The moon on a clear night requires exposing for EV11 (ISO100, 1/60, f/5.6) [+/- a small amount depending whether it's in the close or distant part of its cycle].
So I'm not quite sure where all the noise and long exposure stuff is coming from.

If you do end up doing long exposure, remember that moon in a 450mm effective lens on a 20 Megapixel camera is about 750 pixels across, and moves across the sky at about 3 or 4 pixels per second; you will get significant motion blur if you expose over 1 second.

A few replies:
* I do use sequential numbering on all my cameras, although I've had a couple that wrap around from IMG_9999 to IMG_0000 again...
* I always check "Don't import suspected duplicates"
* The photos in question have NOT been deleted from the catalog - in fact in some cases they are in the same folder and get imported as DSC_xxxx_2.ARW or similar to not collide with the existing image in the catalog and folder.
* I do backup to external hard drives, and to the cloud, but I don't generally carry spare HDDs on a trip, and cloud backup is unreliable when in remote locations. At home, I've owned 4 external hard drives, and every single one of them has gone bad. I own a NAS (RAID2) and had a disc go bad on that too. The cloud backup has been OK -- so far...
However, the issue I'm trying to deal with is that I've had copies on my laptop get zeroed out, and the empty files propagate to backups over time. On the other hand, I've never not been able to read a CF card from a few years ago.

Personally, new CF cards are so cheap (and small, and light) *I* don't get why photographers choose to reformat and reuse them in the field. They have a finite life in read-write cycles; eventually they will fail after repeated reuse.

Thanks for the comments; sadly nothing that fixes my issue yet. Although it's nice to perceive that I'm not alone...

What am I doing wrong? My workflow is to keep my images on the card for backup (at least while in the field) but to import them to my Mac / Lightroom CC each night. I select "New" images in the importer, and check the box for "Don't import suspected duplicates".

Lightroom fails to recognize that it has already loaded most of the images on the card, and I am forced to manually choose the ones I want to import, or get an additional copy each time. I say "most", because occasionally, it *does* notice a handful of images, and omits them from the import. I worry that it's so flaky at this that it may inadvertently skip some that are actually new. I get this problem with every camera I have tried (Sony, Nikon, Canon, IPhone, etc.), and whether I put the card in a reader, or whether I connect the camera via USB.

The Sony FE 90mm F2.8 Macro G OSS is a wonderful portrait lens - it's the right length, and it's great (or not so great) because of its incredible sharpness - it's scored as 41 on DxOMark lens database, ranked second of all lenses tested. (First is Canon EF 300mm f/2.8L IS II USM, too long for a portrait lens). As others have noted, a super-sharp lens is great for craggy men's faces, perhaps not so flattering in all cases.

The DxO One is a tiny camera (with 1" sensor) and no screen, since it relies on the screen of the cellphone on to which it attaches. The screen is for sure larger than the camera!

So now our iPhones make HEIC images, but Adobe hasn't updated lightroom to read them yet...

There are obviously converters to JPG, but that loses the non destructive promise of lightroom. I would assume LR will eventually get HEIC, but what to do in the meanwhile?

I'd like to be able to convert to JPG, add to lightroom, catalog and edit, and then in the future replace with the original HEIC while retaining keywords, collections, labels, ratings, flags, and non destructive edits.

In the past, I've tried switching out DNG for the original raw files, which seems sort of similar, and found it not possible without developing some advanced scripts, or manually copying everything over.

Any suggestions?

On crop mode - the result of crop mode on a full frame camera, on the captured image, is identical to cropping after the fact, except that the image files are a little smaller. (The image in the viewfinder is a little larger of course.)

I prefer to keep the pixels and crop later.

The Sony 100-400 is huge. The pictures look deceptively small. Make sure you read and visualize the size and weight before you purchase.

Mind you, it's an extraordinary lens, and (perhaps with the 2.0 teleconverter) good for distant wildlife!

Google maps can do this.

Before you go, turn on location history on Google maps; it is probably on already.

After your trip, go to https://takeout.google.com/settings/takeout and select Google location history, choose KML format, and after a while you'll get a link to download a KML file of your locations.

You can use gpsbabel to convert to gpx format if you need, and lightroom can tag photos by gpx. You may have to adjust tinge stamps for timezones in lightroom first.

The simple answer "it matches what the eye sees" is incomplete - since that does not consider how the image that was captured is presented to your eyes.

It's not a field-of-view thing, since your eye doesn't have a sharply defined field of view - resolution fades off quickly outside the center of vision, but your eye roams around the scene to capture details across a much wider field of view than a typical camera lens.

What matters is that the size of objects in the *image as presented* match *what you would have seen if you were there*. And that's only defined if you know the size and viewing distance of the presented image.

"Decades ago" (as the OP noted) a common film format was a 35mm frame, dimensions 24x36mm.
And a common presentation format was a 5"x7" print viewed at your eye's reading distance of around 12".
The field of view (width) of a 5x7" print viewed at 12" is 2 x atan(7/2 / 12) =~ 33 degrees.
A lens of focal length Z (focused at infinity) is Zmm from the film plane, which gives it a field of view (width) W = 2 x atan(36/2 / Z),
or Z = 36/2 / tan(W/2). To match the 33 degrees of a 5x7" print at 12", Z = 61mm.
Many photographers think that 60 or 70mm is a better "standard" than 50mm.

The same arithmetic applies for a 10x12" print viewed at 20" (e.g. on a desktop) or 16x20" print viewed on a wall 3 feet away.

A photograph captured with a 50mm full-frame equivalent lens and presented on one of these matching picture formats will have the "right" perspective. For example, if a person is 6' high and 60' distant from the photographer, they will have a visual angle of about 6 degrees. And in the image the photographer presents to you the viewer, in its typical presentation, the image of the person will also have about 6 degrees of visual angle. And the 24' tall building that's 120' distant will look about twice as tall as the person - 12 degrees of visual angle, both in real life, and in the image as presented.
However, if you view the *image* from too far away (farther than intended or typical) - say twice as far, the person, and the building, will have half the angular size. This is where it gets interesting: your brain knows how tall a person is, and makes the assumption that the person is 6' tall and so must be 120' distant to have the visual angle presented on the image, and by comparison, the building which is twice as large as the person in the image will be perceived as 240' distant - which has *stretched perspective* to make the distance between the person and the building twice as large as in reality.

But if the photographer matches your viewing of the image more distant than intended by using a telephoto lens, he will enlarge the person and the building and compress the perspective distance back to reality! Then if you bring the image back to normal viewing distance, the building will look only half as far behind the person as it was in reality - the common perspective compression of a telephoto lens (when viewing the captured image at the typical viewing angle).

Bringing us forward to today, many UHHers view on a 15" (diagonal) laptop at 18" away - width of 13", field of view (width) of 40 degrees, close to the 33 degrees above.
This would require a "normal" lens of -- 49mm on a full frame sensor -- TADA, it matches!

However, some of us (or our kids) may be viewing most of the pictures we examine on a 4" or 5" (diagonal) cellphone screen at 12" or more (other UHHers may look down their nose at such behavior - with some reason...). A 5" screen is 4.3" wide, and has a field of view (width) of only 20 degrees, far less than the 33-40 degrees that our "normal" lenses require. In fact, you'd have to shoot with a full-frame equivalent of 100mm to make the perspective look right on a cellphone screen.

Unfortunately, at the same time that our viewing screens have gotten smaller, compelling a more telephoto image capture to look right, our cellphone cameras tend to have rather wide fields of view - more like 45 to 60 degrees wide, depending upon the model.

Fortunately, our brains are rather good at compensating for weird visual field distortion, so we don't all get headaches from staring at our phones all the time...

When photographing documents on a white background, consider over exposing by 2 stops. If the bulk of the pixels represent the white background, the camera will tend to make that mid grey, which will emphasize the lighting gradients in an unfortunate way. But if you dial up exposure so that the white background is nearer the top end of the histogram, you've got more dynamic range for the darker details on the document/map, and it will look a lot better.

Another possibility is that it's a jpg compression artifact (noise). Have you set your camera to fine or extra fine? That should fix it.

The "halo" can be seen when you zoom in close. It's called "sharpening" since viewed from a distance it makes the edges look crisper. Depending on your camera, you may be able to turn it down or off.

But most likely, I suspect you have set your camera to too low a resolution, which makes the pixels larger, and makes the sharpening more visible than if you have more of them.

Alternatively, you've done something like "download for email", with the same effect.

Does it actually work to convert to dng? If lightroom doesn't know about the structure of the file, I would have thought it wouldn't likely understand the layout of the pixels or the structure of the Bayer filter in the dng file either, and thus you'd just get a different error later in the flow, or an inferior "generic" rendering.

Why can't I delete a duplicate post?. Oh well, at least I've edited it. Airport Wi-Fi...