Well, I thought autofocus was silly when it came out--we focused without thinking.

I just got a new Canon 17mm RF lens, and the lens does not have a manual-focus switch--you have to set that in the camera menu. The only time I might use this would be probably (sometimes) in macro mode (which not what I bought this lens for).

However this lens is generally in focus at any distance because the hyperfocal range is so vast. At f4, it is sharp from 2 meters out (focused on 4 meters).

Naturally I will be focusing on the main subject (auto or manually), but for walking around shooting scenes, wouldn't it be nice if wide angle lenses had three focus settings: manual, auto, and hyper-auto? This would set the distance according to the aperture selected (in Canon AV mode). Of course we can do this manually ourselves--if we happen to have a hyperfocal distance chart in hand; but I can't remember the whole chart, so auto would be brilliant. (Lenses that have hyperfocal ranges on the lens do this for manual use, but that feature went the way of manual focus lenses...) Photojournalism comes to mind--they often left a normal lens with press camera on f8 and had pre-set stops for close, medium, and distant pictures.

This should have occurred to lens makers, as they are always looking for ways to make lenses more expensive.

I think you want to insure a used lens for the price of a new one, which probably won't work--you can insure used lenses for used lens prices, and your receipt should suffice. That is the way replacement value works. If it is a comfort, the prices of used lenses decline over time, so you can replace it later for less, as a rule. The declared value would then cover equal value. But maybe later when you do replace it, you might want something newer and (perhaps) improved.

It is a bit different with a house. I bought a house for under $15k, and it is insured for $250K, because the insurer says that is what it would take to rebuild it. They don't even care that the selling price is nowhere near the rebuild price. But they can replace your lens for what you paid for it, unless it is appraised higher by an expert. An appraiser will give a price you can sell it for, not what you can buy a new one for.

Ludwig Wittgenstein Quote: “That which cannot be said must not be said. That which cannot be said, one must be silent thereof.”

I broke down and bought a mirrorless full frame, Canon EOS R. I haven't done shooting except to see if it worked, and it did.

What I was not prepared for was that just looking through it--whether viewfinder or screen--is entirely different from the mirror images I have seen for 50 years. It is as if I had cataracts removed! There is a new sort of clarity and color balance is more daylightish.

I have a wide zoom and a long zoom (both L series) that should keep it simple (from 17mm to 400mm), but of course why be simple when you can be confused? I have extension tubes for macro, but the 60mm EF-S macro is awfully sharp, even if it is cropped, and would probably be better than a macro-extended zoom. A Pentax Takumar 135mm prime with extension tube might be my main macro for this camera... I have not tried manual focus yet.

I wonder if the flash will read through the lens of a manually pre-set lens automatically.

It has been a long time since I had a camera without built-in flash, so I had to get a new flash. Even my Hasselblad H2 has fill flash, and the Canon 650D has one--I just turned it on and it knew what to do for perfect light when I wanted it. The new flash does everything but target my drones in Crimea. Fortunately it can also point and shoot. I will have to break down and learn how to outsmart the darned thing.

Most of my hobby life has been natural light photography. I would use the built-in flash to take a picture of some small object to sell on eBay, but rarely anything else. I wish they made a tiny fill flash attachment that just did the traditional basics with through the lens metering--maybe the size of a one-inch thick credit card. Then it could be the master unit for all the slave units you can finance. Is it OK to call them slaves? It seems to make light of something heavy.

You blame them for the very error you yourself were making until somebody corrected you.

I would take the three you suggest.

CamB, I share your feelings on this. Long after we take picture, if we go back to make a print, there are so many things that could have made the shot better, but we most often don't remember the details like that. Flare is not just the massive light blob in the frame when the Sun or other source is in or near the picture. Even the light coming from below the camera bounces around in the lens and softens contrast and resolution, so hoods are good. I think some people develop a style they like which relies on the effects of a certain amount of flare (even severe flare).

Light from behind and to one side, 10 o'clock or so, is underrated today, and it is backlighting that risks being a cliche. The first advice we often hear for beginners is to shoot into the light. But the classic postcard photos that are Kodachrome brilliant were almost all in full frontal sun at 10 o'clock. That is rare enough today to call it creative. This shot was with the built-in flash, and of course no hood required. (Sorry, I posted this one before, in a previous discussion, but it demonstrates frontal light if that is what is wanted. There was negligible window backlight that hardly mattered with fast leaf shutter. It is just a tad overcooked for my taste, but that works for enlargement.)

I was considering the exact same step (for mirrorless), but it seemed to me the R10 was especially aimed at video, which I don't do. I would rather have more MPs than more video, for a mirrorless step up.

I never have a clue where my lens caps go (if not the first time I use them, soon thereafter, they vanish, even in the house--like the odd socks), hoods do not just slip into the pocket. (I love the ones on some telephotos that stay on and just slide out.) When I go out to shoot, I generally take at least 3 lenses, all with different hoods and caps. If I take both medium format and small format, that is two bags of stuff. But since I almost always use a tripod, I do have time to fuss with set-up parts.

With large format, I almost always just held the film slide over the lens to shade it. And I did not shoot in blazing sun because the contrast was too harsh even with allowances in processing--on overcast days I could still get blackest black and snow white highlights, even with a just a vague sense of zones. I did get the compendium shade for a 4x5--it would be hard to find proper shades for odd-sized non-metric large format lenses that run from an inch to 6 inches across--but it is not easy in the field to be sure you don't get the hood in the picture, which was risky with shorter lenses.

It is an interesting challenge to shoot in glaring light. It is great if you can set up inside and shoot out, or partially inside, as from a porch or walkway--or under a tree. If you look around, there are often places to take cover. Or pull out the black umbrella.

Whatever the equipment, we can adapt to its best use and just don't try what is unlikely. Some shots just don't occur to me, which of course is a limitation. It's not like I am a photojournalist who has to shoot everything, ready or not. The hunt for a view is part of the shot.

50 years ago I was told that Nikon took the professional lead back in the 1950's by giving cameras to all the famous photographers.

Today, movie studios charge camera makers quite a bit to use their cameras in a film--it is an ad that will be seen for many years. (Other products, too.)

rmalarz, you should have taken the 4x5. Pros don't use those.

This sounds unscientific and maybe nuts, but I have found that the price tag is the best indicator of lens quality. On the other hand I have bought wine in screw top bottles or boxes, so...

I tried that, but it didn't work. Oh, wait--you mean a camera with a lens on it?

Junglejim, the bit about larger format needing less resolving power was true for large format, but I don't think it would enter into lenses for digital cameras. I have a crop-sensor Canon and I have some good EF-S (crop) lenses, but also a couple of EF (full frame) L zoom lenses. Their premium lenses (L series) do not come in EF-S. Although the L lenses have very little drop-off in quality toward the edges full frame, there is some--but the EF-S camera only uses the central part of the image--which is the best part.