That is AMAZING!

I use a 2017 MacBook Pro. I back up my entire hard drive to two different portable hard drives. That way my entire hard drive is backed up, photos, Lightroom catalog, all my apps, all my documents, and anything else I forget to mention. I do this using Time Machine.

A better approach would be to use 3 external, portable hard drives. One for use daily, one for use weekly, and one to use monthly. At least one of those drives would be stored in a safe deposit box or a secure place outside of your home or office.

After seeing this post, knowing this was taken in Africa, and doing a little research, I agree, it is a Yellow Billed Stork. However, it does look similar to a Crane. I guess I don't know the difference between a stork and a crane, birdwise that is.

I appears to be some sort of Crane, but I'm not positive.

My keeper rate has changed significantly over the years. When I shot film, my keeper rate may have been as high as 3 to 10%. With digital I know it is probably 1% or even less. The difference is the cost per shot. In digital, I can take a lot of photos, different exposures, different compositions, etc., for no cost. When I went out with film, I typically used 36 exposure rolls of film. Film was several dollars per roll, and processing was more. With digital taking photo has not cost except for my time to select and post process them (which can be significant).

As a result, my keeper rate is probably less than 1%. Now that number is based of what I have put on a micro stock web site (and been accepted) verses what I have taken. Since, as an amateur, I take many photos of subjects that are of interest to me (family, kids, grandkids, and great grandkids, that have no value to anyone but me and my family.

Now, if I was taking photos professionally, if I was taking portraits, if I was in the mode of taking photos with the intent of selling, I suspect my "keeper rate" would be higher!

Photos that are taken for news outlets have to be taken as JPG, and have very limited post processing. I'm sure there are exceptions, like the National Enquirer.

First of all, I hate the term "crop sensor," it is a marketing ploy that does nothing more than create confusion.

Second, the focal length of a lens is actually a physical measurement, so it doesn't change (to keep it simple and correct, we are only talking about prime lens, not zooms).

All these people are saying is that a 600mm lens on a Canon crop sensor camera has the same field of view as a 960mm lens on a full frame camera.

For some reason, a 24mm X 36mm image (this is based on 35mm film) is considered full frame. That too is ridiculous. What if you were using a 4X5 view camera, or a camera that takes 2 1/4 inch square photos, I could go on much further but I think the point was made.

My recommendation is just don't worry about it.

In short, they are worth it. I can't speak for Canon but I'm sure others will. The Nikon D3500 is an excellent camera and the package usually comes with two lenses (18-55mm and something around 55-200, 55-300, 0r 70-300mm), a camera bag, a battery, and a battery charger. I'm sure the Canon kits are similar.

These cameras can certainly take excellent photos, the lenses are not the fastest in the world but are very functional.

I would suggest visiting a store that has the cameras that interest you, handle them, and determine what feels right for you. You might also want to go to Canon's and Nikon's web site and download and read the manuals (I know that's boring but it could be worth while).

Just remember, when you choose a camera brand, you will be sort of locked into that brand.

I was about to reply with almost the same opening comment. Except, with me it was more like over 60 years ago!

Of course it has live view, but the diaphragm stays open wide until you press the shutter!

I have a D-5100 and not the D-5300, but I suspect they are essentially the same. My 5100 has no depth of field button. Actually, that's fine with me because the depth of field button actually closes down the lens to the selected f-stop which dims what you see in the view finder. Just as an aside, this may be different with other cameras, especially the mirrorless cameras or any camera that uses an Electronic View Finder (EVF).

A work around is to chimp. That is take a photo and look at the photo on the LCD on the back of the camera. You can enlarge the image to make it larger (although you will only see a portion of the image) and move the image around to see what is in focus and what isn't.

You can also find a number of charts on the web that will list, camera type (sensor size), lens focal length, F-stop, and hyperfocal distance.

Hope this helps a little.

When I shoot birds in flight (BIF) with my D5100 and a 55-300MM kit lens (I hate that term), I generally use spot focusing and spot metering, shutter preferred at at least 1/1000 or faster, and I use the burst mode! Of course I let the ISO stay on auto.

On a sunny day, I can get very good photos that can easily be enlarged to 8X10 or even 11X14 and be very good, especially on a sunny day.

I'm sure some people will argue against my method, but it works for me. I think there are a couple of critical settings: 1. a fast shutter speed, 2. burst mode because you will have a difficult time determining when to activate the shutter, and, even a 6 year old Nikon provides good results at relatively high ISOs.

You might have some issues if you: pixel peep, use extreme enlargements, or you have problems with the "spray and pray technique."

Frankly it was in 2013 that I got back into photography because of birds, a subject that I only had a passing interest. Photography has been a hobby of mine since the late 1950s!

In 2013, we volunteered at the Salton Sea State Recreation Area. At that time, there were hundreds of different birds there (times have changed). I quickly learned that my bridge camera, although small, light, and a good zoom range, was not sufficient. Within a week or less, I went to Costco and purchased a Nikon D5100 Kit which included a 55-300mm lens. I attribute the birds at the Salton Sea to encourage my love for photography, and renew my interest. I have many wonderful photos of birds taken at the Salton Sea (look at my avatar), including White Pelicans, Brown Pelicans, Black Neck Stilts, Blue Herons, Green Herons, Night Herons, Great Egrets, Snowy Egrets, various shore birds, and more. I even have a sequence of shots of a White Pelican landing in a harbor, which looks like it could be a F/A-18 landing on an Aircraft Carrier.

Yes, sometimes I get tired of moon shots, flowers, insects, and especially questions on what camera should I buy, what lenses should I take to some location, etc. But, I have never condemned anyone for their choice of subjects, or choice of equipment, it's personal. Most of the reasons for a particular subject are related to an individual's interest, and the challenge of getting a great photo.

Frankly, I look at your post as similar to many that ask: what is the better camera, Canon or Nikon (they are both great), or raw vs. jpg (depends or how you use your photos), or auto verses manual, or semi-auto verses manual, or auto (it all depends on the situation, they are all useful).

I apologize for my rant, but to each his own. Live with it!