I am PC based. I have 2 1TB SSD (Crucial) drives in a 2 bay docking station (Sabrent). The SSD in drive bay A is my master and used for all LR editing. The SSD in drive bay B is my backup. On a regular basis I backup from drive A to drive B.

I opted for a straight copy from A to B for backup as opposed to any backup apps. Most of those backup to a vendor unique (packed) file format and need to be "Recovered" to verify that the backup operated correctly. With the SSD drives the copying (~ 120 GB) from one to the other takes ~30 minutes. I then use an app Beyond Compare to verify the contents of both drives are identical.

It seems to be working well for me so far.

Was your LR catalog on the drive you moved from? If so then you need to repoint
LR to the new drive. Go to where it is now located and double click on it (“catalog name”.
lrcat) LR should open and it will remember the new location of the catalog. You should then be able to repoint to the new location of you pictures and LR should open normally in the future.

I have the Tamron 18-400 on my Nikon D7500. In a different thread I mentioned that I did a very controlled test of the Tamron vs my Nikon 18-50 and 70-300 kit lenses, at 18, 35, 50, 70, 100, 200, & 300 mm. Comparing side to side 8x12 prints (Costco) at each fl they were virtually indistinguishable.

That lens is on my camera 98% of the time. The other 2% I use my two legacy (film) prime lenses, 35 mm f/1:2.5 & 50 mm f/1.8 (both in manual mode). Great for low light situations.

Sorry. It was TonyP that I was replying to.

Thanks. That's good to know. Not as concerned now.

I’d look at the Tamron 18-400. It’s pretty much replaced my two Nikon (18-50, 70-300) lenses.

But I’m wondering about all the responses about the camera being too “obvious”. I’m going to Costa Rica next month (with a guided tour). Should I be concerned taking my D7500 + Tamron. Why have a good camera if you are afraid to use it. There’s crime here in the states too.

OK here’s my last question on this topic, I promise:

On my D7500 on a tripod,
1. I mount a Nikon 200-500mm f/5.6 (FX) and take a picture at 300mm.
2. I unmount that and mount my 70-300mm kit lens (DX) that came with the camera and take a picture at 300mm.

Are the angles of view different or the same and what is the equivalency of each?

So with trial version do some experiments. Camera on tripod. Well lit and colorful subjects.

Take picture using RAW + JPEG. Use Topaz to convert the JPEG version to RAW. Compare to original RAW version from camera. See if you notice any differences.

Since pictures was taken at the same time there should be no lighting difference to skew result. So comparison would be valid.

Emailing photos, especially raw files, may be troublesome depending on the actual size and number of them. Most email clients put a limit on size.

Maybe think about Google Photos and sharing with those that you want to see them. Also depending on what apps, programs you are using on your computer there are other opportunities for sharing photos - One Drive (if you are using Office 365), Amazon Drive (Amazon Prime I believe) - both 1 TB of storage, iCloud (Apple), Dropbox (free version - 2GB?)

Would the following statement be correct? For example, with my 18-400 Tamron on my D7500 APS-C 1.5x crop sensor, the 400 mm is achieved optically, and the increase to 600 mm is achieved digitally?

Thanks. Actually I have a Nikon SB-600 Speedlight. Dates back to my use with a film SLR. Haven't used it for a long time and never thought about using a flash for my trip. That might be better than the booster you recommended?

Thank you all for helping me understand this very confusing (at least it was to me) topic.

Not sure why you feel my Tamron 18-400 is “unfortunate”. The comparison tests I did between my Nikon lenses and the Tamron showed no discernible difference (on a 16x20 print) at every of the tested focal lengths up to 200. At 300 I had to use a magnifying glass to see any difference. With my Tamron I can carry only one lens instead of two to get a full range from 18 to 400 (or 27 to 600 equivalent based on the responses to my question earlier). I’m very happy with my Tamron.

So when I bought the Tamron I did a test, mainly for quality, comparing it to the two kit lenses (18-50 & 70-300) that came with the camera. With the camera on a tripod I took a series of shots at 18, 35, 50 & 70, 100, 200, 300, & (400 - Tamron only).

Attached are the shots taken at 300 for Nikon and Tamron. The field of view is near identical on both of them (that is the case for all of the respective shots). So either the Nikon 70-300 is really a 105-450 or the Tamron is really an 18-400. The metadata shows 300 for both.

Attached file:
(Download)

Attached file:
(Download)

Thanks, but now I’m confused. That lens is advertised as being for a APS-C (crop sensor) Nikon. So the image projected on the sensor is the same size as the sensor so shouldn’t it be just 18-400 as opposed to a full frame lens which projects a larger image on the crop sensor thus an greater equivalent focal length?