The poll that is currently ongoing is producing some very interesting results. A surprising number of responders are indicating that they ask their cameras to produce both formats.

No one has ever heard me say that SOOC is the only way. I don't believe that, and I don't do photography that way. I am doing quite a bit of photography right now that requires me submit usable JPEGs for possible publication at the end of each session, but that's nowhere near the same as preaching that SOOC is the only way. And I have a lot of images from my D200 days that I really wish I had raw versions to work with.

What I do say is that today's cameras offer outstanding performance and a huge range of adjustments that easily support making print-ready JPEGs straight from the camera, even in what used to be considered very difficult situations. But accomplishing those results requires some amount of learning and the willingness to accomplish that learning. And the willingness to thi k a little bit differently. On top of all that, accomplishing those results can be done without causing any damage to the precious raw files.

And yes...I am aware that some raw enthusiasts follow some quite extreme methods to support their approach. But again, with the modern cameras that have been available for the last 10 years or so, that extremism is no longer necessary. I take no offense to the continued usage, only to the continued claim that "it is the only way," or even that "it is the best way."

So yes...there are extremes on both sides, but there is a significant imbalance.

Thanks again to those who provided useful information. I have created a service case and will have this lens on the way to the Signal Hill repair center either tomorrow or Wednesday. It should come back as essentially a new lens, since it is cosmetically near-perfect.

Both.

What I said is true. And yes, all images are processed in some way by the camera. What the OP and I are talking about is being very intentional to use available camera adjustments to achieve usable JPEGs straight from the camera. As long as people here are unaware of what has gone on, life is fine. Once they know, most posts shift to why it can't be done. And if it can, it certainly shouldn't be.

I consider it so. Otherwise, why pay all that money for cameras that can do it.

And the capabilities are pretty great. After our earlier discussion, I went back and looked at the difference in what my D200 offered in-camera against what my newer cameras can do. Huge difference. Moved me a lot closer to your thinking about the D200.

Just as a comment...you will find that the vocal majority here are quite hostile to the notion that it is possible to achieve worthy results directly from the camera (read that as "any camera).
You will get the best results by posting such images without comment or distinguishing notes. When responses come back positive, you can later inform that no processing was done.

I agree with your approach. Processing as necessary should be done to optimize, not to fill a period of time. I do agree that proceeding in a logical or proven sequence has merit. But it's not a "once through and done" process. I participated in a comprehensive post processing workshop last month. Our leader demonstrated to us the significant number of interconnections and dependencies among the various adjustments. He showed us numerous cases in which subsequent adjustments altered carefully done changes made earlier in the process.

So any sequence, if intended as directing one pass and done, is almost certain to yield final results not representative of what was intended.

Just a couple of observations and questions. I sense some familiarity with your son's home. I'm guessing that you may have visited before. I see from your profile that you are a birder. From what I know, Columbia is a near-ideal place to do that. So my guess is that your time will be spent on the patio and visiting birding locations with whoever wants to share the experience.

So the questions are whether you need your longest lenses in such a rich shooting environment and whether your 18-400 zoom can deliver images that you will be happy with. I can't answer either of those, but I'm betting that you can, with a little thought.

Thanks for your reply. Your information is what I was looking for. I got the lens for an attractive price, so have some room to pay for repair if needed. It is intended as a gift, so it needs to function properly, hence the questions

This is an interesting discussion. Just a couple of comments..

Lens correction should be done early. It must be done before stitching a panorama. Many cameras will do lens corrections for branded lenses at the time of shooting. This is convenient and saves time later. If you do in-camera correction, do not follow up with a second correction during processing. And it's pretty easy to verify whether your camera applies the correction to raw files...just take two exposures ( one with correction, one without) using an extreme wide angle lens. See if the corner vignetting has been corrected.

Also...I would never crop an unprocessed image anywhere early in the process, before adjustments are made. There is no way to know for sure how peripheral components might look with adjustments, or how they might impact the finished image if left in place. (Never might be a little too strong a word, but you know what I mean. )

Thanks, but that isn't the question. I'm trying to determine whether mine is functioning as intended or whether it needs repair beyond what I've been able to do.

Yes...there was a well-publicized launch of an important rocket on the night of the full moon. I received several invitations from NASA to attend. There is nothing preventing this from being an actual exposure other than an unhealthy dose of uninformed skepticism. Of course, there is nothing preventing it from being a well-executed composite, either.

Rockets follow very well-defined paths at launch...at least on those occasions when everything goes as intended.

Thanks for the hint. I actually exercised the Manual/Auto switch on the lens a number of times. That seems to have made a big improvement...the lens now at least tries to focus every time instead of just sitting silently.

Still looking into the compressed focus throw situation at the short focal length end. I figured it would be easier to get a understandable answer from a user than from Customer Support.

It's the aperture changing as light levels change. If you have an "E" lens, mount it and see what happens. E lenses use a stepper motor instead of the mechanical linkage to set the aperture. It's almost silent.