Shapiro says it well. I didn't go digital until 2009 and I have thoroughly enjoyed it. The main feature of modern cameras that I enjoy the most is automatic focus; auto focus is a marvel. My favorite feature with Digital cameras is the ability to change ISO on the fly and the excellent results at higher ISO (I rarely go beyond ISO 800 - in fact, I cannot remember the last time I went beyond 800). In the film days your were stuck with what was in the camera and that could alter a lot of control. The one feature that annoys me the most is the ability to shoot, shoot, shoot and not worry about paying a lot to have exposures processed. I tend to get sloppy at times thinking I will just shoot and hope for a good one. The other drawback is once the images are loaded on the computer and I start going through them I curse the fact that there are so many to evaluate. I use the X key a lot.

Lightroom works beautifully and I will continue to use it. I am puzzled with all the grousing about Adobe's pricing. Just think back to the film days. First week of the month you buy a roll of film, shoot it, process it and your $10 is gone and you have the rest of the month to go. Please, no more whining about Adobe and Lightroom.

There are two issues here - accurate color on your monitor and printing on paper what you see on the monitor. A third issue is the inherent quality of your current monitor and whether it can it be accurately calibrated with any device. There are those who claim laptop computer monitors can't be calibrated accurately but I have friends who claim otherwise. I will leave that discussion up to others.
I have an Eizo monitor ($$$) for my desktop for color work and use a Color Munki to calibrate the monitor AND printer. That second part, calibrating the printer, is especially important for getting your prints to match what you see on the monitor. It is also crucial to calibrate the printer using the paper you will use for prints. I have calibrated my printer with four different types of paper and get very satisfactory results.

For 4 x 6 prints I use glossy of just about any brand that my kids give me for Christmas or birthday. I haven't purchased 4 x 6 paper in years. They all seem to work find for snapshots and test prints. For enlargements I use Ink Press Glossy, Luster, and Pro Silky; Canon Plus Glossy II, and Pro Platinum. My favorites (for now) are Ink Press Pro Silky (which means I may phase out IP Luster) and Canon Plus Glossy II. For "quick and dirty" jobs, to just share images and keep the cost down, I have used Ink Press Duo Matte 80. I have calibrated my printers with IP Glossy, Luster, and Pro Silky; Canon Glossy II, and Pro Platinum. I am looking at Ilford Semigloss Duo, 8.5 x 11, for black and white prints to go into a genealogy book because it can be printed on both sides.

I am ambivalent about this type of thread which means I shouldn't bother to reply. Just for the record I am far more interested in the art of the photograph than the science of the camera. Truth to tell, at this point in time, my opinion is that there isn't a bad camera out there and all have amazing features. And, to be truthful, the camera makers are much better at the science and technology of the camera than I am at the art of the photograph, all of which means I am not chasing the "latest and greatest" regardless of brand.

Oh, Boy! This is a difficult one. The big problem is metamerism - using different light sources and different medium. Good Luck!

I use a Color Munki to calibrate display (Eizo) AND printer (with various papers) and have been able to produce prints that look very much like what is on display. Without the dual calibration it was very difficult to get satisfactory prints. If all I did was view images on the monitor I am not sure calibration would do much.

Yes, Chris T, I thought the eye focus was a great tool, loved it, and wish Canon had kept it on their DSLRs. Have to admit the digital revolution has tremendous advantages but one of the disadvantages is there are too many options, The simpler you keep it the better I do. One of the best options with DSLRs is the ability to change ISO quickly. In the film days your were stuck with whatever film you had in camera. I often carried two bodies, one with ISO 100 and the other with ISO 400. On rare occasions, for special events, I would use 800 ISO but did not like it.

Favorite SLR Canon Elan 7Ne; favorite DSLR Canon 5D. Both favorites because I came to know them so well and could make adjustments on the fly with little fuss or bother.

I have been using a Canon 9000F scanner for slides, negatives, and photos with excellent results. It will scan ten 35 mm negatives in one holder, and four slides in the slide holder.

I have, from the very beginning, converted all of my raw files to DNG and have been very happy with the results. I believe Adobe and Lightroom, or some variant of it, will be around longer than me. Or, if some new razzle-dazzle system comes on to the scene that is better and easier to use than LR they will have a method to convert all of those DNG files to their format.

I have used KEH and UsedPhotoPro and been very satisfied with both.

As I mentioned in a previous response: In the film days I shot manual because that is all I had. Using modern cameras with in-camera meters I shoot manual only when I do table top, or studio hooting and control the lighting. Then I use a light meter to determine proper exposure. For all other work I use aperture priority or shutter priority (sports). I see no sense in using manual in those situations. Been there done that - and I love those automatic features in modern cameras.

One person I know who is a professional photographer that specializes in bird photography starts with her camera in automatic because, as she claims, you never know when the bird is going to move and a quick shot is often the only shot. If she gets a good shot in automatic and the bird sticks around she switches to aperture priority primarily to control the depth of field.

Back in the day, with film cameras, I learned manual mode because it was the only one available. Today the only time I use manual mode is with table top photography and shooting with flash. At all other times I use aperture priority; I use shutter priority when shooting sports action. I tend to select a single ISO setting for any project - ISO 100 if I can - and rarely shoot at any ISO above 800. However, I seldom do low light work at a place like a coffee shop. But the real question is what do you want your photos to look like? If auto works in this particular situation stay with it - why complicate things. If you are not satisfied with the results start experimenting. Become familiar with the relationship between f/stop, shutter speed, and ISO. Experiment at home in a room with similar lighting.

I have used LightRoom for years and will continue to do so. I think the price is fine - they all cost and they all come out with upgrades that cost - no free lunch here. I have spent a lot of time learning LR and can now work very fast to get what I want. My time is worth money, also, therefore I do not want to spend time learning a new system. That said, there are several alternatives out there - seek and you find - good luck.