Re Time Machine: You Can Have 2 (or more) Time machine backups. Plug in a new blank drive , open the Time Machine panel in System preferences >Select Disk and follow the prompts. Then you can alternate Time Machine "A" with Time Machine "B". I do not believe there is an automatic way to back up to two Time Machine Drives, but I am not certain.
This is probably NOT the most efficient way to back up your Photos to two drives but it will work.
Applications like Super Duper, and Carbon Copy Cloner (and several others) can be set to automatically make incremental back-ups of a drive to a "Pictures" folder.
It is good practice to have 2 Backups locally, but you really need an off site back up as well (cloud or different location)
One last note , If you are using single drives, spend a little extra and get enterprise class drives.

Re Not Trusting The Cloud. Realize that it is only a part of a complete backup plan. And ANY complete backup plan has to have some Off site storage. It doesn't HAVE to be the cloud, but it has to be somewhere safe from natural disaster, Fire, & Theft. A major Cloud Provider fulfills that quite well.
Cloud , Hard Drive, DVD, Thumb Drive ALL Fail, The philosophy of Backup allows for this.
BTW My Daughter for years used DVD's as part of her backup plan. She stopped because some were unreadable after only a few years. That is after Using Premium T-Y media and writing as slow speed as storing in jackets. I wouldn't bet on DVD's

Complete backup requires Off-site copies.
In simplest terms You have your main library that you work from.
I keep 2 separate local drives for immediate backup and one at my second home (or friend or relative's house) updated monthly or so. Then I also keep a cloud backup.
Hard drives are very inexpensive compared to all your work.

.........Once you are comfortable, there is lots you can do with these techniques. You can also look at The "Brennizer Effect" popularly named after the photographer who popularized it using a whole bunch of hand held exposures to do shallow focus 'environmental ' type portraits (just get the face (s) in a single exposure.
Lastly if a set of images doesn't stitch well, it is not always your fault, try different software. I have had several images that gave unsatisfactory results in one application, that worked easily in another.
The more stuff you try, the sooner you'll figure out what works for you.

The question has been adequately answered so the only thing I would add, is that if you are new to this, the simplest way to good results is an L-bracket with the camera in portrait position. I use a nodal slide, but modern software is more forgiving of precise alignment than software used to be. I have both RRS and import nodal slides, and both work fine.(A Nodal slide is more important if there are foreground elements in the picture) Start with just 3 frames, 1/3 overlap . Then try 5, 1/3 overlap, then try 7, 1/3 overlap. This will give you a good feel for the shape of the blended image, which you then need to crop.
Multi row is very powerful, but just a bit more complicated. Done carefully, you will be amazed at the quality that is possible. Enjoy, it is great fun.

It is a bit of a 'fool's Errand' to try to prove the technical superiority of large sensors to folks who like to use smart phones. In the larger market, for most people, convenience always wins.
For many, the smart phone produces images that are not only 'good enough' for their intended purpose, they are likely better than the images most people made when the used 'real cameras'
It is not likely you will convince them to do otherwise.
And for the ever shrinking percentage of people who really do care about getting better image quality, there is no need to convince them because they already know.
Who among us has not shot a nice picture on a phone, only to say 'I wish I used a better camera'.
Convenience is a powerful and seductive thing. But then who hasn't made a lovely or meaningful picture with a phone in a situation where there was no chance you would have had a better camera with you.
The phone is a two edged sword. I'm happy to have it.
Telling other folks what they 'should' be doing, without them having asked, almost never works.

Re: "An iPhone sensor with the same pixel density as a 50 MP FF sensor would be only 1 MP. So where did the 12 MP come from? The software. "

That implies that the iPhone has 1MP. The iPhone does in fact have 12MP, the photo sites are just way smaller than those of a 50MP full frame which are about 4.1 microns, the Phone's are probably closer to 1 or 1.5 microns.
I don't think you meant to imply that, but the "other 11MP" don't come from software.
Although LOTS of the image quality of the iPhone does come from fairly incredible software.

I'm not at all disputing that tiny sensors cannot have the same dynamic range as larger sensors with much larger photo sites, they can't.
But having said that, I am constantly amazed at what Apple is able to get out of tiny photo sites and software.

Just as I was a fan and user of large film, I am partial to large sensors, so I'm not disputing your premise.

I bought the Olympus TG6, the interface is classic P&S (no finder)
But it is very rugged, can really be used under water (50 feet),
It shoots RAW, and Olympus has wisely limited it to 12 MP so the image quality is better than most.
It is not exactly cheap, but everywhere I looked it seemed to be the top recommendation.
I'm quite happy with it.
I bought a wrist strap with a small flotation device, so it is pretty care free even at the beach or on a boat in the ocean.

I would say this, If you are talking about pictures with artistic intent, Really good pictures are rare things, at least in relation to the number of pictures taken.
Ansel Adams once said that when he was at the height of his powers and energy he considered 10 or 12 really successful pictures a year to be great output. But he certainly 'took' hundreds or thousands more.

But there are lots of different kinds of pictures besides pictures that rise to the level of Art. There are pictures for illustration, family pictures, vacation pictures, evidence pictures, scientific pictures and lately pictures that substitute for language----"Is THIS the kind of Pasta you told me to buy.?" All valid uses.
A musical analogy might be a Guitar, Anyone can buy one, and with just a few lessons can learn a few chords and play a song, and that is nice, But to make Art with the guitar like Segovia, or Wes Montgomery, or Mark Knopfler is a whole different matter. Even if we get serious with the Guitar, we learn, mostly by imitating, until maybe one day we get good enough to do something original.
It's the same with photography, the barrier to entry is very low, any modern camera makes most of the basic technical stuff easy, and that is a wonderful thing, but only half the story. If you have artistic intent, you look at great pictures and consciously or unconsciously replicate them. And there are countless subjects that have become cliche's because if that. Like any other subject you can name, there are countless bad pictures of it, and a few great ones. Like any creative medium, mastering the tools has to be a given and just a starting point. The more important and difficult piece of the puzzle is Having something to say.
So rather than "Not Getting" other peoples pictures of trees or any other thing, ask yourself what you have to say with photography, then try to say it. You'll find that it isn't so easy.
Or, you may conclude that you really don't have artistic aspirations for your photography, but enjoy doing it-----that is fine too. Taking great family pictures is one of Photography's highest and best uses. Or taking pictures of places you have been, or photographing things that are personally meaningful to you. All can bring joy.

Are 'Lone Trees' a popular subject? Sure, trees are beautiful so 'why not try' and we all (or most of us) have tried. Most of us fail, far more than we succeed. Most of us are also not strict enough editors of our work.
But just because you or I do not 'Get' a particular picture doesn't mean it is not meaningful to someone else.
So worry less about what you don't get, and more about what you have to say with your pictures, then go out and try to make a good one. It's not so easy.

DH,
One thing that hasn't been mentioned, is that an older laptop and a TV is about the least ideal combination for viewing and editing photographs. Newer laptop screens like the Mac Retina Displays are quite good. They have 10 bit color depth, and a wide P3 Gamut. Some laptop screens including older Macs were 6 bit interpolated to 8 bit and less than sRGB in color gamut. TV's can be good at being TV's but are generally poor computer displays.
You have a budget of around $300 bucks.
You have not said weather you shoot JPEGS or Edit RAW files . If you do shoot RAW, or would like to , then my original suggestion of stretching to $399 for a good entry level Benq PhotoVue display stands. In the future you could add a calibration device if you feel you need it.
If you do NOT shoot raw then the least expensive display you could look at would be something like the
BenQ GW2780 27" 16:9 IPS Monitor, 1080x1920 and 72% NTSC (which equals 99% sRGB) JPEGS are 8 bit sRGB, the WEB is 8 bit sRGB it is $179 at B&H. Benq displays come from the factory true to their specs.
Display calibration on a regular basis is standard procedure for photo editing, but even the least expensive accurate device is a couple hundred bucks. A $179 Display will probably not have the capacity and internal LUT's to respond to the calibration device.
So sort of $399 or $179 will allow you to enjoy photography, both will be accurate for anything including your photos on the web, and the Photo vue will be more future proof and take calibration well should you decide to add it. Photography can and should be able to be enjoyed at any budget. My suggestions are focused on YOUR budget. I hope this helps

I love this, and applaud your generosity and motivation.
Since most modern cameras are good, what I have found to be important is to try to honestly gauge her interest, and the kinds of pictures she might like to take.
Then how 'portable' would be ideal. If she wants to carry it everywhere, smaller is better.
If you think being able to change lenses would be exciting to her then that is a consideration.
Kids are kids so toughness is always a good feature. You want her to be able to use it without undue concern.

My own Grandson is considerably younger -- 3 1/2--- but Loves taking pictures. I bought him the 12MP Olympus underwater camera, which is ruggedized and water proof. The IQ is very good. He loves it.

One last thought, as a bright interested 10 year old, you might ASK her what would be ideal for her in terms of size and types of pictures she wants to take. Enjoy the whole process. Good Luck

I am a big believer in high quality displays and hardware calibration, and do it al the time.
But in your case, as you describe it, I would NOT recommend spending the money , time or learning curve on a calibration device. Spend your money on a good entry level display with an IPS panel --
Something like this: BenQ SW240 24.1" 16:10 PhotoVue IPS sells at B&H for $399. The Photovue is their code for a wider Gamut display meant for editing Photos with a Gamut of 99% of Adobe RGB.
If you want to limit yourself to sRGB (8 bit, like everything displayed on the WEB) you can pay half of the above) Most modern displays come from the factory calibrated and fairly consistent for web viewing. (although most are set too bright) The purpose of display calibration which is necessary if you do serious printing, is to help create a "closed Loop" between display and a profiled printer, so that on screen pictures look very close to printed pictures. If You are a JPEG shooter who does not edit RAW files, a good sRGB display will suffice.
My advice here is to help you achieve your stated goal and budget while enjoying Photography. My advice would be different for a larger budget, but higher end options come with a learning curve.
I hope this helps.

I think the question has been answered so I won't repeat but just emphasize the importance of having the sensor plane Level, plumb and free of Yaw with respect to the plane of the building.
Getting the sensor Plane Parallel to another 'surface' is actually not that easy, because our eyes/brain compensate for it.
It is the same for all cameras. Full Frame cameras have the one advantage that usually, the widest angle lenses with low distortion are widely available for them.
For your problem of standing in the middle of the street and getting buildings on both sides, the rules are the same, but you have to visualize an image plane parallel to your sensor.
The more you get right in the camera, the better post processing software corrections work.
There is nothing wrong with software corrections, but the more extreme they have to be the more of your image you will lose, and sometimes sharpness too.
Always start with the widest lens with least distortion you can afford. Then the rule is usually use he longest wide angle that fits the whole subject. Because some distortion comes purely from your position relative to the subject.( Just try taking a portrait from 1 Foot away with a fine distortion free wide angle lens, the resulting 'Giant Nose & tiny ears are the result of Perspective distortion caused by relative position of camera to subject)
Second, Our eyes 'expect' convergence of tall parallel lines, so expert architectural photographers often find that slightly 'under corrected' images look more natural than technically perfect correction.
Lastly, If you have access to a tilt /shift lens the function you want is Rise. Which is a vertical shift, with the lens remaining parallel to the film plane. T/S lenses like Canon's 17MM & 24MM have image circles large enough to cover some MF cameras (on which they would have a much larger angle of view) so by shifting the lens relative to the film plane you are capturing a different part of that wider angle of view. They are also dead sharp and distortion free. On a tripod you can also do shift stitching of 3 or more exposures.
I hope this helps.

My main cameras from late 2007 were a pair of 1DsIII's. Superb Cameras. I was waiting for a High MP 1 series camera that never came. I bought a 5D4 & Battery grip when it came out to have the same form factor, and I absolutely love the camera --- but the camera is less important than the lenses. The newest versions of the 16-35 f/2.8 L (III) 24-70 2.8 L (II) and the 70-200 f2.8 L (II?) are absolutely incredible lenses. And they take full advantage of the 5D4's 30 MP If you can, Go for It

" why would my photos not be considered finished if I don’t go into PS with them.?"

Well, You are the photographer, You should decide when your photo is "Finished". If you are new to digital editing and want to learn how to Edit your pictures to your satisfaction, that's great and there are endless tutorials on how to get the most out of whatever Editing Application you choose.
But the Idea that ANY knowledgable Judge of picture quality would have any interest in what kind of editing you did, or what application you used just isn't true. They may like or dislike a picture on its merits as they see them, but process or camera or editing application are irrelevant. (the exception would be POY or photojournalism competitions where you have to certify that you didn't use Photoshop to enhance or alter the image.)