I get the idea that you want to transfer your jpegs straight from camera to phone and assume that they then go to social media? However, I also agree with the comment that there's a lot of time wasted downloading both raw & jpeg once you're home at your computer. How about just downloading your raw files to 2 different locations as you're importing to LR. Did you know you have that option? When your import dialog comes up there is a box to check to 'Make A Second Copy To...'. select a backup location (external drive, Drobo, etc.) and you will have a duplicate set of raw files in that location with just a mouse click. I don't think you need to download the jpegs at all once you've chosen the few that you sent to your phone. Just reformat the card in your camera and process/work with the raw files. Then, once you've edited and processed them, export a copy of them with LR changes to a subfolder of the one with the unprocessed files on your b/u drive and delete the original unprocessed version since there's no reason to keep them. Keep in mind that your 'processed' set can still be taken back to the original unaltered state in LR with a mouse click if you decide to redo some of them. Or, control/' will make you a dupe to play with.

I've got the Tamron version (G2) that I bought a little over a year ago -also Nikon mount - after getting both Nikon 200-500 and 600 from NPS to play with. I really liked the 200-500 but for about the same $$$ the Tamron has a longer reach and I'm very pleased with it.

If you're shooting NEF with your D7100 you can literally set the camera pretty much any way you want. What you see as a preview in camera is exactly what settings you used for color -standard, vivid etc-, contrast, color balance - daylight, tungsten, etc. They may look funky on your camera LCD and will look the same when downloaded to your editing program, such as Lightroom, but it doesn't matter. You're seeing the embedded jpeg along with the NEF file showing what your camera setting were at the time of exposure. Once you start 'processing' the file you can change anything you want to correct it or manipulate to your desired final look. One great exercise I used to use when I taught Lightroom was to have students shoot with the camera set to capture both RAW and JPEG of each shot. I also had them deliberately set things wrong, such as color balance and exposure. They shot outdoors with balance set to tungsten or shade in bright sun and also shot over and under by 1 and then 2 stops. Then when the images were downloaded/imported into LR I had them 'manipulate' the jpegs of each to the closest look of the real scene. Once that was done, they 'processed' the RAW files and then they compared the results. The name of the exercise was "RAW or JPEG, You Decide". Even diehard jpeg shooters became believers of RAW. BTW, this was in the mid 2000s and today's digital cameras have much better in camera processors and way more dynamic range. Still, RAW still beats jpeg when you want full control of your digital negative.

Nicely stated.

I've been using a setup similar to what you're asking about. Nikon cameras with the Tamron G2 150-600. When I bought the lens last year there was a promo going on that included a Promaster GH25. I don't know what the retail cost is for that head since it was bundled with the lens. It works fine though. I'm sure there are heads with smoother movement for a lot more $$$. When I first got this one it had a very slight sticky spot when panning. I worked on it a bit and it went away and now pans quite smoothly. I use it with a Manfrotto Carbon tripod that I've had for many, many yrs and the combo works well for me. I often remove my camera when shooting birds and carry it with a shoulder sling, even with the 150-600 lens. I prefer the flexibility of hand holding most of the time. Bottom line, if you don't 'need' a high end head or use one constantly the GH25 will work for you.

I also have an AW-120 and they do suffer from lens flare when shooting toward the sun. There's no way to attach a lens hood, none are made for it anyway. Holding a black card between sun direction and lens can help as long as it's not in the composition, obviously. Perhaps some of your hazy images from 'the same angle' were made at different times of day or year when the sun angle was a factor? A clean lens can help. Any dust or haze on the surface of the lens will definitely cut down on the contrast as the light is scattered as it passes through to the sensor.
Hope this helps.

I suspect that the photographer giving the seminar was addressing mostly amateur/hobbyist photographers who were hoping to learn how to take better vacation pics. It sounds like he or she wanted to dumb it down to basics regarding the 'shoot B&W in camera'. The camera sensor captures full color and then processes it to b&W w/o further input from the shooter. Later, since it spits out a jpeg to the data card, you can 'mess with it in post' but you can't 'process it' since that has been done by the little computer in the camera. Shooting RAW and processing later in your own computer gives complete control over the resulting final file/image.
As for shooting manual vs A, S, or P, you can choose any of the 1st 2 and get great results. Leave the 'P for professional' alone.

Way back when I was still an active photographer with a studio I also used the D300, which has a DX sensor for those who are confused above, and for wedding work at that time in the digital era it was and still is a fine camera. Most of our work as well as most event photographers is providing print sizes of 14" max for album work and there's plenty of quality available from the D300 files. BTW, when mine became a 'shelf queen' I sent it to Lifepixel for Infrared conversion and still use it for awesome landscape work today. I also owned a D700, in fact had a beta version provided by NPS to play with for a month or so before it was released. The low light image quality was beyond anything available at that time. The D700 was my first FX sensored camera and performed beautifully at low and high ISO. Granted each generation is better and better, but quite frankly for event work those cameras in good condition will serve well. Or, you can spend a bunch more for the latest and greatest which will also be poo-poo'd by the 'hogs' when the newer latest and greatest come out. The D300 and D700 are ruggedly built and have features that most newer Nikon DSLRS don't, like body buttons on the top of the camera to quickly change things such as Quality, ISO and white balance with a touch of a button. The majority of the newer cameras have those features hidden in menus. On the plus side of the 'new guys' is that I often use mine newer models set to auto ISO since the resolution is great and low digital noise have gotten so minimal to be almost a non-issue. I started using Nikon DSLRs with the D200 and by the D700/D3 I was using that feature (auto ISO) often for event and journalistic work.

I use it because I can set focus with it and shoot w/o it changing. Great option when, for instance, I'm using a tripod to shoot a static scene but changing perspective or taking multiple shots using a bracket as an example. The other side of that coin is when I'm shooting moving targets and hold the button in with right thumb the camera continues to track the subject and keep it in focus.
What's not to like?

Several yrs ago on a fishing trip to Alaska the kit I took was a D700 and an 18-200 3.5-5.6 VR2 lens. It covered just about everything I wanted to shoot, and I shot A LOT. I never had to take the lens off and it fit in a small Lopro fanny pack case. If I were to repeat the trip this summer I might opt for a 28-300 instead but still on an FX body.

You can use whatever type of head feels right to you. I suggested not using a ball based on my personal trial/error time with both ball and tilt heads and here's my scoop. First, like you, I only used it with long and somewhat heavy lenses - the smallest being a 70-200 VR F2.8 and up in size/weight from there. The thing is, all of the lenses I use have tripod mounts built into them so if I mount the lens directly to the monopod, I have a very secure connection and no chance of it 'flopping' because of not tightening the head movement adjustors. I mount it with the camera in the horizontal plane and if I want to shoot vertical or any other angle all I have to do is slightly loosen the lens mount adjuster turn the camera body behind the lens. I never ever mount directly to the camera, the lens weight in front of it would be detrimental to the longevity of the camera connection, not to mention the lack of balance on the monopod. This keeps it simple, balanced and I don't lose any angle as well as it's less weight and always secure.

I concur regarding NO to the ball head. Even a tilt head may not be necessary if you're shooting horizontal format.

Ah yes, "P" for 'Professional', yes? (;>)

Not sure, either a 22 cal. bullet hitting a lightbulb while a student at Brooks Institute in the late 60's-early 70's, or an SR71 Blackbird in full afterburner in the 90's.

Lots of opinions on this. Here's my take, I shoot both. I have full frame and DX cameras and when out with both I keep a long lens on the DX body for extra reach and a short to normal lens on the FX body to take advantage of the full focal length of the lens. As for a distortions with the FX - there is some with one of my favorite lenses - one click fix in Lightroom takes care of it. In fact a preset even eliminates the one click.