I download my SD cards to a drive on my PC. In Windows, I scroll through and choose candidates for processing and move them to a subfolder. Then I'll import the subfolder's files into Lightroom to process.

I just find Windows Explorer to be more versatile and easier than Lightroom to cull my photos. Yes, I know that in Lightroom I can rate the photos with stars and select only the highest-rated, but that doesn't limit the overall number of photos. Often, I'll take several thousand photos on a week-long trip with my sons' Scout troop or some other adventure. Most of the photos are nothing more than candids or snapshots. Since I shoot in both RAW and jpeg, the jpegs are generally good enough for those photos. But mixed in all this are some more serious efforts deserving my attention in Lightroom. That is why I do this.

I also dislike and do not use auto import. It's been years since I used auto but if memory serves, when auto is enabled, Lightroom tries to download photos from any thumb drive you plug in (and I presume from a HDD or SSD also, but I can't say for sure). To maintain a reasonably sized catalogue, I usually roughly cull my photos outside of Lightroom before import, so this doesn't work for me.

Honest question, Canisdirus: Does the a6700 not have a USB-C port, which is why you think Sony did not include a cable? That almost makes sense, and I thought it did when I began this reply. But I believe the EU adopted the USB-C standard for devices, not cables (cables would necessarily follow).

I'll now hedge and admit I don't know much about the EU standard -- and nothing beyond a headline or two I came across (I took notice mostly because I was thrilled that Apple must now adhere to the standard. Death to Lightning cables I say).

Apparently, Sony isn't too concerned about what brand cable we use. Sony's latest offering, the a6700, ships without a USB cable.
https://www.sonyalpharumors.com/in-case-you-missed-this-sony-a6700-ships-without-usb-cable-or-charger/

I guess Sony figures we'll all rush out and buy a Rampow cable.

Yeah, I heard you the first time.

My only issue was -- again -- dismissiveness. In your previous posts you claimed, with a bit of arrogance, that Sony and kapow Rampow are the only brands suitable to use for a firmware update.

USB 1.* has been obsolete since Moby Dick was a minnow, and micro-USB was not even developed before USB 2.0 replaced the old standard.

Now Sony uses Thunderbolt? And y'all know what kinds of cables I buy? Tsk, tsk. No and no.

Sony cameras prior to a7Rv (and possibly other latest-gen models) can be firmware-updated over micro-USB, which is a USB 2.0-3.0 standard with a nominal data rate from a snail's-pace of 480 Mbps, I believe (2.0) to a respectable 5Gbps (3.0). USB 2.0 is still sufficient for a computer mouse or keyboard -- or even a firmware update on older (and newer?) Sony cameras no matter what brand a cable is, as long as the cable is made to USB standards. I long ago phased out my micro-USB 2.0 cables for the newer and faster 3.0, so any micro-USB cable I own is able to update firmware. And you can bet your ass that any cable I own isn't a cheap knockoff. Thus, I stand by my earlier remarks.

Honestly, I can't say whether I've ever used a Sony cable to update firmware. Probably not, as I don't like the cheap feel of Sony cables and generally buy cloth-braid ones.

I should also clarify and say that good cables exist which are not USB certified. Just last week a charger I purchased came with a non-certified cable that was still able to charge my phone at its rated speed of 45W. But any cable that is certified should meet standards. If not, perhaps some of us should question our choice of eBay or bubble-gum machine vendors.

I couldn't tell you where my original Sony cables are. I've always used, without issue, whatever USB cable I had at hand. I should add that I don't purchase cheap cables, but only cables that are USB certified (if a cable displays the USB trident on the cable ends, it's certified).

🤣🤣🤣
Good one!

In 2017, my previous ASRock motherboard (Intel 7th-gen z270) came with one.

Your comment reminds me of a few times someone has commented on my photos with, "Wow! You must have a really good camera."

As long as the card hasn't been mishandled or misused (no PCB cracks, damaged PCIe contacts, or heat-damaged electronics), the only thing to worry about is the fans -- and even those are serviceable.

You're right that electronics degrade over time with moderate to heavy use, but that degradation is surprisingly insignificant. Well, it was surprising to me anyway.

I read about this where someone tested former crypto-mining cards against brand-new units. The differences were tiny, so small they were within the margin of error for the testing. Whodathunkit?

And I really need to start citing my sources.

While benchmarks for gaming and non-gaming are similar, there are indeed differences. To wit: Puget ranked the RTX 3070 above the RX 6900xt, but other benchmarks (including PassMark) rank the 6900 much higher than the 3070. This might be an example of Nvidia GPUs performing better than AMD with Adobe apps, as I believe I've read somewhere (probably a Puget article).

TriX, I too like PassMark and have been consulting it for at least ten years (it helped me choose the Radeon HD 7850 I mentioned in an earlier reply). I also use UserBenchmark quite a lot, usually for a comparison of two CPUs or GPUs. While the two sites' benches are not identical, they are usually pretty darn close. When I'm still uncertain, I'll also consult Tom's Hardware.

Superfly, yes, the data at Puget is a bit dated, but it was qualified by statements that the general principles will withstand aging and that new info will come out as needed. In other words, my points (Puget's points) are as valid today as they were three years ago.

blue-ultra, you might also consider a used card from a reputable eBay seller. As others have noted, your PC might be showing its age and an upgrade might help more than you think. Meanwhile, a decent video card for well under $200 could get you the performance boost you seek.

I'd never seen this one. Heck, I'm still grinning. Thanks for the link!

Thanks, TriX. I'm glad I hedged and didn't make an incorrect claim (and that's sooo unlike me). I'm surprised Ps doesn't revert to CPU processing for the functions it won't support without a GPU, since modern GPUs are so powerful and multi-threaded.

And how timely of you to mention Topaz AI products. Just this morning, I upgraded my only Topaz AI product, DeNoise, and added a discounted Gigapixel and Sharpen to get free Photo AI. For grins & giggles I looked at minimum requirements of the imaging apps and was surprised by how low they are: GPU requirements of Nvidia GTX 740 or AMD Radeon 5870 (but as we might expect, requirements for Topaz Video AI are higher). I could use my 10+ years-old Radeon 7850 with Topaz AI apps.

I believe you misunderstood my remarks. Also, you might want to see what Puget says (quotation and link in my last reply) and what Adobe says (link on the Puget page). Once minimum specs are met, there is little to be gained in Photoshop from a high-end GPU.

You're mostly right, but I wasn't wrong (for once perhaps, but that's another matter). I'm not sure about your claim that some Ps features won't work at all without a suitable GPU. I've not heard of that. They might work slowly, but they still work -- don't they? And Puget says there is little difference between the latest & greatest card and a lesser card that meets minimum requirements. They even quantify this as a few percentage points between a high-end card and a mid-range one.