While you're in an updating frame of mind, you might as well update the lens distortion firmware, too. It requires downloading a different file, but the process is exactlly the same. And the lens update goes much faster in the camera.

That litle red light in your car is usually indicating that a security system of some sort is on. That IS constantly drawing a little bit of current, although given the size of a car battery it's not something that causes any problem over the normal time periods between when a car is running (and recharging the battery.) But a camera focus system has no reason to be on when the rest of the camera is off, so as others have indicated it should be off when the main power switch is off.

Was in a local Nikon dealer a few minutes ago and was told all (100%) of the first batch of 850s was sold already, and if I really wanted one I should put a deposit down on the next shipment and they'd see what they could do. (I'm perfectly happy with my D600 and am learning mirrorless with a Lumix GX85, so I just bought a little bag for my wife's new P&S.)

As others have suggested, if you're goal is mostly posting photos to the web you don't need a lot of camera, so you shouldn't have to spend a lot on one. And if it were me starting off, I'd choose an inexpensive camera-camera before spending money on a better phone just to get its built-in camera. I know the phone cameras are becoming exceptionally powerful, but maybe it's just the long-time camera user in me that finds them inconvenient to use for anything I want to turn into a "real" photograph.

And follow the suggestions to give serious thought to how to best LIGHT your products - proper lighting can make the difference between a phone-snapshot-on-the-web look and a "real" product illustration. Which would you prefer that your customers see? Which is more likely to kick up the "I want that" reaction in a customer?

Inexpensive hot lights are one solution, but be sure to take a look at strobist.blogspot.com for some extensive tutorials on lighting. You can do some amazing things using inexpensive shoe-mount flashes, inexpensive light modifiers/controllers, and creative intelligence. If you can't afford separate lights right now, you can apply creative intelligence to the natural light you do have available. So take a look at the lighting tutorials, whether or not you're buying lights at this point.

To use external lights, you're probably NOT going to be able to use a phone - you'll need something where you can control both the triggering of the lights and the exposure the camera gives. Another reason to consider a camera-camera.

+1 for KEH. I've dealt with them for more than 20 years and if they have what I want I would never hesitate to buy from them. I have always found their quality ratings to be conservative, and even their Bargain-rated lenses will work as intended, although they may look like they've been through a war. I bought a Leica rangefinder lens from them years ago that looked and felt perfect, but simply would not give sharp images on either of the bodies I tried it on. I could not figure out why, but they took it back with no questions.

The lunar Hasselblads used 70mm film, a perforated product with no paper backing that ran between two film cassettes and got 160-200 images per 15 foot roll. (These were available on Earth for many years and can still be found used, along with the necessary film cassettes, but film is scarce and expensive, as are developing tanks for 15 feet of film.) In addition to providing a lot of large images in an electrically driven body with an easily removed film back, the reflex design of the camera allowed (comparatively) easy waist level composition on a fairly large viewing screen while wearing a space helmet. All in all, given the camera, lens and film options available at the time, the Hasselblad package was almost certainly the best tool available given the mission parameters.

I'm a retired lawyer who has been a photographer for a LONG time. My first "real" camera was a Kodak Retina II in which I used the then-high-speed Kodachrome 25 (it had been ASA 8 or 10) - it had knob wind, manual rangefinder focusing, a manually cocked Compur shutter and you-guess-and-set-it exposure, but I still got lots of great slides from summer camp in Colorado in the late '50s with that exquisite Kodak Ektar f/2.0 lens. Since then I've been through most of the film camera formats and camera sizes from Minox to Leica and Nikon to Rolleiflex and Hasselblad to a 4x5 Crown Graphic, with 45+ years of black and white darkroom work. My current best camera is a Nikon D600 with a stable of f/2.8 zooms from 14 to 200mm and some fast primes, but I mostly use the 28-85 f/3.5-4.5 as a walkin' around lens. Before I went full frame digital (to get the full wide angle benefit of my expensive film-era zooms) I used (and still have) a D7000. But I've just discovered the quality and convenience of a mirrorless Micro 4/3 Lumix, and expect to spend a fair bit of time using it for daily photo chores.

I got here by clicking on one of those links that offered to tell me "The One Setting That's Ruining All Your Pictures" or some such - just to see what somebody thought that setting might be. Still haven't found it, but the rest of the forum looks pretty interesting, so I think I'll stick around for a while.

My first "real" camera was a Kodak Retina II in which I used the then-high-speed Kodachrome 25 (it had been ASA 8 or 10) - a fully manual operation, but I still have lots of great slides from summer camp in Colorado in the late '50s. Since then I've been through most of the film camera formats and camera sizes from Minox to Leica and Nikon to Rolleiflex and Hasselblad to a 4x5 Crown Graphic, with 45+ years of black and white darkroom work. My current best camera is a Nikon D600 with a stable of 2.8 zooms from 14 to 200mm and some fast primes, but I mostly use the 28-85 f/3.5-4.5 as a walkin' around lens. Before I went full frame digital (to get the full wide angle benefit of my expensive film-era zooms) I used a D7000. So I've been at this for a while, and have to agree that Nikons are very hard to beat as a long term line of cameras to use - if I hadn't let it go when I was digital DX only I could still use the 50mm/1.4 lens from the Nikon F Photomic (new in 1969) on my current bodies, albeit without autofocus or some of the auto exposure features of the newer lenses.

BUT. For a fairly young kid starting out, today, and wanting something better than a phone, I would strongly suggest at least looking at the Olympus/Panasonic Micro 4/3 line. A friend had an older(er) Panasonic Lumix sitting on his desk, and when I realized that the non-SLR designs now have near instant shutter response times (probably not enough to cover pro basketball for Sports Illustrated, but enough for most dogs and all but the fastest kids) I decided to check one out. Found a used Lumix GX-85 in a local store with the tiny 12-32 kit lens (24-62 equivalent on 35mm full frame) for about $550. The 16MP sensor gives excellent images, perhaps not equal to the D600 at the pixel-peeping level but essentially indistinguishable when comparing 8x10 prints at normal viewing distances. There are lots of lenses available (all brands of micro 4/3 lenses work on all bodies) from 14mm to 600mm equivalent focal lengths, at (used) prices from under $200 for slower zooms up to Leica-designed Lumix lenses at Leica prices. Best of all for a kid, the mirrorless bodies can be very compact and light, yet they have lots of features that can make shooting easier, or more interesting, or about as manual as you want it to be.

I'm not giving up my Nikons. When there's serious work to do (i.e., not just walkin' around) nothing beats their flashes, or their image quality if you really have to crop a lot, or their low light sensor sensitivities that can really take advantage of a 2.8 lens. But I have a feeling that the little Lumix is going to see a lot of "general" photo time, which strikes me as just what an interested kid would be doing with their first "real" camera.