If it must last me until the end, it would have to be my FM2 with any decent all-mechanical Nikkor glass.

Mirrored or mirrorless only changes the type of viewfinder. It doesn't change important stuff like the controls, ease of handling, and image quality. Personally I get along with my EVFs (a6300, Z7) and DSLRs (all Nikon) about the same. I can make the same mistakes with either. :)

Depends on which side(s) of the triangle you want/need control over. For example, if your camera has native 64 ISO and you want to take advantage of it for landscape shots then Auto ISO is not an option. But when shooting action where you may want a fast shutter and some control over DOF then auto ISO is your friend.

I've had very good luck using a Lacie RAID drive with Thunderbolt interface. I can edit right off the external Lacie as fast as using the Macbook Pro's SSD. If a drive should fail in the Lacie I can swap it out with nothing lost.

Colorbylacy - Please check your private messages here at UHH.

I've had good luck with Nikon lenses adapted to Sony, and even better luck with Nikon F lenses adapted to the Nikon Z mount. Adapters can be a good thing to get some use out of gear you already have - but adapters are not all that convenient and they make the rig bigger and heavier.

I would not purchase an expensive new lens if there were a chance I'd need an adapter anytime soon.

Right now there are 60mp sensors on the market with 80 and 100 in the pipeline. If a crop sensor has 40% of a FF sensor's area, then crop sensors with the same pixel density will be 24mp, 32mp, and 40mp.

FWIW, this means 24mp crop sensors have had the same pixel density as a 60mp FF sensor for some time now. I expect the wait for 60mp+ sensors has had more to do with processing power in the camera than the ability to build the sensors.

Yes. If the camera is set to jpg only, there will never be an opportunity to edit the raw should you want. You can always set the camera output to "raw+jpg" and have the best of both worlds at the expense of some storage space. I did this for several years but just keep the raw files now.

The point of this is not whether a raw is better or worse than a jpg. Its about how you want to handle the image file after it leaves the camera. Raw+jpg is the most versatile, raw keeps everything you shot with no modifications and unlimited PP options, and jpg-only modifies the file permanently but it is the easiest and fastest and does offer limited PP opportunities.

Yes, we are on the same page. Especially the Betty Boards :)

While LR preserves the original jpg, LR layers its jpg edits on top of the in-camera PP when the file is exported. So the best LR jpg export would be second generation.

Depending on the shoot, the subject, the intended result, and the price of rice in Taiwan, it may be good practice to put the RAW into LR so that editing can always revert back to the true original image file.

A jpg is a Post-Processed (PP) raw file. If you let the PP happen in-camera, all the changes are "baked in" to the jpg. If you PP the jpg further in a photo editor you are adding edits on top of edits. The image can all-too-soon become the photo equivalent of a 4th-generation cassette tape. (Remember?) :)

With a little practice you can PP the RAW files in LR to produce the same jpgs that your camera would produce. But you can change the RAW edit over and over in LR until you get what you want. Nothing is baked in until you export the file from LR as a jpg or tiff. Even then you can make yet more changes and export again. This preservation of the original camera image is an important benefit of working with RAW files.

This applies mainly to "serious" photography. There are times you want to set the camera to "jpg only" and just shoot some memories.

If I go to the Develop module without an image selected in the Library, I get a gray screen and a message saying "No Image Selected". If the Develop screen is black/blank and you know you had an image selected in the Library, then you are chasing some problem other than the image not being selected.

My Canon Pixma 100 is great for travel but for long-lasting prints at home I use an Epson with pigment-based inks.