I hate to rain on anyone's parade, but I have doubts that you will be able to take decent pictures with just a camera and a long telephoto lens. You will probably be able to get a decent pictures but the sun will be very small; maybe taking up, at most, a tenth of the picture area. I know I have taken pictures of lunar eclipses with a 300mm zoom and the moon is very small, so I seriously doubt that a solar eclipse would produce anything that would be any larger. If you want to take a picture where the sun fills the picture frame you will probably need an astronomic telescope. You can usually purchase an adapter to mount your brand of camera to the viewfinder on the telescope. When I was a youngster many light-years ago, my father bought a 4" reflecting telescope and I remember using the telescope to project the sun onto a piece of cardboard (since looking through the viewfinder to see the sun can result in permanent blindness). I remember being able to see the sunspots. We made a circular baffle that we fitted in the opening of the telescope to reduce the intensity of the sun when projecting the image. But I think you will be disappointed with any pictures you take with just a camera an a long zoom.

Calibrating your monitor may not fix the problem with the brightness of your prints. I know from experience. There are two ways to make your prints match what you see on your monitor. If you are an LR user, the cheapo way is to use the Color Management settings in LR's Print module. It allows you to adjust the brightness and contrast of your prints. You can make the adjustments until you are happy that the prints match what you see on your monitor. After that, LR will continue to apply these setting to all your prints.

What I did to address your same issue is to purchase an x-rite Colomunki Photo. You can use this device to calibrate both your monitor and your printer/paper combination. It does the printer calibration by printing a test sheet that you then scan using the calibration device. Based on the scan, the Colormunki Photo software prints a second test sheet that you scan to produce a color profile that you use for the paper you use for printing. If you use several types or brands of paper, you should generate a separate profile for each type/brand of paper. The process can be a bit time consuming but I find it to be useful since your perception of the brightness of a print will largely depend on the lighting you use to view the print. The only issue with the Colormunki Photo is the price (about $400). One the other hand, the LR adjustments come free if you already a LR subscriber.

Calibrating ones monitors does not guarantee that the monitor will faithfully display the actual colors. What calibration does do is to come up is a profile so what is displayed on the monitor is as close to faithfully render colors as is possible with the monitor and the graphics card. The fact that there are significant differences in what is displayed on the two systems can be attributed to the fact that the monitor and graphics card on one (or even both) systems cannot display a full color gamet. I saw this when I recently purchased a new PC and in the process of transferring my data from the old PC to the new one, I had my generic main monitor connected to the VGA port of the on-board graphics card of the new PC. I had calibrated it and the colors were significantly different from those displayed on my high end monitor. After I transferred the graphics card from the old PC to the new one and plugged the monitor into the DVI port on the graphics card & calibrated everything, I found that the colors on the generic main monitor were amazingly close to those on my high end monitor connected via the Display Port. The main point is that color fidelity is not possible even after calibrating it unless the monitor and graphics card are capable of faithfully producing a wide color gamet. On the upside, my main monitor is a fairly inexpensive monitor that I purchase recently and the fact that it can even come close to the colors on my Eizo really blew me away.

I have been using a Think Tank TurnStyle shoulder bag for many years. It's a sling bag that comes in 3 sizes. With the large I can store my D7100 with my prime lens and have room for 2 additional lenses that usually includes a 70-300 zoom. What I really like about this bag is that the zipper run along the length of the bag so I can access anything in the bag by merely rotating the bag from my back to the front and zip the bag open to grab a lens or filter. When rotated, the zipper is on the top, so there is little danger of anything falling out. The strap that goes over the shoulder is very wide (maybe 5"). The great thing is that I almost never have to take the bag off my shoulder other when I sit down in a restaurant to eat.

I purchased a new PC several months ago, so here are a few thoughts based on my purchase and experience with the new PC. I purchased a custom HP (HP DeskPro 400 G3) computer with a core i7 processor. It has 4 processors but uses Hyperthreading so it can run 8 threads at one time. I see almost no delays when using LR (or anything else for that matter). The PC has 8 GB of memory. I determined the memory size by looking at the amount of physical memory I was using on my old PC (which also had 8 GB) and it generally used about 6.2 GB of memory when I have the usual number of applications open. On the new PC, I find that the amount of physical memory is normally just about the same. Use the Windows Task Manager to see how much physical memory you are using on your current PC and use this to determine how much memory you should get on your new one.

I looked for a PC that provides at least a few expansion slots and had a large number of USB slots since I have 2 printers (a photo printer and a generic printer), 2 scanners (flatbed and film), and a number of external backup drives. The expansion slots were important to me because I have a very high end monitor (Eizo) that I use for editing my photos and a generic Viewsonic monitor that is my main monitor. I mention this because I believe that it is essential to have a good graphics card. I had an ATI FirePro V3900 card in my old PC. When I got the new PC, I plugged the monitors into the graphics slots that came with the PC. Several weeks ago, I moved the FirePro card into the new PC and after I calibrated the monitors, I was amazed at how much the image quality improved on both monitors, especially the Viewsonic. The color gamet on the Viewsonic was almost as good as the Eizo. If you are as anal as I am about color fidelity, I would suggest also getting a good graphics card. It does not need to be a high end gaming card, but does need to support high end graphics. The other reason I needed several expansion slots is so I could migrate a USB 3.0 expansion card from my old PC. When looking at the HP consumer grade PCs, I found that they didn't have much in expansion slots or the number of USB slots that I needed, so I ended up looking at their business models and the they met my needs. The prices were not that much more than the consumer grade PCs and had the real bonus of a 3-year on-site warrantee.

Hope this gives you something useful in selecting your new PC. I don't use laptops, so I can't help in that area.

In addition to backing up your photos, make sure you have a protocol to minimize the loss of your photographs due to theft or loss of baggage. I used to back up my photos to a backup device but stopped doing this after I purchased my Nikon D7100. It has slots for two cards and I configured it to write each photo to both cards. When the cards are full, I keep each of the cards in separate locations and usually I carry one set with me at all times and the other set in my baggage or in the room safe if the room has one. On the airlines, I may put one set in my checked baggage and the other in my carry-on baggage. The cards are small (perhaps too small) and light and the only electrical requirements you need to worry about is being able to recharge your camera batteries. You also don't have to worry if you drop the card (unless it is into the ocean). In the evening, I will frequently take the card out of the second slot and replace it with a new card and then set the camera up to copy all the photos on the first card onto the new card. That way I have a backup even if I were to be robbed the next day. Even the good quality SD cards are fairly inexpensive these days and I just stock up on the cards before I leave. I generally don't reuse the cards and keep one of the sets in a fire safe and the other in my safe deposit box. It's probably overkill, but I have never lost a picture yet.

Look at the Nikon Coolpix line. They have several models (P900 and P610) in the Coolpix line that look like a dslr but have a fixed zoom lens. They are fairly light and compact and have a healthy zoom. It appears that some of these cameras have VR. I got one for my wife several years ago and she loves it.

I too am getting a bit long in the tooth. In the past. I have tried using a monopod and have never found that the combination of me and the monopod was a steady as I wished. Last year I purchased a monopod that had small tripod like feet on it. It was manufactured by Tiltall and I purchased it because it fit in my suitcase for a trip overseas. I really appreciated the fact that I could hold the camera much more steady than I could with an ordinary monopod. My photos were razor sharp even with a telephoto. Since then I have used it on a number of occasions and it has proven to be really useful when a tripod would be too cumbersome. Sirui also makes a similar monopod that appears to be even better than my Tiltall and I am seriously considering purchasing one of the Sirui monopods. One nice feature of either monopod is that you can separate the 3-legged base and you have a very sturdy monopod. So in terms of flexibility, you can't beat it. I would recommend at least looking into one these 'monopods'. They are a great compromise between a tripod and a pure monopod,

I would check the diaphragm on your lens. I suspect that it is really not stopping down or is only partially stopping down when you take pictures outside. Inside where there is much less light and the picture is usually taken at a lower f-stop and the diaphragm doesn't have to close down much. You can check the lens by removing the lens and set it to the highest f-stop. Then move the little lever the camera itself move to stop down the lens to determine if the diaphragm actually closes down. Try doing this with both your lenses and compare the results.

No doubt that a tripod provides the best stability. But last year I went to Thailand with the family and realized that the family would not appreciate my taking time to constantly set up the tripod to take pictures. So I traveled with a Tiltall BM-868 carbon fiber monopod. This monopod comes with detachable feet so you can kind of use it as a tripod or detach the feet and use it as a monopod. I always shot with the feet. I found that I tended to shoot with the monopod setting on two of the feet and I would tilt the monopod up and down to take the pictures. My lenses have VR, which was turned on. For the most part the photographs were razor sharp and the photographs far exceeded my expectations in terms of sharpness. Like a pure monopod, I would never attempt to change lenses without holding on to the Tiltall or leaving it stand by itself. I have also found the Tiltall to be useful in taking photographs for a local symphony. The lighting seems to in single lumens and the shutter speed is frequently less than 1/30 sec even with a high ISO. The 3-footed Tiltall and the VR really help in getting decent photographs. Someone mentioned a Sirui, which is similar. The Sirui looks more robust than the Tiltall, but I went with the Tiltall because the Tiltall fits in my suitcase and has 4 sections. The Sirui's with an equivalent folded length have 6 sections and I have doubts that a 6 section monopod is as rigid as a 4 section monopod. Like I say, a tripod will always provide the best stability, but my experience with the Titlall has convinced me that a 3-legged monopod is vastly superior to an ordinary monopod.

I also have a Plustek 120 scanner and it is as good as it gets unless you have the financial resources to get one the the very pricey Hasselblad scanners. You can get a 35mm scanner for a reasonable price but there are very few 120 scanners available other than flatbed film scanners Years ago I started out with a Canon flatbed scanner and got decent results but I was never really happy when I made large (13x19) prints. I then popped for the Plustek scanner and I am very happy with the results. The downside is that the Plustek 120 scanner costs 2 grand. My daughter asked me for a large print of a picture I took in Glacier National Park before she was born and I was able scan it in and send it out for to get a professional print made since my printer couldn't print anything that large. The roughly 24x36 print was great. The decision on getting a flatbed scanner or a 120 film scanner largely depends on what you intend to do with the pictures and how critical you are and your financial situation. If you are simply posting them to Facebook or making prints 8x10 or smaller, a flatbed scanner will probably suffice. But if you are looking to make much large prints, you may not be happy with the results - particularly if you are very critical about your prints.

For my own photographs, I always print directly from Lightroom. However, I take photographs for a local symphony whenever they perform. I edit the photographs and then export them and provide the symphony jpegs on a thumb drive. I actually give them two sets - one set consists of photos around 1 Mb and another set is sized around 5 Mb. The way I get my desired file sizes is through the File Sizing are in the options menu that appears after you click the Export button. LR remembers the settings from the last export. I have suspicion that you tweaked the settings that affect the size of the export file and it produced a small, low resolution file and is continuing to do so. I would try unchecking the File Sizing checkbox and then see what the size of the exported photo is.

Calibrating you monitor is only half of the equation. I use an X-Rite Colormunki that will calibrate both your monitor and your printer. You use it to first calibrate your monitor and then the software that comes with the device prints makes two prints of a color pattern that you then scan with the Colormunki. From the print scans, the software generates a correction profile for the specific printer/paper combination. I am very happy with the results. The downsides are the cost of the Colormunki (over $400 as I recall) and the amount of time it takes to do the calibrations. It becomes a royal pain in the behind if I want to try a new brand of paper because you need to a calibration for each paper. From my days of printing color pictures in the darkroom, I have come to realize that it is almost impossible to get the print colors to exactly match the colors on the (then) slides and (now) my monitor. But my calibrations with the Colormunki match the colors on my high end monitor far better than what I could do before I started using the Colormunki.

Sounds like the experience with my wife about 5 years ago. Back then I let her have the cameras that I no longer used but she found them too heavy and too complicated. So I bought her a Nikon Coolpix camera and she absolutely loves it (and me for buying it for her). It's fairly light and compact and has a good range on the zoom lens and picture quality is excellent. The lens is a fixed mount zoom which really works for her since she doesn't like the 'complexity' of interchangeable lenses. I am sure that Canon and other camera manufacturers have similar cameras. Now while I roam around taking pictures, she now does the same and, while she is not as serious about the photos as I am, she takes some very good pictures with the Coolpix.

Your description reminds me of my first attempts with digital cameras about 10 years ago. I purchases a Nikon DLSR and shot RAW. Back then I used Adobe Elements and Nikon's Capture NX2. When I first imported my pictures, the RAW images appeared to lack any punch and appeared to be much as you described the pictures you imported. But both Elements and NX2 had a magic fix up button and when I hit it, the washed out RAW images were magically transformed into vibrant, colorful images. I recently imported some photos from that era into LR and the images were similarly unimpressive. But with a few tweaks in LR, the images blossomed into a really vibrant pictures. I am not that familiar with PS, but I suspect that it does not have a magic photo fix-up button. But from my past experience, you need to make adjustments to your photos to bring out what you see in the jpegs, just like I do in LR. The camera jpegs are generated from the raw images using algorithms developed by the camera manufacturer. So I really cannot explain why your imported jpegs are similarly washed out. I doubt that calibrating you laptop monitor would help much, particularly if the images you view from the internet are vibrant and colorful.