For myself I have camers for specific needs. I have a D800 for macro, I really need resolution for that. I have a D3 for general photography and for events. I have an old D200 for travel. With a good zoom on it I can travel with only the camera. I also have a D70s which I use to teach kids the principles of photography. Decide the strengths and weaknesses of what you have and then do the same on what you would like to own. Then select the one that best meets your specific needs. Don't get sucked into believing that high end cameras are better. They do provide better IQ most of the time but they won't make you a better photographer.

I see cameras purely as tools. And I think the tools you have depend on what you need to do. Nearly every house has a regular hammer. Once in a while we need to hammer a nail. A few houses have a small hammer in addition to this for nailing tacks. A few houses have a sledge hammer probably for breaking up cement.

To your question ... would it be worthwhile to upgrade my regular hammer to a sledge hammer? My response is to upgrade to tools that help you better achieve what it is you want or need to do. Buying decisions for tools depend on what you need to accomplish. Having decided that, you can get a 10 in 1 tool which doesn't do anything particularly well or you can get a specialized tool that does one thing exceptionally. It's your choice and it's a choice no one can really help you with.

Back when the PC was just emerging there was a study made about how the new software was being used for the machines. To my surprise at the time it was found that users only used about fifteen percent of the functionality provided.

Today the software is far more functional and capable and yet people still don't tend to use more than fifteen percent of the functions. Should we be concerned?

I don't think so. I imagine most of you have a hammer. Do you use it every day? Odds are it may get used once or twice a year. Screw drivers probably get more attention. Basically the tools we have are each intended for specific things or to solve specific problems. A flash for instance is intended to solve the problem of low light situations.

I agree that it's a good idea to make a list of functions you have available and to also try them and learn them but in the end it's the same as before, we use the ones we need and just hold the others in reserve.

Ok, that should be Wein safesync.

I found you a link here ...

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/search?Ntt=safesync&N=0&InitialSearch=yes&sts=ma&Top+Nav-Search=

I'm not sure about the spelling of Whyn, you may have to play with that a little. As to where to get it, try a large Camera store or perhaps a large online retailer.

Good Luck!

I was a Canon user in the seventies until they obsoleted my lenses to move to AF. I became a Nikon user when I finally went digital. I remain a Nikon user and fan still and will not switch any more.

Now what I learned in the past forty years was that if you are in the camera business you have to remain competitive or die. Canon and Nikon have been around for a while, probably since when we carved selfies in cave walls. When I was a Canon user i was really envious of Nikon, they had a lens I desperately wanted. Today as a Nikon user I am sometimes envious of Canon, they too have a lens I would love to own.

That said I find that given time each maker catches up to the other. I remember a talk I attended one time. The photographer waxed on eloquently as to why she was a Canon user. Apparently when she was ready to buy she investigated and found that Canon had a gizmo or a capability that Nikon lacked so she bought into Canon. What she didn't seem to realize though is that Nikon eventually came out with the same goods.

I think that when it comes to the Canon vs Nikon question it's not what they have today that is the issue. It's clear they will continue to evolve and each will catch up on the other. I think the same can be said about any other camera makers who are determined to stay in the businss, Sony comes to mind in this regard.

I think when you're looking at a camera the question are simple enough... does the camera you want do what is has to do? Will the camera maker provide you with new capabilities when you eventually need them? Does the camera feel good in the hand and are the controls well placed? Those are the kinds of things to think about I think. As to which is the best? There is no best. All makers sometimes have a dud, all serious makers also have incredible high quality products too. There is no best, there are only a bunch of competing camera makers who try their best to remain competitive.

First of all if you have old flash units that you'd like to use on a digital camera, buy yourself a Whyn Safe Sync. It's a gizmo that sits between your flash and the hot shoe. That protects the camera from high voltages.

I had very good luck with third party flashes in the seventies when I shot film. Later when I went digital with Nikon I started to buy Nikon flashes instead. Why? Well unlike the film cameras, the digitals seem intimately integrated with the electronics of the camera so I figured that I may as well get the one that's designed for this. I actually have two top units.

There was another Nikon flash, one that mounts on a ring affixed to the lens capable of holding three or four flash heads. That was the answer to my dreams when it came to a flash for doing macro in poor light. No one else has such a product so that was it for me.

I also got a Sigma ring flash, Nikon doesn't have a ring flash any more. And I have a huge Metz which I use for lighting up the world, Nikon does not have a flash with that much power.

The non Nikon flashes work well and predictably providing me good images so I can recommend them. However, Nikon also has a creative lighting system which basically allows me to control and trigger flashes remotely in a wireless fashion. The Nikon units talk to each other flawlessly. The Sigma and the Metz don't talk very well at all. So those I have to use individually whereas all the others I can use as a group.

Now I don't see that as an issue. The Metz is for lighting up a cavern, I won't have smaller units sitting around in that kind of a shot. The Sigma is aimed at a specific tiny subject and since it's a ring flash I don't need any other flash present either. The Nikons on the other hand are the ones for all the lighting tricks we can do when we need a flash. Basically decide what you need a flash for and make sure the one you are considering will solve that problem. That way you can't go wrong. Check the reviews as well to find out how reliable a thirdy party model is. If it's reliable odds are it will make you happy and solve your lighting problems.

In my film days I shot Kodachrome exclusively so ISO for me was 25 or 64. That was fine in those days, I didn't expect much from my camera and I found that flash technology often only helped a little. .

Today I shoot events where I am expected to be invisible, so I have to do shots in terrible light without a flash. In those challenges I crank up my camera to ISO 6400 which gets me good results these days, a lot better than film. I also do flying insects and sometimes birds. Now we're talking very fast shutter speeds for which often even high noon isn't enough light. So once again the ISO gets cranked up though not as high.

There's something else that's different for me, white balance. In the Kodachrome days I'd use filters to balance my light to what I needed. They of course then cost me more light too. Today I am able to balance my images almost perfectly providing me exceptional colours.

I don't miss the film days at all. They represented a lot of problems that we had to solve if we wanted the picture. Digital has solved a myriad of issues allowing me to do a lot more with the camera than I have ever been able to do. So I don't feel guilty about using all my new capabilities, in fact it makes me happy.

However I will add one other view. About a year after I went digital I decided it was time to scan my thousands of slides. As this process went forward I was horrified to discover that those slides were a much higher quality than anything digital I was shooting at that time. That proved most embarrassing. What happened? Well digital seemed so easy and of course like you said, I didn't bother with the lower ISO values or many other things, after all there was always Photoshop to fix whatever I messed up. And since I could see my image immediately instead of a week later I didn't really pay much attention to what I was doing.

Well, that day I resolved to go back to the old days, worrying about white balance, focus, exposure etc. I also paused to ask myself why I was taking the picture in the first place. All that stuf came from my film days when it was expensive to fire off a roll of film. Before long my images became equal to my slides and later even better. I was learning again and I was able to finally capture images that used to be impossible.

It seems the things we learned in our film days as as important today as they were then. But at the same time technology has also advanced to the point where many past issues have been solved. So I don't feel bad about learning to use the new capabilities and at the same time I'm very grateful to have lived in the film era which has taught me some very good lessons.

Actually that is also good advice for new lenses too. A couple of years back I bought a Nikon 18-300mm lens for a Christmas present. I happened to have that lens for my crop sensor bodies and I loved it. When I went to the camera shop I was told that lens was on sale so of course I bought it. I had a surprise at Christmas when it was unwraped.

The lens in fact was not on sale at all, instead Nikon had redesigned that version to produce a cheaper one. It had no lens hood in the box and no lens case, it was just the lens and the lens was also a stop slower. At first I thought I had been screwed but looking through the Nikon lens list, that's when I realized that there was a new lens right after the one I thought I had bought. I should have checked this out before automaticaly buying the cheaper version. It was an important lesson for me.

If you want reliability the solution is a cardboard box with a pin hole in it. Once you get more complicated like adding lenses, an aperture, an image stabilizer, an auto focus mechanism things get increasingly more complex and problems will happen. That was actually something I still like about my film lenses, there is only an aperture and a focus ring and both seem to be very reliable. But alas we like the new gadgets and they are easier to use than that cardboard box.

My film cameras go back forty years and all still work. But they also didn't get the abuse my DSLRs have to endure. The best I could do was 3.5 frames per second. I don't think the shutter would have survived 400K shots but perhaps it could come close. The top speed was less than today in addition to the frame rate.

Still, it doesn't matter. I shoot exclusively DSLR these days. I get better performance than in the past. The only thing that has changed is that the cameras are a lot more complex. A lens used to be an empty tube with some glass and an aperture. Now we add a focus motor and a stabilizer too. The more of such things we add the sooner something will go wrong. That said though, to date all my digitals still work flawlessly.

As to the good old days, when the battery failed in my film SLR it didn't matter, I could estimate exposure and continue to take pictures. Today when the battery fails in my DSLRs I just have a lump of very expensive trash. The camera does nothing without a battery. That was a good old day, a camera I could always count on even when the battery was dead. What's different too was that those old mechanical wonders were not as sensitive. I've used mine all the way down to minus thirty five in the winter and up to forty five in the summer in the tropics. It's not likely our DSLRs will work over such a range.

Designing obsolescence through mechanical means is dangerous. If one of my cameras fails prematurely, like in less than ten or fifteen years or perhaps 100K shutter clicks, my tendency would be to avoid that brand in the future and not recommend it either. I have a D70 that still works perfectly in addition to a D3 a D200 and a D800. Each continue to work reliably and flawlessly.

But the obsolescance question is none the less real. It's done through features. Manufacturers have a list of new features and refinements that are intended for future models. To get you to upgrade they try to come out with a new body every year that has one or two features that you would just die for. It's an effective way to get us to buy new gear without compromising quality. What also happens sometimes is that they remove a feature and bring it back again later. I remember the Canon g7 for instance. The predecessor had raw capability, the g 7 didn't. The next one brought it back.

The way I deal with his is to wait for two or three new models of the body before considering an upgrade and then I'll consider it only if the new features solve some of the issues I may still have.

The only problem with tubes is light loss. There are no optics in the tubes so you still get a perfect sharp image but they can cost you dearly in light particularly as your extension increases.

If you have noise it's the camera (probably ISO) not the tubes.

In terms of a macro lens, I have a 60 mm and a 105 mm both Nikon FX lenses. The sixty is used rarely, the working distance is too short for anything living. I use that one mostly to photograph copy, and stationary subjects. The 105 is something else. It was my favourite for a number of years. It has image stabilization that makes it easier to do hand held stuff. And it's a reasonable weight and is razor sharp.

However I also have two Sigma macro lenses, a 150 mm and a 180 mm. Both of these have image stabilizers too and both are equal to the Nikon lenses I own. I got the 180 mm lens initially to increase my reach (working distance) but to my dismay the front element is too large so I can't attach my ring flash or my Nikon macro flash. That then prompted me to also get the 150 mm. When I need flash, which isn't very often in fact, I use the 150. The rest of the time the 180 does an admirable job. I also have a 200 mm macro from Nikon. As macro len ses go it's ok and sharp but it doesn't have an image stabilizer and it's an f4 lens to boot. I used it for a while but found my two Sigma macros do a lot better images.

In terms of DOF, there isn't any as you increase your magnifications. I usually close my aperture all the way down (f32, f40 etc) and that can get me some reasonable depth of field at the cost of light of course. I also use focus stacking sometimes. But one neat trick which saves the day is to not do head on shots. When I do a long insect like a grasshopper I shoot it from the side. That way the entire insect is sharp instead of only the head.

Returning to your original question, yes there is a difference between tubes and a macro lens. The macro lens is designed to focus on a flat plane compared to normal lenses which focus on a curved plane. So you get a different image from a macro lens compared to a normal one. The tubes only magnify, that is, they let you get closer. They do not change the curvature or flatness of the field of the lens.

Because of this I always work with macro lenses for little stuff, and I will sometimes boost my magnification by attaching tubes or a bellows or both to the macro lens. I will not attach them to a normal lens. But then that's me. When I was young and more poor I used to do all kinds of combinations some of which worked surprisingly well. That then taught me what gets me the best images. So do experiment.

The images below are a couple of rain drop images and a small bug. All three were done with a macro lens.

It depends on what you are photographing. If you're into flowers and tiny fossils the 60 mm is probably ok and there's no need for an image stabilizer. On the other hand if you're into insects there are two issues - working distance and camera shake. The 60 mm will require you to get mighty close to your subject and so the odds are you'll spook it and lose the picture opportunity. It's better to have a longer working distance which you can get from the 100 mm. As to an image stabilizer, you can use a tripod but that's really awkward when you're shooting live insects, you'll scare them away just setting up the tripod. An image stabilizer helps you hand hold the camera and gives you good odds of getting a sharp image.

As to other brands, I'm a Nikon shooter and have always sworn by Nikon lenses. I also suggest that they are equal to what Canon makes. However ... one day I discovered Sigma. They have a 100 mm lense with a stabilizer that is equal to what Nikon makes and quite probably equal to the Canon version too. If you want a longer working distance the !50 mm and the 180 mm macro lenses are fantastic too, I own one of each. The only problem is that they are heavier than the 100 and the 180 has a front element that will not fit my ring flash. Other than that those lenses are amazing.

It's a lovely image, a sunny day with white puffy clouds floating about holding your data. What could possibly be more peaceful and inspiring? But it's not like that. Your data is stored on a hard drive someplace on the planet and that in turn is attached to a computer.

There is the security question, what guarantees are there that the data you upload will be solely private and only for your use? There are no guarantees at all, somebody has to run the server and the hard drive and ensure they are also backed up regularly. Odds are that individual has access to your data too. But then we tend to be trusting so perhaps s/he won't compromise your privace ever. But there's another vulnerability too. Under the Patriot Act the American Government can demand access to the data without your knowledge and that access has to be granted. Additionally, if your cloud is American and you live in a different country, the American Government can still demand that data without ever telling you and they will get it.

What about reliability? Sure technology is secure and reliable these days but if that's true, why do you want to back up your data to the cloud? Is it maybe that the technology isn't completely reliable? But then if it's not reliable what makes you think the machines in the cloud are any better than your own machine? In the end they are just as vulnerable as any other machine. What makes you think a tornado or a flood or a terrorist attack can't harm your data? You can't be sure. So maybe use two different cloud servers from different companies in two different parts of the world?

Finally, what about longevity? Cloud storage is all the rage these days, it's a sexy idea. But then storing data on 5 and 1/4 inch floppies was also all the rage a couple of decades ago. Do you still have any data on that medium? In fact can you still buy media for that format? I doubt it. So what happens when cloud storage is not longer all the rage? If the company that owns and runs the server that stores your data suddenly goes broke what happens to your data? Will some good sumeritan recover your data and send it to you or is it simply lost? I'd bet it is lost. Then what happens to the data? It's an asset of the failing company. What is to stop a receiver from perhaps selling the data to try to cover the debts of the failed company?

What happens if the company is bought out by another and that new company has a different and far worse privacy policy than your present one, what happens to your data? Who might the data be given to? What might it be used for? Would you even know that the data is at risk? You probably won't know until much later when you see your data being used by someone else. I wonder how much of your data is sensitive, like recording your social insurance number, your bank account data, your passwords?

Personally I can't touch a cloud and I have no influence over one so I don't trust it, ever! If you are really determined to protect your data get a safety deposit box at your local bank. That is usually in a vault that is heat resistent so fire won't hurt it and probably explosions won't either. Do your regular backups to external hard drives and store one drive in that safety deposit box swapping it later when you do another backup. If you have one or two copies on your computer and a copy off site odds are good that your data is well protected. With that arrangement you don't have to worry. If the bank goes broke you still have access to the drive. If the bank burns to the ground you still have your drive too since odds are the contents of the vault were safe. If some government wants access to your data they are out of luck. And whoever is responsible for maintaining the vault doesn't know what's in your safety deposit box and thus has no incentive to try to access your data. That makes a lot more sense to me and helps me to sleep a lot better too.