That looks about right to me for a RAW file. It's apparent your D850 exposed for the sky, which left the trees dark. But on a D850, you should be able to pull up the shadows in post quite nicely.

I say it looks about right because much brighter and you'd blow out the highlights in the boat's wake. With most Sony and Nikon sensors, you can recover quite a lot of shadow detail without introducing much noise, but blown highlights are irrecoverable.

To get slo-mo video, what you do is shoot at a higher frame rate than the video will play back. Since in the U.S. we use a format that plays back ~30 frames per second (fps), when we shoot at a higher frame rate (generally in multiples of 30), playback at 30fps will be slowed. Many devices are capable of 60, 120, and even 240 fps, and the corresponding playback speed is probably obvious to you: 60fps=1/2 speed playback, 120fps=1/4 speed, and 240fps=1/8.

Think of this as the antithesis of timelapse. In a timelapse we might record, for example, one frame every tenth of a second (not a frame every 1/30 of a second like in normal-speed 30fps recording). That gives us only 10 frames per second, so it takes three seconds worth to get the 30 frames that play back per second, which gives us a video playing three times faster.

Recording video at higher frame rates takes more resources, so we suffer an inverse correlation between resolution and frame rate. For example, few hybrid cameras shoot 4k resolution at 60fps, and fewer still at 4k 120fps -- but many shoot full HD (1080p resolution) at 60fps or 120fps.

Cameras refer to the frame rate with p, by the way, so you're likely to see 4k/30p and 4k/60p, or maybe HD/30p and HD/60p, as options, with the p meaning fps. This is not to be confused with video or display resolution of, say, 1080p or 1440p, which has nothing to do with frame rate.

No need for attitude. I too thought it odd that you weren't considering Sony, the only system with some 300 native-mount, full-frame lenses to choose from.

Technology drives my "replace by attrition," as I'm sure it does yours. For charging speed, new cellphones made me consider cable types. In my house we currently have 45W- and 30W-capable phones, so I buy only 45W-capable cables. I don't foresee needing anything faster anytime soon. For data, my PC has a USB 3.2 2x2 port, so I opt for cables supporting its nominal 20Gbs speed.

And now I know what to do with my PC. Duh. Neither my PC case nor motherboard I/O panel have a USB 3.2 2x2 port, but the motherboard supports USB 3.2 2x2, so I added a connector in the rear expansion slots. I also filled a slot with a 2 x USB 3.2 and another with a 4 x USB 2.0, just because I could. I've actually used them -- it's surprising how many USB connectors we use, especially when we keep adding external drives because we're too lazy to crack open the case and upgrade full drives. But all my added USB connectors are USB-A. On my next build later this year, I think I'll do this again but with a mix of USB-A and USB-C connectors.

Gee, I wonder: how far off-topic I can drag this thread?

Yeah, this is a problem, but it's also nice. I mean, it's nice that we're moving to a one-size-fits-all standard because in a pinch we can still get by with an older, slower cable in most cases. But it's annoying that USB-C cables (and most of the time, ports) are not labeled with data and wattage rates.

I now buy only 45W or higher cables with data rating of gen 3.2 2x2. This meets my needs now and should for the foreseeable future. Not all my devices support both of these speeds, but now I'm getting back to the nice thing about USB-C: it doesn't matter, because these cables will work on all my USB-C devices, even the slower ones.

They can be snug sometimes, making it difficult. Fortunately, they're being phased out in favor of USB-C. I'm currently in the process of replacing all of my older USB-A with USB-C, but I haven't yet figured out what to do with my PC's ports. I suppose I can just adapt them as needed, for now. But my charging blocks and car chargers and power banks are mostly USB-C now.

Ah, I see what you're saying. That is indeed strange. Must be for our friends down under.

Drats! The ol' battery-pod-hangs-vertically-when-in-use trap. That'll get us every time, and man has yet to devise a solution to spare us the indignity of such a terrible fate ~Sigh~, maybe someday.

I suppose I should have read the thread instead of skimming. My link to the Kindle PC app was identical to Linda's, and yes, it does appear Jerry has issues with Malwarebytes. Odd, that.

Jerry, if you're still reading this, you might try as others suggested, which is disable Malwarebytes long enough to install Kindle. But first, I'd be darn sure I have the Amazon install file and not some nefarious one I somehow picked up. Seems odd that Malwarebytes won't allow you to install a bona fide and immensely popular Amazon app.

Also, FWIW, Kindle is extremely versatile. You can read epub and other formats directly without any conversion. You can even view several photo formats or read pdf files. I recently downloaded a pdf copy of an out-of-print book that I'm now reading in Kindle.

A caveat, though. When you add content that you don't purchase from Amazon, it won't be automatically added to your library for access by all your devices. You must use the Amazon upload link, or else I suppose you could add an item manually to each device. But that seems rather silly. Here's the link you'll need: https://www.amazon.com/sendtokindle

Funny, all of mine do -- when I'm standing on my head.

Ah, I remember earbuds like that. Sorry, it's been a while since I or my kids had a pair like that. That kind is still made, but today's wireless (individual, separate units that can be wirelessly paired) earbuds have gotten so good that a decent pair can be found for ten bucks -- although audiophiles might disagree.

I believe "up" would be the orientation of your earbuds while they're in use, but I'll admit that I know some devices don't follow this protocol. I can't remember what it was, but I once came across a device that required the micro-USB cable to be inserted with the trident facing down.

I hedged, regarding the trident -- sorry you missed that. To expound, non-USB-certified cables don't have a trident. But everything has an up. You just need to know which way that is, in some cases.

Do your earbuds charge directly with a cable? I was unaware that such devices exist. I thought they all charged in their case.

Jerry said he's done with this topic, but I wonder if he's still following. I bet he is, that his curiosity overpowers his frustration.

Jerry, take a deep breath and rethink what you're doing, because you're doing something wrong. Maybe watch a YouTube video to learn how to trudge through the laborious process of clicking that "download Kindle apps" button on Amazon, clicking to download the Windows version, and then clicking it to install. I was fortunate. I was in college when I did this, and I had the help and moral support of my IT professor and the entire IT class to guide me. I couldn't have survived the excruciatingly difficult two-minute process without them.

But seriously, Jerry, try this link on Amazon and download the one you need: https://www.amazon.com/b/ref=ruby_redirect?ie=UTF8&node=16571048011

Nail polish works wonders for small markings. You can't beat the convenient built-in applicator, and you can pick up a bottle for a buck or two in most dollar stores.

Fun fact: Micro-USB cables display the USB trident (if they have one) on the side that faces up. Now that micro is nearing obsolescence, some of you are thinking you wish you'd learned that years ago.

I have two responses to your concern and previous comments:
Windows Magnifier is indeed useful. I have it pinned to my taskbar for easy access, and I set its defaults to open at 150% and to adjust at 25% increments, but you can set these to your liking. You can also access it with keyboard shortcuts: [Windows key] + [+ key], and then [Windows key] + [+ key] or [- key] to increase or decrease magnification. [Windows key] + [Esc] will close it.

Yes, the higher the screen resolution, the smaller the cursor (and text and everything else) will be. Unfortunately, Adobe photo apps don't scale text in Windows, so even selecting 125% (or larger) in Display Properties won't affect Adobe apps, even though most (all?) other apps scale. That's my issue with Lightroom, not the cursor but the size of text. I've found three workarounds, and I've already covered Windows magnifier. Next, you can reduce screen resolution however you want, even just temporarily, thereby increasing the size of text and cursor and everything else. (Decreasing screen resolution is fine, but you cannot increase resolution beyond what your monitor is capable of. Windows won't allow it). Right-click your desktop and select Display Settings, then scroll down to Display resolution.

My third solution is replacing the monitor with a larger one. This can be tricky, as a larger monitor benefits from (and might have) a higher resolution, and the higher resolution reduces the size of text and cursor and everything else, so you can end up no better than where you started. Still, this might help, as you can reduce the screen resolution as needed to get a larger cursor in Lightroom. To be clear, a lower resolution will give you larger everything. Play with it and you'll see.