Wow, how can we make a simple workflow complicated! Why are 2 card slots better than an extra card - when it comes time to switch because you filled the primary card for the first time? Why is it so hard to treat the card as read-only when it comes to Lightroom or the PC OS. Edit, erase, reformat all you want — FROM THE CAMERA. Simple. What am I missing here?!

0.008 mb

Pet peeve of mine, having to guess what some folks mean, this seems to be a pretty common sloppy use of units abbreviations (incl caps and lower case prefixes also) nowadays: mb, mB, Mb, MB, gb, GB. Btw, no such thing as a milli bit😄

Oh and one more comment on parts of this string. Photoshop/Camera Raw and Lightroom impressive new tools for Select Subject etc have nothing to do with composition and the topic here!

I would modify that a bit, but it’s likely what you meant. For me the Subject is the WHY of the photo.

Just watched the video, and I did not hear the same dogmatic message that the title suggests. Kelby and his co host covered the obvious examples where full manual is best/required. But the point that P or one of the other priority modes may be a best choice for most situations where conditions change quickly (bouncing boat, people walking through varying lighting conditions and other examples were noted). Playing “devils advocate” here, this is not a bad piece of advice for many photographers. Certainly Manual is NOT outdated and very useful with Auto ISO set.

This winter I started cutting my own matts from 32”x40” blanks (using Logan basic cutter and various videos online). It allows me to buy standard inexpensive framing and print to non-standard sizes with appropriate customized matting. Results including double matts are beautiful, and some day I may even pay for the cutter with the minor savings on using precut matts and/or custom framing.

Well, just out of curiosity, I ran some experiments: 4 steps.
1. Started with a Raw file (Z6 with no edits) showing file size of 30.73MB - both in Windows and LRC Metadata.
2. Exported to jpg with no changes, and at quality of 100%. File size reduced to 13.86MB.
3. Did “Save as" (name change only) from Windows Photo Viewer - resulting in no file size change.
4. Then from LRC, did export from jpg to new jpg with changed file name (closest process in LRC to a “Save as”). File size then increase from 13.86MB to 13.97MB according to LRC metadata (confirmed this file size in Windows).

PUZZLING: the second save in LRC on the jpg not only did not show additional compression (implying additional loss), it showed a larger file size - implying additional data. Again no edits were applied outside of file name change. Ideas?

It’s simply effective Marketing. If there was an equivalent alternative to using our older F Lenses on the newer Z Cameras, then the competitive price would be different. The willingness of the market to pay $250 for the basic functionality from a single source is what sets (supports) the pricing. Same reason the newest, fastest memory cards are expensive: no or limited alternatives, not cost of silicon or R&D.

If one changes the name or location on disk of a jpg file via the operating system (Windows or Mac) the file size does not change and I do not believe any further compression or loss occurs. Are you saying that doing a Save as (presumably within some editing capable program), without having changed anything on the file except name and possibly location on disk, that the file content (loss and/or compression) is then affected?

Took a great Alaska trip last August. Edited out the clear bad shots each night, took one extra card (2 cameras and 2 iPhones). Ended up with 800 “keepers” to cull out at home, and printed 9 paper and 1 metal pano — and a viewable gallery of maybe 50. You have to be tough on your work.

You and some others are missing the OP’s objective. He wants to remove moving objects from a picture where the subject is stationary. Think of the wedding shot of the couple in the middle of a busy street, but you see no cars. An earlier response mentions a stack with Median Blending. I’ve seen it work, though I haven’t personally used it lately.

Been with SM several years now (for personal use). Agree with all of the above, including those who found it non-intuitive at first. Upside is a great look and very responsive and skilled help folks (called Smugmug Hero’s) who quickly bail you out when you need them.

I’ve done sucussful focus stacking with the same Z 24-200mm and Z6. I’d expect Z7ii to work the same.