The remaining Windows boxes in my house run Win 7 or, in once case, XP. (The XP box is not connected to our network or the internet, and is used only to run a couple of photo printers with their older drivers - Win 7 replaced those drivers with newer ones that have virtually none of the controls that I use all the time in the older ones.) My wife and I both have Macs, but there is some software that we still use that only runs under Windows, so we keep the old boxes for that. I have decided that I will NOT adopt Windows 10 so long as I must take updates whenever MS decides to send 'em out. When Win 7 support stops completely we'll disconnect those boxes from the internet too, and use 'em as long as they remain functional. Thereafter, if we can't do it on a Mac we'll just do without (I'm too old to try to learn Linux.)

Nice to know things seem to be working for you, but the last time I downloaded an OSX update when it first came out it was days before one of my printers worked again. I now wait a month or so, in part because there's nothing ever really wrong with my Mac Mini that would get fixed by the new OS.

Let us know what you find. There were several suggestions that Preference files can restrict image importing, especially if you try to import to a folder that you created through the operating system rather than through Lightroom. (Not that it SHOULD work that way, but just that it does - sometimes.)

The fact that you CAN download the image to your hard drive, and that LR CAN read it and import it into LR, means that the image itself isn't corrupted, that the card itself works, and that LR works with that image. So it would seem that the problem has to lie somewhere in the "connection" between the card and LR. IOW, the software itself works, but some setting somewhere isn't letting it work directly between this card and the destination you've picked for it in LR.

I suspect you got what you got. My detailed info came from here http://www.submin.com/8x11/collection/minox/ - I once owned at least one B, C, LX and EC, and maybe some others, so the individual specs sort of flow together in my ageing synapses. But that web site is a treasure trove of the differences between models. There are a number of other sites that list the various models and why (or why not) they are desirable picture taking machines.

I found this thread on one of the Adobe forums, talking about similar problems. There are several solutions which may work (or maybe not - this IS software, after all.) https://forums.adobe.com/thread/1245328

You posited a scenario with very specific constraints which do not leave a lot of available options for people to suggest. There are NO options which would meet your obviously preferred solution - let me take it all in the cabin - within your original parameters of specific airline and seating class, with the limits those impose. Those options which WERE suggested are about all that's left, and after they were offered you then added ADDITIONAL constraints which make some of the options non-starters.

So one wonders - what "types of comments" DID you expect, given the decision box you set up in the first place? It looks like the ones you got pretty well exhaust the options.

The earlier versions advanced a frame of film each time you opened and closed the body, whether you took a picture or not. The model BL changed that so film (and the film counter) only advanced if you tripped the shutter.

Also, earlier models included filters you could slide into the light path, probably to control the not-so-panchromatic films of the day. I believe they could be yellow, green or orange. Later a neutral density filter was included, probably after color film became available in Minox cassettes, and to some extent to help lengthen shutter speeds in daylight given the fixed f/3.5 lens aperture. There were only 2 filters available in any single camera. Filters were dropped in the B models and later.

They were fascinating little machines. I had several, slit my own film from 35mm and reloaded the film cassettes, and modified a few Paterson reels to hold Minox film so I could develop more than one roll at a time (and pour ALL the developer into the tank in less than 60 seconds, which is what it seemed to take with the proprietary Minox developing tank.) Within the limits of the film size the results could be quite good - 4x5 inch B&W prints usually looked fine, but I think anything much larger started to fall apart unless I used very fine grain film and special developers.

Contrary to lots of WWII movies and Mission Impossible TV episodes you could NOT get great copies of secret documents by laying them out under a single bulb desk lamp and snapping away hand held before the guard came by on his next round. But Minox DID make a very capable 4-legged copy stand (designed much like the one Leica made for their screw mount cameras) that held the camera solidly at a precise distance above and parallel to a surface, with which you COULD take perfectly usable images of documents - if you lit 'em properly and, preferably, used a cable release on the camera.

During the decades of my film days I used Hasselblads, Rolleiflexes and Leica rangefinders, in addition to my most-used Nikons. But the film cameras I miss most from the standpoint of pure tactile pleasure to handle and use, are the Minoxes.

Whether walls "tilt," a term usually used to mean that the vertical lines of a building seem to converge instead of being parallel, is purely a function of the relationship between the plane of the wall and the plane of the film or sensor. If those planes are parallel, the lines of the wall will be parallel, and vice versa. So you can get "straight" walls with any size of film or digital sensor IF you can keep the film plane parallel to the wall.

Good tripods are forever. My most solid tripod is an American Bolex Evn-Pan that my father bought in the late 1940s. The head would swivel and pan (but not tilt) and was controlled and locked by the single handle, which was perfect for his 16mm movie cameras. (I find this to be the most convenient head design for ME to use with still cameras, but I don't think I've ever seen another one that works this way.)

Point is - I'm sure it was expensive when purchased (probably at least $500 in today's money), but except for some dings in the paint it's still as solid as the day it was bought, and has been giving reliable service for 70+ years.

(Interesting trivia factoid: for those of you who have ever used (all "seasoned" photographers have at least seen) a Sekonic Studio Deluxe light meter - that device was originally built and sold by American Bolex, beginning in 1948.)

Depending on the community, they may also have to worry about a building inspector showing up with a threat to issue a citation if the hole isn't fenced by the time he gets back. (There's a story of this happening with swimming pools whose fences were damaged or removed by the storm - even though there are no fences or fencing contractors to be found in the area yet. Apparently cities have to keep that revenue flowing somehow . . . )

And here I was waiting for you to say B&H accidentally turned your notification status into order status and you got lenses from both of 'em on the same day. ;-)

But the real story is right - they're both first class operations.

I'm curious - are "quick enough" and "slowed me down" relating to the speed with which you can bring a camera from wherever you're carrying/holding it, up to your eye? And are you thinking that the difference in weight between DX and 4/3 will allow a significant increase in that speed? If so, what kind of equipment are you carrying?

I can understand that if you're comparing a 300/2.8 (fixed) on full frame and a 200/2.8 (zoom, max) on DX, then a 150/2.8 (zoom, max) on a 4/3 Oly will be considerably lighter and so should be faster to move than either of the larger kits. But for anything smaller I wouldn't think the differences in weight would be that significant.

As I say, your terminology must made me curious. I recently picked up a Lumix GX85, to use in situations where my DX and FF Nikons with lenses are more than I want to carry around. But I never thought in terms of speed of deployment.

Yes, it was a horses for courses decision for me. We've been making these Christmas books for about 35 years now, and it has always made Thanksgiving to Christmas an extra stressful time. It's still a big project, but the fact that digital let me do most of it sitting down, in the light, and dry, helped a lot. And when I figured out how to use Lightroom to let me print each book separately (not everybody gets the same images in their book, so I used to have to print all necessary copies of each image first and then sort the enormous stack into individual books) it REALLY helped smooth the process. The digital prints don't look the same as the (glossy, RC) wet prints used to, but I think they're actually better looking because of what can be done with the editing software starting from a full color image.

If I did lower volume, more artistic printing I probably would still be using some film, including perhaps some of the Leica Ms (although considering how the lenses have shot up in value there's also a fair chance I would have taken the profit and stayed with the Nikon F100 as my main camera. THAT one was the most usefully powerful film camera I owned. (Might have kept the Rolleiflex 2.8 Planar, too - the M3 of roll film cameras, IMHO.)

I switched to digital when I rented a Canon digital outfit that (roughly) matched the Nikon film outfit I normally used at my daughter's horse shows. The digital deal was closed first night, when I put the CF card in my laptop computer and had digital "contact sheets" from the equivalent of 10 rolls of film, ready to print (when I got home) in a matter of minutes instead of the 3-4 nights I would have spent in the darkroom making contact sheets with film. I came back from that weekend and ordered the then-new Nikon D100 and never took another frame of film. Once I'd gone for a couple of years without even thinking about pulling out a film camera, I sold all of the film cameras (Minox, Nikon, Leica, Hasselblad, Rollei, and Graphic), all but the Nikon lenses, all darkroom developing and enlarging equipment and almost all of the tidbits that went with all that stuff. (I kept the Gossen flash meter for some reason, although I never use it, and the radio remote triggers that worked with the Nikon digital cameras.) The darkroom is now where the photo printers live.

I remember the film days, and darkroom work, fondly, but would never go back to it as long as I can afford to stay digital (which, despite the free "film" seems a lot more expensive than I remember film capture and output being.) The near-limitless roll of film that is a 32GB SD card, the instant review of exposure and composition if desired, the immense flexibility of image editing software and the ability to safeguard the originals by merely copying to an additional storage device or two, plus the power and quality of photo printers - I made ~1,000 8x8 B&W prints that went into bound books as gifts for about a dozen family members last Christmas, which were done WITHOUT having to stand up for hours on end in a darkroom, on ever-ageing feet - means film is going to remain a memory I can visit when I choose, but don't have to endure any more.