Glad to hear you gave it the laundry test and they kept on ticking! I did that with some seeds this summer (forgot I had them in my shorts pocket). Went ahead and planted them to see if they were still good - it looked like everyone of them germinated and now sitting in a pot out in a shady area of the back yard.

Hard to beat for brightness and price. It seems like you have to buy a bundle of them though. I started at Home Depot at Xmas - good stocking stuffers. My last buy at Amazon was for five, runs off one AA cell, and super bright (at least to my eyes). I just ran a test with all my flashlights and was surprised by the Lux app I downloaded on my phone. The big Maglite with 3 D-cells was still the brightest but didn't seem that way. Even the little cheapo Rayovac surprised me with its reading which runs off C-cells. That all said, it is hard to beat the inexpensive, lightweight LED lights today.

These mini-lights are very bright and it looks like they now come with 3 modes - normal, low light, and flashing.

https://www.amazon.com/MIKAFEN-5Pack-Flashlights-Flashlight-300lm/dp/B01ARA9YQ8

Watching this thread as my photos of steep hills always look less scary than in person. I think too many trees get in the way of some of the hills I encounter on our hikes, so can't really get the full scope of the trail.

The first digital camera I bought (Xmas 1999) was a Kodak 3MP, 2x Optical zoom for $800. I first thought it was a toy, a joke and the first photos imported (the card reader used a Y connector with the keyboard port and used the parallel port as well) were disappointing since the roof looked zigzag in the small viewing window when it first opened. When I went full size on the viewing window, I was amazed at how good it looked. I never shot film after that.

Kodak had a cool digital back for the Nikon film camera but it was a staggering price - $12,000 for a 4MP and $25,000 for a 6MP camera way back when.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/kodakdcs760

The X-ray machines at my dentist's office are Kodak with each room having its own large screen monitor. Maybe the X-ray machine is not Kodak but the software is definitely Kodak-branded as seen on the big screen. Within a couple of seconds after taking the bite-wing x-rays, the image is on the monitor for the dentist's view where he can enlarge it many times for closeup inspection. It sure beats my last dentist with film x-rays.

This was many years ago so I got the YN-568EX II in March, 2015 ($124 then), the YN-565 EX a week earlier ($102), YN-622C-TX (2 of them) plus the YN-622C RX E-TTL controller transceiver for $139 in Feb, 2015 and then a pair of YN-622C in April (in case I wanted to use the Canon flashes) for $77. Thank goodness for Amazon's order history?

A pair of PocketWizard Plus II in I bought in 2009 were $169 for comparison (no TTL at that time). My wife bought my first one which is no good without at least one more so I bought this pair after she got me the first one. This worked with the two Canon flashes.

When PW introduced their mini and flex models (TTL for Canon to begin with) is when I found Yongnuo (probably recommended on UHH by other members back then).

I went with Yongnuo flashes and their wireless remotes after I had already bought two Canon flashes (430 and 580EX-II) and PocketWizard remotes a few years earlier. Now the newer Yongnuo flashes have the wireless remotes built in the flash for a lot less than Canon's flashes.

The joys of upgrading?

https://yongnuousa.net/t/canon-compatible-speedlights

I bought this for our Maui trip last year. It might be good for the surface (half in/half out) but the trigger is flimsy and wouldn't work in deeper water. Also the trigger goes right over the rear screen, not that you can see much on a tiny screen anyway but at least you know if you are on target. If they find a way to improve the trigger and move the bar to another position, it might be a great product.

My last few trips have been with a compact camera or a super-zoom. No need to take a DSLR on vacation as this is extra weight and extra worry.

Two years ago we were in Thailand and flew to Cambodia for one night stay to see Angkor Wat the next morning (sunrise tour). I forgot my super-zoom in the van but had my little compact so that is what I had to live with. Still not bad considering how small and lightweight it was.

the other ruins outside of Angkor Wat

(Download)

We were in Maui last year and went on a snuba (snorkel scuba hybrid) - snorkel boat trip while there.

The "pro" photographer took pictures of all families when they crossed over to the boat with his Canon 80D and then for the swimming part he used a rig that had a Sony A6000 in an underwater case for still photos and a GoPro Hero 7 for video (with a very bright LED attached to this rig).

My daughter and son-in-law paid $100 for the thumb drive when we got back to the pier - it was a one time offer - buy it right then and there or lose it all as he cleared his cameras for the next (afternoon) trip. The thumb drive included everybody on the boat so I had to sort our pictures out from all the other tourists.

His photos and videos were very good and included some bonus shots/videos of some of his other trips with whales, turtles, dolphins, etc.

I wondered why the videos had clicking noises on them and then it dawned on me that he was snapping the Sony during the video recording too.

After we got back home, I ordered a mounting bracket for my GoPro and a cheap very bright LED (Neweer), snap on filters, and a wet suit (goes deeper than the 10 meters that GoPro says the Hero 7 Black will withstand). Now I just need another trip to test it out if and when the virus is cleared up.

PS I have an older Olympus TG and used it in Hawaii on a scuba raft trip and in Cancun. I was not impressed with it.

Grandson in his snuba gear

(Download)

Check out Amazon/eBay for cheaper brackets.

I used to get RRS brackets for each new camera but for my last camera, I just got a $60 (there are cheaper) L bracket on Amazon and it works perfectly fine on my RRS ball head. I had to go look at my order history and while I ordered it on Amazon, it was Adorama that was the vendor.

It is a hunk of metal that is machined to fit the camera and the ball head so nothing too magical about it.

I used to be able to palm a basketball (barely) when I was much younger. Maybe your hands are Dr. J sized?

I have the Canon SX60 and it is fairly easy to use. I enjoy it for hiking due to its weight being very small compared to my DSLR and its zoom is one of its best features, allowing me to get extreme closeups of turtles and herons I couldn't get close to (due to them being a hundred yards out in the river we frequent). When I do carry it, I like to take a lightweight tripod along as well to steady the camera when I zoom in to the equivalent 1365 mm of a full size DSLR.

I think the computer is getting a lot of blame on this thread. I suspect that the file names were changed by the user (via the computer) and the camera expects a certain naming system for viewing on its small display. The reason the computer can see the files is it isn't pigeonholed into a strict naming structure - give it any name except certain special characters (slash, backslash, and question for 3). Simply putting the same naming convention back on the card should make the camera recognize it once again.

I will do another experiment where I will take some random image on my hard drive, copy it to the memory card, rename it to the camera's naming convention and see if I can see the file on the camera.

Here is what I did:

1) removed the card from the camera with the 3 shots I did earlier today
2) put it in the card reader and copied a picture of my daughter on the beach in Thailand two years ago. The file name was never changed from its original IMG_nnnn (Canon)
3) put the card back in the camera and could see all four images.
4) took the card out and put back in the reader
5) copied another image from an image done by my phone during the same Thailand trip but with Samsung's original naming convention (20180607_112119) YYYYMMDD_HHMMSS I believe.
6) put it back in the camera and could not see this new file but the other four were still there.
7) took it back out, put in the card reader, selected the picture of my daughter, did an F2 (rename), copied that name (IMG_4747)
8) went to the Samsung image on the card and did an F2 on it, pasted the name I just copied and changed the last digit to one more than what it was (IMG_4748)
9) put the card back in the camera and could see all five images.

Conclusion: it is a naming convention that the camera looks at. At least it is on a Canon camera.

Just did a quick experiment. Took 3 shots off my deck with a little Canon super-zoom. Put the card in the card reader and changed the folder name, back to the camera, and nothing to see. Back to the card reader and named the folder name to what it was. Back to the camera and could see all 3 images. Next test was the file name itself - same results - change the name and the camera didn't see it, put it back to what it was and the camera saw it. Next test was rotating the image in the card reader, back to camera. The images were there but I got an error on two of them (unsupported JPEG type?). Back to card reader and rotated them back to original and they were fine in the camera. Final test was opening in PS and doing a quick Levels Auto adjustment. Saved it back on itself and popped the card back into the camera. Everything was AOK!

Not sure if this is what the OP experienced but it might be?

I hope the OP answers. I asked if they had changed the name of any files/folder while it was in a card reader. They said that the computer can see the files but not the camera. I will have to experiment on editing without changing the name if the camera can still see the files.

Did you rename any of them on the card? Especially the folder name.