I liked the video because it didn't say you must shoot raw or you only should shoot jpeg. If this was audio raw is like having access to the mixing desk v access to a graphic equaliser. Jpeg has baked in some settings that make it hard to adjust after the fact.

So saying how much effort do you want to put into a photo once you have taken it? Probably the only person who actually cares is the photographer. I tend to choose not to choose and shoot both.

Raw is what your camera starts with and goes on to produce A jpeg from that raw data, please note I did not say The Jpeg this is because what jpeg it produces depends on the settings you have chosen in your camera or have left to the cameras software to pick for you.

There are just 2 things fixed when taking a photo, the shutter speed and the aperture, the ISO is a bit of an artificial construct.
Shutter speed mostly determines how movement is captured and aperture depth of field for any given point of focus in the real world.

The least you can do is point the camera in the direction of interest, and let the camera do the rest. This may result in a good photograph. With a basic slr such as the Pentax k1000 the camera gave you a metering needle which if sat in the middle would ensure that enough light was entering the lens such that a middle gray world was correctly exposed for the type of film you had set when you loaded it.

Even more basic cameras did less than that my old 126 had 2 settings you could twist the lens to change aperture to and from sunny or cloudy. The viewfinder gave a rough idea of what the camera was going to record, parallax ensured it was never identical and besides by the time you got the film developed you wouldn't remember the difference. Cameras have come a long way since then.

They make assumptions that may not apply, The K1000 kind of started with it's needle if you adjusted the shutter speed and aperture and got the needle midway then the shot would be exposing for mid gray, it was on you to figure out focus , if mid gray applied and if the combination of shutter speed and aperture would capture the scene as you wanted. Still only advisory at this stage.

The next generation of camera had the ability to set a shutter speed relative to the aperture you selected and the ISO or ASA or DIN of the film you were using. White balance was a characteristic of the film you were using, balanced for indoor or outdoor light pretty much. Some people had favourite films.

Autofocus came along with a single point looking for maximum contrast...
That was mostly that and it was the formulation of the film and the print paper that mostly determined how your captured image looked.

With Digital you no longer were dependant on the film but on the processing capability of your camera and initially that was quite limited and we accepted it , just as we had with film. Now cameras have many options for producing a jpeg but it is a one time option if you don't save raw.

So there is no 'the jpeg' out of camera just 'a jpeg' with many variations possible.
It's possible with a raw file to correct not just white balance but color balance (using calibrated targets), but I haven't seen in camera processing that allows this maybe some cameras support loading of LUTS (that would be amazing to see in camera). If you are going to post process a raw file is the best starting point.

If not then figure out what your preference is for the jpeg you want the camera to produce or accept the default if you want it is really up to you.

Over on Youtube on the Adorama Channel there is a video by Pye Jirsa (SLlounge) entitled

5 Steps to Better Understanding When to Shoot RAW vs JPEG | Mastering Your Craft

In this brief video he goes through the advantages and disadvantages of shooting raw , jpeg or both.

The results, maybe surprising. Lets just say if you have made a choice you might change your mind about when that choice is appropriate.

It's a new Video posted on the 14th Feb this year so you may not have seen it.

I hope you find it of interest, I can't link to the video but I think googling the title should work.

Most people seem to replace their operating system with a later version but you don't have to, there is always the option to install to an external drive or to split an internal partition and dual boot.

With catalina probably an external drive will be a good option, they are using multiple partitions which makes things difficult if you have third party drivers in use. I have no desire to upgrade to Catalina the Sidecar feature only works with Gen6 and newer processors and other sidecar apps like astropad and duet will not work under catalina due to the new read only system partition... the other catalina issue is hardware support for nvidia cards...

Quite often you can run older applications on the new os simply by launching them from the applications folder of the older OS version.

A useful program is app cleaner most of an applications files are in the apps internal folders when you right click an app you can see its components (apples photo library looks like a file but in there are your original photo files), I digress.

But dragging an application on to app cleaner will give the locations of all of its files, which can be used to help you manually copy a program to a new OS.

If you are not installing to an SSD , a mechanical Hard drive will run about the same speed internally or externally so it really is of little consequence where you install your new OS.

For just the camera body the price in sterling was around 39,000 pounds , the SSD recorder on B&H is about $6800 I think that you need a software upgrade to go from 4k to 6k...

Thats 6K video on a sensor thats slightly larger than 35mm with 15 stops of dynamic range, it's seriously expensive.

True enough , the way prices fall it would be easy to have cards sold at a loss or not at all

The only dodgy thing is some devices are limited on size I bought a 256GB for my drone then saw max was 64 so ordered a 64 and the 256 arrived first and worked fine... There does tend to be a write limit , i've met that a few times running an os on sd card , SSD's are a better option if it suits the application.

being sharp doesn't make a photo good, it would be easy otherwise.

no because people use phones while erm otherwise occupied and no one wants to see that.

Cards fail, having a spare is common sense. Arguably if you have the option to record to a second card then it's a good insurance policy. after all every photo is unique and until they are transferred there is only one copy. Even with a Single card slot it might be wise to use more than one card. E.g if the morning is on one card and the afternoon on a 2nd then you should be risking half a days photos. If you were on a once in a lifetime trip with a single card...

There is also the sensor size to take into account the full frame will be enlarging its pixels less for any given print size.

To be fair there are mini SD and Micro SD cards although mini cards are a dead format, I have one somewhere.

Well its a series of measurements of light really that has passed through filters that is subject to interpretation. what passes through the filters is not purely a single RGB color Sure the red filter will pass mainly red frequencies but other frequencies will pass through not just blue and green frequencies but uv and infrared if you measure a calibrated target you will find inaccuracy in the recorded values. Adobe will provide one or more camera profiles but they will produce an image notably different from your own measurement of a target such as a colorchecker passport. A single raw file can produce any number of images depending on how it is processed and what its processed with. DCraw will process differently to adobe raw or affinity photo raw. there may be lens corrections applied or not and more How the data is processed determines the resulting image file.

An image file is the result of processing data. The raw file is subject to interpretation that's the difference. A jpeg a png a bmp is not each pixel has a predetermined value and it doesn't matter in most cases which program you use to open it.

I asked if a book was a movie undoubtedly a movie can be based on a book several movies can be based off a book. But once the movie is made you really cannot change the movie significantly. You can go back to the book and make another movie ... maybe th creation of an audio CD

Raw files are kinda like an image file as in flour is to cake. Each pixel site has a single color recorded. The values recorded need to be weighted and interpreted a contrast curve needs to be applied a choice of white point, black point and the relative position of tones in the image needs to be made. That's quite a long way from a jpeg file where each pixel has a color decided when you open the file.

raw files are i guess almost analogous to a latent image on a negative, how the film is processed will determine the negative image and then how the negative is exposed will determine the print.

Is a book a movie?

Take your full frame image and divide it into 1/3rds the full frame sensor is 36x 24 and the crop 24 x 16 or 2 x 2 (4) of those 9 thirds you just created or 4/9ths , You are using over half your pixels. leaving 10.66MB an acceptable DPI for an 8 x 12 photo is 300dpi (8.64MB) or 10lpm (line pairs per mm) in English if you hold a 8x10 at a normal viewing distance the resolution is fine, if you make a larger print you view from further back so 24"x 16" is still acceptable, if you like to put your nose on the print then you will start to see there is a limit to how much detail is in the image.

Since you have less pixels at aps size from the full frame than the crop the pixel sites are a little bigger so hopefully has a better sn ratio or less noise.

Elephant in the Room Why not use a suitable full frame lens, more pixels, an improvement in noise over the aps-c and less enlargement for any given size.