With the understanding that I am very old school ...

Is it at all possible that the problem you feel that you are experiencing is partly-and/or-actually due to the fact that you are asking the camera-or-lens to auto-focus and/or the camera's processing engine just isn't fast enough to do everything that you want?

That is, by either using a vintage, manual focus PRIME lens OR manually focusing the lens you have (if possible) with your SONY camera body may improve your image quality.

BTW. Even a light breeze can often move otherwise stationary branches.

FYI ...

You MAY-or-may-NOT find that it will be less expensive to buy a USED-or-new replacement than to have your damaged camera repaired ...

Otherwise, Panasonic's Texas facility is highly recommended -- fast, friendly, and very competent ...

The estimate is FREE, so your only initial cost will be whatever postage-or-shipping-cost you spend to send the camera to them ...

However, be forewarned that there is a very STEEP minimum (base) fee for any work that is actually performed.

Good luck.

I am NOT certain about your printer, but I have learned that MY Canon printers will stop functioning if one of the ink cartridges is "empty" OR absent ...

That includes the scanner not working ...

And, pressing the "Start" key for 15 seconds does not re-set a printer with an "empty" cartridge ...

Essentially, the printer appears to have stopped working.

It MAY seem like throwing good-money-after-bad if your printer is truly dead, but the possible key to resurrecting your printer may simply be to buy a new pair of ink cartridges.

IF your printer uses a cartridge type which is currently being used by a more current CANON printer, then IF you opt for a replacement CANON printer then you may want to choose one which uses the SAME printer cartridges because you can then do a quick test with the cartridges that come with the new printer to see if your current printer is actually dead.

TWO of the differences between the bottom-of-the-line CANON printers and the more expensive ones is the output speed & the paper capacity ...

So, YOU may want to simply buy the least expensive CANON printer that you can (NB. Some may not come with printer cartridges ... so, read the description on the "box" or online spiel).

FWIW ...

IMO, the key observation is noting the distance from which the images are viewed.

EXCELLENT ...

Thanks for posting the link.

Okay, so I must be really, REALLY old school because my aesthetic preference harkens to a period when LACK of barrel distortion in a wide angle lens was greatly preferred ...

.....Of course, barrel distortion can certainly be used for artistic effects ...

I would think that if a person is not concerned with barrel distortion (nothing wrong with that if a person wants OR prefers it OR doesn't mind it) appearing in an image, then any of the add-on front lens elements which multiplies the focal length by some fraction would be a way to extend the focal length of a zoom-OR-any-other lens for those photographers whose pockets are not as deep as some other's pockets may be ...

.....That is, why pay for a premium for a flaw when you can achieve the save effect for much less?

I do not mean to dispute your experience ...

But, IF you observed a problem with DOF or "vignetting" with the two particular zoom lenses when they were mounted on your digital camera body ...

THEN those lenses were probably demonstrating the same limitations when you were using them with your film camera body.

FWIW ...

I currently use a variety of vintage lenses on my m4/3 camera bodies ...

Nikkor lenses are great ... especially on my older-and-humongous 4/3 camera body + on the smaller m4/3 bodies ... but, I am one of the few who was used to the weight-and-feel of both large-and-small 35mm cameras (particularly, older Leica-and-Canon bodies) ...

And, I think that some of the Leica-thread-mounted Russian lenses are as good as you could probably want ... its hard to argue with well-executed Zeiss lens designs ... but, the condition of the helicals may dictate the lens needs to be re-lubed ... so, if you like the size of THOSE lenses, then you may want to track down an older Leica or Canon lenses which have the Leica thread mount OR (of course) an M-series lens if you have deep pockets.

Generally, my observation is that some Exakta lenses don't seem to be as sharp, but they have other characteristics which some people cherish for the artsy-fartsy effect. I think that the "Aus Jena" are the Exakta lenses to get if you want a comparatively sharp Exakta lens since they can probably trace their heritage directly to the Zeiss designed lenses.

But, the BEST FIT lenses as far as size-and-weight may be the Olympus Zuiko lenses made for their OM-1 and subsequent series of SLR cameras ... some of the Zuiko lenses are exceptionally sharp.

BTW. I feel that the heavier 35mm lenses generally preclude the need for image stabilization if you can still hand-hold a camera.

Of course, image stabilization is a good thing ... but, for others who have a different mirrorless camera body which may not have IS, some vintage lenses may be worth considering.

+1 ...

A camera-to-computer connection using a cable should solve your problem.

There is no reason why you should feel that the images on your SD card have been lost.

BTW. Regardless of the message your computer is giving you regarding the card, are you certain that you are looking in the correct directory on the SD card?

You could simply buy a vintage Nikkor f2.0 24mm AI lens ... it was supposedly sharper at the edges than Nikon's f2.8 24mm lens (which is why I ponied up the extra for the f2.0 lens over their comparatively plebeian f2.8 lens).

I don't know what it would cost, now, but it should certainly be less than the cost of an AF lens whose auto-focus you do not seem particularly interested in relying on.

FWIW ...

Not to stray too far off topic ...

But, now you-and-some-others know why some people prefer to put an otherwise expendable/sacrificial clear-or-UV filter on their lenses ...

The specious-in-my-opinion reason not to employ a filter is because it adds a layer of glass which can cause flare-or-introduce-some-other-degrading-factor AND to use a lens hood, instead.

Maybe ...

But, I think that most hoods are 'plastic' and consequently they may-or-may-not provide any protection other than from an occasional stray fingerprint.

Using a hood may-or-may-not resolve a potential flare 'problem' -- a 'problem' which could be avoided by being aware of where the light source is relative to the object/person is located ...

Of course, if a person is trying to be artsy-fartsy with the direction of the light source then a hood may-or-may-not eliminate flare.

FWIW ...

I have had both Canon & Nikon film cameras ... and, I still have a couple of Leica-lens-mount-compatible 35mm Canon camera bodies & several Nikon SLR bodies ...

However, with the understanding that I have NEITHER brand in the digital form ...

And, with the understanding that BOTH companies sell really nice DSLR cameras with Canon seeming to spend more for product placement (nothing wrong with that!) ...

if both cameras seemed to feel equally good in-the-hand to me ...

Then, if I had still couldn't decide and if I had any reservations, then I would choose the Nikon because a lens with a Nikon mount can be used on a Canon body with an appropriate adapter ...

BUT, a lens with a Canon mount cannot be used on a camera body with a Nikon mount.

So, if I later decided that a future Canon body was better than a future Nikon body, I would only have to pony up for a lens adapter.

Neonicotinoid pesticides which are especially popular with "home" gardeners are very detrimental to bees ...

Regardless of when applied, Neonicontinoid pesticides bleed off of the plants & into the soil and subsequently become systemic in the plants ...

Apparently, it takes many years before the nicotine leaches out of the soil.

Unfortunately, I recall it was Jerry Baker (the "Garden Weasel" inventor) who brought the concept of nicotinoid pesticides to the public consciousness when he suggested a (quasi-organic) DIY homebrew which could be made from any tobacco product to rid one's garden of pests ...

.....A DIY "tip" with an unforeseen consequence!

The proverbial die was cast ...

And, it is hard to believe that Baker's pronouncement (it must have been over 10 years ago) did not have some influence on the use of commercial Neonicotinoid pesticides amongst home gardeners ...

FWIW ...

IMO, "a super zoom and a DSLR combo" would be MANY TIMES better than a Panasonic FZ1000 mainly because the FZ1000 has a much smaller sensor (nothing necessarily wrong with that if the images which are produced suit your needs ... I have a comparatively primitive FZ15 with a not so super zoom and it is very good for what it is good for + the weight & ergonomics are great BUT it has enough limitations that I rarely use it and I favor using an m4/3 camera body + a vintage prime lens) ...

.....And, being able to change the lens provides the potential of adapting the camera body to more imaging options.

It's probably just me, but the majority of the time when I am using a Zoom lens, I am using it at one extreme focal length or the other and rarely at an intermediate focal length ...

The exceptions are when I was doing "copying" work (I am one of the three people who bought a 90-180 Series 1 zoom lens!) or sometimes when I am taking a snapshot for a few-and-far-between eBay listing.

If you can live without a larger sensor AND the opportunity to have dust on your sensor (!?!), then the two obvious advantages of an FZ1000 over the alternative of "a super zoom and DSLR combo" are cost and weight ... and so, a camera like the FZ1000 can be a much better choice for some people to choose-and-use.

INDEED!!

It doesn't ...

.....BUT, IMO, your question is almost like asking "How is a prime lens better than a zoom lens?"

If the OP really needs to use the camera's WIFI function, then I think he needs to see if it will function on a computer with a more recent OS (or, another computer with WIN7) ...

That is, isolate the problem ...

.....I guess that I'm too dense to see why he now has a need other than to possibly broadcast to multiple users ...

FWIW. I think that the OP can contact CANON's customer service to see if they can remedy the problem OR clarify why his camera isn't able to communicate with his computer as it is configured.