If you use the two (or 10) second timer shutter release mode, the entire bracket will be triggered. You should use the timer anyway because you really don't want to introduce any camera shake by physically having to push the shutter release each time and the timer is easier even than a remote trigger.

Do you have the link to that assessment and can you please post? I'd like to see it.

That likely means this chip was meant for a chip "carrier" as others have suggested. You could go back to the supplier you got the sensor from, have them help you with the name and contact info for the manufacturer, go back to the manufacturer, and ask the manufacturer what chip carrier to use? Also, as others have commented, you will probably need to come up with a PCB which you can mount the chip carrier to and which you can then wire to. Perhaps the manufacturer will let you know a vendor or customer that uses this sensor and you could buy their PCB?

Just an observation and food for thought, also acknowledging you may not have had control over this but, I think looking at the table set up and not knowing exactly what was to the right in your scene, it might have been a better composition to angle the table such that it was more in front of both white walls with the pictures on them as the background. If that would have been possible, I think adjusting the table slightly would have made a better composition and created a nicer viewing angle & background rather than having those grey cabinets on the left in the frame. At this point I would crop the left side of the frame a bit so the greyish cabinets are not as distracting. They don't really add anything IMO to the picture.

I just bought an HP Omini gaming laptop from Best Buy a month or so ago. I had similar budget concerns as you and I also wanted to be able to be more efficient in the editing process. I did not buy a Maserati, I bought something that I knew would be compatible with the newer editing technologies (like AI & having a dedicated GPU for better real-time performance). So a lot of what has been suggested is good input. Filter all the input and consume it as applicable to you. I simply say don't be penny wise and pound foolish while at the same time I also agree that you may not need a "super computer" either. ...do factor in being prepared for losing support of some of your older software that may necessitate you migrating to something newer or maybe you even find something newer that is more attractive and you will be prepared. A suggestion was made that you look at some of the requirements for some of the editors you may use. I did that too so I looked at NEO, at TOPAZ, etc. to see what they recommended and the trend was clear that if you are using a windows platform, an I7 or greater with 16 GB RAM + a dedicated GPU was the trend. So, also do some research into the programs you might use in the future and also recognize that even with legacy programs (until they become unsupported) often run much better when you have more horsepower. As I mentioned in a previous comment, I saw much better performance with the new HP in real-time, when I moved a slider for an adjustment, I could really see the effect pretty quickly and not have to wait for the monitor to slowly update as with my older computer. That better slider performance was in and of itself well worth it for me and has made the editing process that much more efficient. Noise reduction and sharpness modules ran more smoothly and in much less time. All AI driven processes ran more effectively and faster. So the upgrade was well worth it.

Another factor in this discussion is that many of the editing programs are going AI for some functionality. AI can be highly resource intensive. Several programs actually use web servers for some AI because of the resource requirements but even so having additional dedicated GPU horsepower sets you up for all the advances that are in the works for most editing programs. So, I would strongly consider a gaming laptop with a dedicated GPU to stay current and keep pace with your upcoming software enhancements that will likely highly rely on a GPU. I use NEO a lot and I find that having a dedicated GPU made that program work more smoothly. For example it reduced the delay I was seeing when using sliders to make adjustments. Adjustments can be seen near real-time now and I very much like that better visual performance. Move the slider and see the result quickly.

Another participant has already suggested this and I concur: Look at the Canon R50. Can be had for $749 with an 18-45 lens. It has both excellent still and video capabilities. It has a small footprint, it's light, so it will be easy to carry around - just what the doctor ordered. Pretty perfect for a teen who probably is social media conscious.

Thanks! I have the Canon R7 and for the in camera stitch, it will wrap somewhat ...I guess if I try to go too far but I have to say it does a great job too.

I have not tried to take discreet images yet and stitch them together. I do now have that capability with NEO and I guess I should try it. From previous experience I typically see some wrapping unless one takes images by physically moving horizontally as each image is taken which obviously could be difficult in some locations.

May I ask how you "flattened" (removed the curvature) from your images?

@Stardust - Can you explain how you would do this? .....and perhaps show the result? It would be awesome to learn from you how to do a mirror of such a complex image. .....if it is even possible with this picture.

@Home Brewer - Normally speaking, to successfully erase an element from a photo, there has to be enough information in the photo for the erase tool to know what is in the background, so that the erase tool can duplicate the background in place of the element being removed. This picture is so complex in the foreground and the background is virtually non existent, that I do not think an erase tool could successfully remove all those foreground branches, even if you zoomed in. I don't believe there is a tool that could select such a complex foreground and turn it into a mask either. You might try to zoom in on the arch and remove branches that cover just the actual arch itself (using an erase tool on the arch you will be removing objects that cover the arch by duplicating the underlying arch pattern), to pull the arch effectively into the foreground but I suspect that will cause the picture to look flat and it will still be congested.

curious.... why did you use the upscale tool on the old JPEG? .....and how were the results?

There is a ski slope on one side of Mt. Washington. If you care to hike to the top, you follow the ski trail, at least for the bottom section. There are a few rock scrambles as I recall but it is great hike! If I recall correctly, it took me something like 3-4 hours. ...when I started it was beautiful weather, got to the top and we wee hit by a squall and it was snowing (in the summer)!

I see this discussion is quite old but the topic is relevant to me in 2023. Perhaps this is discussed elsewhere so I apologize but, I would like to explore this topic further.

What I did not find or see discussed, were the steps how to actually get a legitimate association with a media outlet? Some who responded to this post appear to be or have been media staffers or consultants. Your experiences would be greatly appreciated. How does one go about getting a media outlet to bring one on as a freelance photographer?

I only have one non Canon EF lens, a Tokina 11-16 wide angle and it focuses just fine.
It has been reported that in low light with some EF lenses, if you recompose slightly, when you use the shutter release button to also focus, sometimes the lens will hunt.

You can also try to switch to back button focus (remove the focus function from the shutter release) and perhaps you will be happier with that method to focus. With back button focus, you won't be asking the camera/lens to refocus when you hit the shutter button.

One last point to make and it isn't intended to be dismissive of any of the prior comments by any means, they all have some truth to them.

However as a former optics engineer, I feel compelled to make a point.

The principal comment I have is, ANY abnormal imperfection (whether it be dust, fungus, scratches, etc) in the optical path will have some impact to the original signal. You will either attenuate the signal or possibly change the optical properties of the signal by filtering and impacting wavelength. That's pure physics.

How much an imperfection in the optical path impacts your image depends on the location and the extent of the imperfection.

So, yes, there are some imperfections in a lens system that may be less "noticeable" than others but the original signal has been changed for sure when it passes through an imperfection.

Now clearly if you are in the field and you can't clean or take care of this in the field, you do the best you can at the moment.

But no one should walk away from this discussion believing that you shouldn't take care of an imperfection in the lens if you see one. If you do, you are possibly risking something getting worse, especially if it is something like a fungus developing internally and likely spreading with time.

A last comment I have about lenses. Telescoping lens are particularly vulnerable to "sucking" in air/vapor and any chemical component (like salt) that is carried or absorbed into the air/vapor. Vapor is not just H20, it can contain elements that, for example, cause fungus. The best lenses are those that are internally focusing. They are more resistant to pulling in unexpected elements. Lens bodies that extend and contract as you change focal length, tend to pull in air, possibly vapor, when you expand the lens. If air could not get in while changing focal length, it would be incredibly hard to change focal length. So keep that in mind for Tele's.