>There are other places that sell used equipment - B&H and Adorama come immediately to mind. I've not done business with them for used gear so I have no experience to share. Others here may be able to speak about such places, both of whom enjoy high regard for their retail practices for new equipment.</p>

<p>It appears that there are 4 options that fit your wishes and general budget. The Nikon 200-500, as already stated, is a little more than your budget, but would do the trick nicely. Second, there are 2 150-600 mm zooms, one each from Sigma and Tamron. Sigma actually makes 2 of the 150-600's, one called the Contemporary (and within your budget) and the other the Sport (and well over your budget). These 2 are different optically and physically, but the less expensive Contemporary version has been well received. The last option is the tried and true Nikon 300 f4 AF-S (second hand) with teleconverter(s) (this is not the latest 300 PF version with VR, but the previous AF-S version without VR). This last option, of necessity, involves buying a used lens, and whether that is to your liking is entirely up to you.</p> <p>Each lens has its merits, and a search of threads about each of these in the dpreview.com forum will yield enough reading material to last the rest of the winter. And reading is probably necessary here - It is a way to arm yourself with the experience of others with each lens. And a surprisingly large number of users have purchased and compared 2 or more of these.</p> <p>But beware of negative reviews. The price of these new lenses have moved a lot of amateurs to buy a long telephoto for the first time, and a lot of them tested the lens and wrote their assessments without necessarily developing the specialized skills of shooting with a long telephoto lens. There are user reviews of all of these lenses that found the lenses to be soft, unable to focus accurately, etc, that may well reflect the shooters' limitations more than the lens' limitations. Positive reviews, especially those with example images included, show what the lens can do, as well as what the shooter can do.</p> <p>The best approach I can recommend is to take your camera and get to a store that sells these lenses, put each lens on your camera in the store, and shoot and fiddle with them. Judge for yourself how the lens/camera balances in your hands, how the controls are placed, which way the zoom ring rotates, and the weight of each rig. If you can do this, I think the one you want will identify itself this way. How it feels and works in your hands is an essential characteristic - you'll be more effective using one that feels comfortable to you.</p> <p>There's a blog written by Brad Hill in Canada - he has purchased and tested (exhaustively) a Tamron 150-600, a Sigma 150-600 Sport (the one that's over your budget), and the Nikon 200-500. You can find his blog at http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html. He isn't paid by any of the manufacturers, nor does his web site include advertisements. You can judge for yourself whether his opinions are learned and worth listening to yourself - just take a look at his gallery. His opinion of a lens is just one opinion, like each other user's opinion. But his testing has been really systematic, and he does a very good job of describing how he has tested each lens, and is very good about making sure the reader knows what he didn't test and what conclusions should not be drawn from his test results.</p> <p>I use the Nikon 300 f4 with 1.4X and 1.7X Nikon teleconverters, and I love the results. I miss the convenience of a zoom, but as a retiree, I have made a decision that I'm not going to spend the money to buy one of these new lenses - to me, a $1,000 purchase represents enough money to spend 2 weeks in Yellowstone, and I'd rather have those 2 weeks than a new lens. But, if I was buying, base on all I've seen and read, I'd buy the Sigma 150-600 Contemporary. For wildlife shooting, there's no such thing as too much reach, and reviews of the Sigma Contemporary have me convinced the performance would be quite satisfactory.</p> <p>Good luck in your search. In many ways, I envy you.</p>

<p>I used this same solution in my Nikkormat FTNs until I went completely digital some years back. Let me add two points:<br> First, the hearing aid batteries are smaller in diameter than the mercury battery and the battery compartment. If the battery sits off-center in the compartment, the electrical contact may be troublesome. I found that a trip to my local hardware stored solved this. A decent hardware store will have O-rings in an assortment of sizes. I got a couple that are just a little larger in diameter than the hearing aid battery but small enough to fit in the battery compartment. This keeps the battery centered in the compartment for good electrical contact.<br> Second, keep a supply of hearing aid batteries in your bag - they are air activated (hence the peel-off cover) and only last about a month, whether you use the battery or not. So you need to have some around. With the low low cost and easy availability, the short useful life is no problem.</p>

<p>Shun's advice is good - beware of a D600 that has the oil problem. Nikon offered a free fix for D600 owners, so ask the seller if it has been sent in for the fix, and if so, ask for some paperwork to verify this. If it hasn't, I believe (but do not know) that Nikon will still do the free shutter replacement - you could check with Nikon on that. If you go this route, and if you have a local camera store that carries Nikon, that store may be willing to send it in to Nikon for you - it's worth asking about it.</p> <p>But be advised - getting a full frame body means full frame lenses. Thus, the cost of a move to FX may have to include buying lenses that you don't already have in addition to the cost of the camera body.</p>

<p>Pretty much all of the places you have heard of in the west will be busy for the same reason you are travelling in July - school's out. It's just inevitable. Be thoughtful in your planning - the west has many, many places worth seeing, but it's easy to become so ambitious that you can spend way too much time in a car driving from one to the next - the west is very spread out.<br /><br />Will your sons enjoy hiking in a national park? It's a huge factor in choosing how much of your time should be spent in parks, and whether your guys would be happier at Disneyland. The LA area has Disney, Universal Studios, and Magic Mountain, to name a few, and amusement parks like this seem like good choices for 10-12 year olds.<br /><br />Parks:<br />Glacier - on the Canadian border in Montana, unbelievable scenery, some wildlife, the park on the Canadian side is every bit as amazing if you have the passports to get there. You can fly in and out of Kalispell, MT. You could easily spend the whole 2 weeks here. But you should give it at least 3 full days in the park, excluding travel to and from.<br /><br />Yellowstone - my personal favorite. Lots of wildlife, thermal features you'll find nowhere else in the world. Another one that could take all 2 weeks (I've done it!). This also needs no less than 3 full days.<br /><br />Grand Teton - also known as Jackson Hole (the valley along side the mountains. Lots of wildlife, exceptional scenery (12-13,000 ft mountains with no foothills on the Jackson Hole side). Unless you really like to hike, this one will require 2-4 days. Hiking and horseback rising could fill 2 weeks.<br /><br />Zion - exceptional scenery, lots of hiking. Good for a few days.<br /><br />Bryce - geologic formations like nowhere else, easier hiking than Zion. Without hiking, one day with decent weather is adequate. Hiking could add a couple more days.<br /><br />Grand Canyon - go to the north rim, not the south. 90% of the park's visitors go to the south rim - the north side will be far less crowded. Mighty impressive hole in the ground, your first sighting of it is quite an experience. Worth a couple of days unless you would like to hike down into the park. That could add anywhere from 2 to 10 more days, depending on your camping plans.<br /><br />Death Valley - You're right that Death Valley will be too hot. It's an interesting to experience Death Valley's summer heat, but only for a few minutes. After that, it's just too hot to have fun.<br /><br />Yosemite - exceptional scenery, will be very busy, it may already be too late to get summer reservations inside the park, accommodations outside the park aren't especially close. Yosemite is one of those place that can capture your heart and mind - you could spend the whole summer there.<br /><br />CA Hwy 1 - the coastal highway has very good scenery and interesting towns along the way - there's some sightseeing in the Monterey area, San Simeon farther south -is that something your 10-12 year boys would enjoy for a day or 2?<br /><br />If you fly into one of the coastal cities in California and want to see some of the western parks, you're setting yourself up for some long distance driving. You might consider flying into Las Vegas. It's not a good destination by itself for a trip with kids, but it's more centrally located for going to southwestern parks like the Grand Canyon, Zion, and Bryce. Another option would be to fly into Salt Lake City because it's centrally located for going to Yellowstone and Jackson Hole, Zion, Bryce, etc. Zion, Bryce, Yellowstone, etc get lots of summer visitors and will be busy, but they get even busier on weekends, so try to plan to be in them on weekdays if you can. Glacier and the Grand Canyon don't seem to get the same jump in park visitors on weekends.<br /><br />Hope this helps some. Each park has a web site that has lots of practical information that will help your planning. I recommend doing your research and making your choices by early spring, and make reservations. The parks are very popular and waiting too long can make reservations harder to get.<br /><br /></p>

<p>It is my understanding that the original XQD design was a joint venture among Sandisk, Sony, and Nikon, but once the final standard was published, Sandisk backed away. Only Sony manufactured XQD cards initially, for their broadcast camcorders. Lexar started making them around the time Nikon adopted XQD. But no one else makes them, and only the Sony camcorders and a couple of Nikon bodies use them, which is why the cards remain so expensive (as pointed out by several so far). Mr. Staubus also pointed out a rather important characteristic - availability. Low sales means fewer retail outlets will carry them, making them difficult to impossible to get when the need is urgent.</p> <p>I see potential for a fatal flaw because of this. If XQD sales don't pick up by much, and Sandisk, Kingston, etc continue to stay away from XQD as a result, users may find themselves one day with a well-made, long life camera body for which memory cards are no longer available.</p> <p>I have read a report from an individual who attended the CES in Las Vegas this past week, and he handled and shot with a D500 at the Nikon booth. He ran a consecutive shot burst using a (presumably Nikon-supplied) XQD card and got the advertised 200 raw images before hitting the buffer-full slow down. He repeated the test using only a 260 mb/s SD card, and hit the same slow down after only 74 raw images. It appears to me that if a user wants the advertised high number of consecutive frames at the highest frame rate from the cameras, XQD will be mandatory. I have not seen any data about a similar test of a D5, though.</p>