I've never had a DSLR. A couple SLRs and a bag of lenses was enough with the mirror.

I didn't know either so I asked my computer:

"Copilot...........

Photographing a solar eclipse with a mirrorless camera involves several steps to ensure safety and capture stunning images.

Here’s a concise guide:

Use a Solar Filter: Protect your camera’s sensor and your eyes by attaching a solar filter to your lens. Keep it on until totality.

Camera Settings:
Set your ISO to the lowest value, like ISO 100.
Switch to Manual mode.
Choose a fast shutter speed, such as 1/4000 or 1/8000.

Adjust the aperture to the lens’s sweet spot, usually between f/5.6 and f/81.

Choose the Right Lens: A telephoto lens with a focal length of at least 300mm on a full-frame camera is recommended for detailed shots.

Stabilize Your Camera: Use a tripod to keep your camera steady during the shoot.

Plan Your Shots: Decide if you want to capture the entire event or focus on specific phases.

Practice: Test your setup before the eclipse to ensure you’re ready for the event.

Remember, never look directly at the sun without proper eye protection, and always use a solar filter on your camera lens during the partial phases of the eclipse. For more detailed information, you can refer to comprehensive guides available online.

Happy shooting!"

I wanted a wildlife lens to take on trips in our small camper. They were all too big for my taste. Then I discovered Micro Four Thirds. Both Panasonic and Olympus have a 100-400. For the full frame thinkers that is like 200 to 800. I like video options so, at the time, I bought a Panasonic body and the matching lens.

I was on a Yellowstone trip taking video of a distant wolf. The roadside was lined with tripods and monster Nikanons. A woman next to me assumed I wasn't doing well with my small rig. She offered to let me see the wolf assuming I wasn't able to see much through my anemic viewfinder.

With video, my system has an additional cropping effect. In FF DSLR terms I had a field of view equal to about 1150 mm. After a few minutes I offered her a peek through my viewfinder. My wolf was bigger and big enough that she had her boyfriend pack up her heavy gear for her. She had a Suburban with a false floor in the back with custom cutouts under it for a few lenses, bodies and tripods.

My wife is often smarter! Her choice was a 2.4 pound Sony RX10 IV. She puts it on auto and shoots. She does not bother with a tripod. She will lean on the camper or brace on the window frame. Her wildlife images are great.

"DSLR's are lame when it comes to astrophotography."

DSLRs, compared to mirrorless, also tend to be a little lame for video.

"I would appreciate some advice..."

Mine would be that film and darkrooms go together. Digital is different. To scan film so that processing can be digital makes no sense to me. If you can't, or don't want to, build a darkroom, skip the film.

Don't know what to say for sure. But, in my retirement community the wood shop, photography and videography are the driving forces that keep me having fun being busy.

Splitting hairs? No. I think what has happened is that phones have become so capable, that each "pocket camera" is measured for what it can do against a phone.

One camera is weather/water proof. You can use it when you can't comfortably use your phone.

One camera has a very long telephoto reach that a phone can't.

Another has a bigger sensor so should be better in low light or for enlargements.

If a "pocket camera" can't do something better than a phone, it stops selling and is discontinued.

My YouTube showed using a piece of copper wire instead of the cheap piece of aluminum. One end of the wire wrapped around the heating element and the other end dangled down the drain hole.

Back to photography..... My wife gave me an RX100 vii. It took a couple good YouTubes (and a book) to figure out some of the more complex settings.

Then there is drone operations! Maneuvering a drone in a cinematic way while recording video clips gets a lot of help from a couple YT channels.

Do you remember Seattle Film Works? They bought movie film, cut it to 36 frames and canned it. When you sent in the exposed film you got back negatives, prints, slides and a (low res) disk.

The newer Nikon mirrorless models have done a good job of catching up. As long as they stayed glued to lens reflex designs they remained behind the Sonys and Panasonics for hybrid models.

Google says it cost $100 million to make Oppenheimer. For most of us, one of the digital motivations is that we get to avoid the cost of film and development. If I could come up with a big budget project, I might ditch my digital gear too!

Thanks to all that posted! I rarely succeed at dreaming up a topic that can generate a few pages of responses. Even better are the suggestions of some YouTube channels to watch.

There are two brands of cinema cameras that consumers never buy. Red and Arri bodies are in the $40,000+ range. The lenses will go a lot higher. They are the cameras for shooting $60 million movies. They have big sensors, wide dynamic range and sophisticated codecs.

It is not that complicated.

It may not be obvious to the UHH age group, but video is important. For those interested in consumer video, Nikon and Canon have been well behind Sony and Panasonic.

Looking forward to emerging market demand video technology is important. So is connectivity and use of AI. Nikon, and all the others, have to be looking at who is going to be spending money ten years from now.

I did ask. Sometimes I think I might contribute if I start a topic with something useful. My first photography life altering video series was from Julieann Kost who explained Lightroom 4 to me.

I'm fishing for entertaining stories about what people have learned that's useful.