Over the years I've come to think of refurbished as a good thing. Basically: New with better quality control. Indeed, I've had nothing but good experiences with just plain used stuff (lenses mostly)

FWIW, I've had 3 of the 300F4 lenses (two with IS, one without) and sold all of them. I found them to have very poor contrast and slow to focus (particularly wit the 1.4TC attached).

I've not used your zoom so have not opinion on the comparison.

On a whim, I bought the Sigma 150-500 and it is dramatically better than the 300F4. It does not get reviewed that well but perhaps I got a particularly good copy (lucky me).

I also have the 70-200F2.8Lis mmii. It is one of my best lenses and works well with either the 1.4 or 2x TCs

I have this lens. For what it does (and it is very specialized) it is a great addition. While there are other ways to get deeper into macro that 1:1, there are not any that I know of that are as simple and uncomplicated.

You might want a standard macro lens with a bit greater working distance as well and you definately need to know that this lens is macro ONLY but if it does what you want (1-5x) then go for it.

I also have the MT24 flash which is a good addition if you are at the higher magnifications.

I'd characterize it as 'ok' at the price. We have one that just sits in the bag (it has been years since it got any use). My main complaint is that it has very poor contrast.

The 300F4 is quite a bit better and not much more expensive if you do not need the zoom.

Yes, it is surprising how it adds up over the years. I suspect that even folk who use mostly mid range equipment might get a shock if they added up all they have spent over time.

It isn't necessary to have a lot of equipment on hand to have spent a lot along the way. Also, the present value is a whole other question.

Years ago, I was a rabid audiophile. The latest speakers would be wonderful; for about a year or so. Then I bought (with trepidation) a pair of 6K/each speakers. Many thought me crazy but that was in 1972. I've never found anything I like better. Those speakers have saved me a fortune.

Not a mistype. Now, that is over a fairly long period and includes a lot of gear that has been resold, but it is approx. that much give or take a bit.

I'd guess that the cost of the equipment I currently have is about 70K. Value is another thing, as some things (mostly lenses) are quite old but still going strong.

I was quite 'lucky' that my whole FD system setup was stolen in a breakin and got replaced by EF equipment

You can, of course, go back to that process in later LR versions. While, admittedly, the way to achieve what those adjustments is different, it works *much* better. (less noise introduction, less colour shifting, better at dealing with edges, more overall ability to adjust)

Guffaw... When I was young, I could not afford a Pentax (a dream for me) so I bought a Chinon (with lens <$100.00). I learned a lot, took lost of commemorative photos, took a few good ones, nothing great.

Now I have at least $200K of equipment. I take lots of commemorative shots, quite a few good shots and a few great ones. I'm as likely to use modest (modern) equipment as top end. It is nice to be able to pull what you need out of your bag, but the vast majority of shots can be made with any reasonably good modern camera.

I have a 8 core Mac Pro with 12G of ram and a 4 core MacBook Pro with 4G. The difference in performance of LR is noticeable but both are satisfactory. The only real reason I use the Mac Pro is the 12TB of storage is enough for my files while a laptop meeds you to manage that aspect.

Presumably, you use aperture mode because you have a specific reason to choose aperture (like managing DOF).If you have a specific reason to manage shutter speed, well, use shutter mode.

A nice compromise which lets you do what you are suggesting is p-mode which isn't some fancy automation it just manages both shutter and aperture. It will present a pairing that give the appropriate EV for exactly the same metering as aperture or shutter mode but then you can scroll through equivalent shutter/aperture combinations that give the same exposure - this is quick and does not require re-metering. It does exactly what you asked for.

Another approach is manual mode with auto ISO... select the Aperture/shutter combination you want. The camera will meter and set an ISO appropriate to the metered light.

Note that nothing said above has anything to do with a change to metering or a change to the level of automation or photographer control compared to Aperture or shutter mode. They are just various approaches to quickly set Aperture/shutter and ISO. They all give exactly the same results and differ only in that the photographer chooses which variables they want to specify.

This is not a pointer to what you are discussing but I have the following stand:
http://www.cranehardware.com/product_info.php/products_id/31

I play an Eigenharp Alpha (I know, what the heck is that) that requires a base station and a computer. This stand holds both and folds flat to fit in a laptop case. It adjusts to any angle. I use it on the floor but it works just fine on a table too.

I suspect that this really is just blur, but would offer the following picture.

It was taken in pitch black (you literally could not see enough to walk) a a night stage during a rally. The camera was panning with the car (not too successfully). The details are 1/15th sec, EF85F1.2L at F1.4, ISO 51200, EOS1Dx.

Now I did not expect much but what the heck. The point is that, in the shot you can see a little, arched piece of picket fence. In the real world, there was exactly one of them.

Not particularly useful.

The vast majority of people have one catalog. For them, the process is: Install LR5, run LR5

People who do have multiple catalogs are probably informed enough to know they will need to upgrade each one.

It might have been nice, while they were being thorough, to include the (optional) step of uninstalling earlier SW and to list *all* the relevant files

Yes... and you will not see any difference except a broader ability to modify. LR treats raw as just another file type.

There are a couple of advantages that spring to mind.

- Catalog
Lightroom includes a cataloging system which is a great way to keep you images available for search. So it is trivial to find images you have added keywords to or to search by any metadata entry (such as what lens was used). It also has a mapping module if you want to find things based on where they were taken.

-Nondestructive edits and virtual copies
Lightroom does not actually edit you file. As you make changes, it keeps a list of what you have asked it to do to the image and it simply reapplies this each time you want to look at you image. You can have multiple, different, lists (which are shown in the catalog as 'virtual copies'. This means you can try different approaches without actually making different versions of the image file. Lightroom only 'cooks' these changes into a file when you export an image for use elsewhere (say for uploading or emailing). Even then there is little value in keeping the exported file once it has served its purpose. You can always make another.

My own approach it to shoot raw and lightroom just treats raw files as yet another format - totally painless