DSLRs are certainly capable of getting great shots.

Rolling shutter is possible with most DSLRs but only to the same extent it is with most mirrorless cameras (requiring very fast moving subjects to be noticeable) Focal plane shutters are common to both. Normally only medium format & bigger cameras have models relying on shutters in the lens that are truly immune to it.

Even the brightest DSLR viewfinders suffer in low light while even the earliest mirrorless will boost the brightness. Some DSLRs only have penta-mirror viewfinders & these are really dim for moderately low light such as normal macro work.
With mirrorless sometimes the problem is actually the viewfinder is too bright - shooting the night sky the camera boosts the signal so much everything that's not completely black is blown out. But there is usually a control to reduce the brightness (as long as you remember to set it before your night vision is gone).
DSLRs are definitely NOT better at low light visibility through the viewfinder - the ancient Panasonic G1 had a very grainy viewfinder but in truly low light it beat all my DSLRs where nothing was visible. Later models have steadily improved from this early example.

I've found my little GF2 mirrorless camera with a small lens fitted was readily accepted as a non-professional camera when I attended a gig with it. Once inside I was able to change to the telephoto that was in my pocket but in reality the mobile phones around me probably got fairly similar image quality.

I've not noticed a significant difference in feel moving between my DSLRs & mirrorless systems. A far more distinct difference was apparent going from my film SLR to a DSLR.

I will be shooting more film this year (& developing it myself) but that's more to do with making use of the larger sensor sizes available - 4x5 doesn't have the same feel as a 'miniature' SLR (an early nickname term for todays 'full format')

Get a foot to fit on the lens! (Even if it needs a little creative DIY)
There's no way I'd want to use such a heavy lens hanging from an end bayonet mount unsupported on ANY of my cameras.

In this case it's not just the weight of the lens, it's more the turning force on the mount (weight of the lens times the distance of the mount to the centre of gravity of the lens)

My 150mm/1.3 is a heavy lens (weighing in at 2.2kg) but the lens board for the 5x4 camera it mounts on is within an inch of it's centre of gravity so causes less of a strain - it's still fairly directly supported however. :)

Actually all filters reduce transmission of selected types of light, even if the bit the block is not visual (UV/protection/'clear'), or is across all wavelengths (polarizers). Clear filters are typically glass or resin that block UV less aggressively than UV filters, but even if they were made of UV grade Quartz, they would block below about 200nm (air itself blocks below 190nm in fairly short distances).

Some filters only pass a very narrow selection of wavelengths - I have one that only transmits 5nm either side of the peak transmission (AFAIK it's useless for photography)

Many astronomical filters such as clear sky filters block quite narrow ranges that are specific to the emission of certain elements (sodium, & mercury being the prime examples as they are common in street lights) models vary considerably in how tight the bands they block are. My Baader UHC-S is a relatively cheap model that has transmission above 50% between 460 & 522nm and also 640 to 685nm with quite sharp transmission between transmitting & blocking.

The overlap of Red, Blue & green areas of the spectrum is down to how our eyes work, with regular cameras being designed to mimic out eyesight. This overlap does not exist in light itself, though some 'monochromatic' light sources such as LEDs can give rise to overtone bands.
Elemental light sources can have very precise wavelengths with Atomic Absorption spectroscopy often using wavelengths specific to a fraction of a nanometer.

The term minus filter is normally used for those that are designed to partially block a visual colour such as magenta filters/gels to reduce green. These are now of less use now when post processing typically corrects colour casts.

That depends on the colours present when shot, as the filters darken their complementary colours.

Adding a red filter will dramatically darken blue parts of the image compared to the remainder, it will have a less severe effect on greens & yellows but will darken them somewhat compared to reds...
Red, orange & yellow filters are all used in B&W landscape shooting to darken blue skies to different extents.

I gather green filters were considered useful for portraiture (darkening reds subtlety which would help with rosey cheeks, but IMO would bring out spots too)

If you're shooting digital (on nearly all models) the best option is to shoot colour then play with virtual filters in post processing. I find Nik's silver effects excellent for this - but I grabbed a free version, before they started charging for it again :) Many photo editing packages will have the ability to do something like this, so check out your existing software first.

I once had a pano made from 32 portrait shots printed, by a firm in London.
I got it done in two heights one about 5" high which ended up around 7' long. Displaying it is a bit awkward but bearable.
The other was to the full height they could manage, I've never been able to mount this usefully (over 15' long IIRC).

The colour of sunlight reaching the earths surface depends on how much atmosphere the light has travelled through. It is distinctly redder when low in the sky as can be vouched for by just about anyone who has seen a sunset :)
I suspect the lower trace in your illustration is either noon or average daytime, at this point about 1/3 of the blue at the edge of the atmosphere is lost, while the red has only lost about 1/5. Towards sunset the light will pass through at least twice as much atmosphere, dropping the blue by another third, while the red only looses a fifth of the plotted intensity.

Of course the colour recorded by a camera will also depend on the white balance being used in processing, as potentially well as being affected by the lens & the camera body. there are many more variables than just the filter!

I'm sure loads of manuals will have a statement saying it should be turned off that's just been transferred from the previous 20 models.

A lens cap is a cheaper solution, to get the same results :)

There aren't many applications that need such a dark filter.
Sunspots is by far the most practical, but ultra long exposures in daytime might just be possible (maybe needing a fast lens, to complete exposure before the battery fails) subject could be something like the street outside your house or a popular landmark with all the traffic invisible.
Macro shots of a glowing light bulb filament should be possible too, but they're not very interesting :(

I'd expect this too. In any of the automatic/semi auto modes a small bright object in a black image will be very easy to over expose. I've found the same if simply snapping the moon at night without any care.
When over exposed all the channels can max out leaving no colour info.

Exactly!
Many web articles or manufacturers recommendations date back to the times when stabilization was prone to causing issues. It's not a major problem even with my older stabilized cameras (like the 2006 Pentax K100d), but I'm quite willing to believe it could cause some loss of sharpness with that.
I found the loss of sharpness far less than me forgetting to turn stabilization on again, which has also been the case when using a stabilized lens using this with IBIS on a system the doesn't coordinate the two is rather like not having any stabilization.

Nice set.
Although spring has officially sprung here it's not been warm enough to make me dig out my IR kit yet.

That's the same one https://www.timeanddate.com/eclipse/solar/2026-august-12
With Spain, Iceland & Greenland all getting at least 6.5 minutes totality & parts of Russia & Portugal managing at least some too. (As usually the case it's mostly over the sea)

It will only be ~90% for my home so a trip abroad is being planned :)