Just as Hemingway didn't need to know all about the inner workings of a typewriter to use one to great effect, it's not necessary to know all the technical stuff about a camera to take a snapshot. But in over 60 years of serious photographic pursuits, I've never seen a camera that could create a photograph on its own -- or a typewriter that could come up with "The Old Man and the Sea" on its own, either. Your point is ... well, technically ... correct, but you sell photographers short when you boldly proclaim "Most of the pics shot on Manual are worse than the ones shot on Auto ...".

jdub82, fine examples of the rolling stock on display. This exceptional museum doesn't allow tripods -- BUT twice a year, they open for photographers with events called "Trains and Tripods". Before normal public hours, photographers can bring in tripods and lighting gear, with much improved access to the displays and no crowds (it's limited t o 50 participants). A seasoned pro leads a tour the evening before, then shooters go in early on a Saturday and get images otherwise impossible. It's a bucket-list opportunity for photographer railfans, and the details can be found here:

https://www.californiarailroad.museum/events/trains-and-tripods

The next event will be April 20 & 21, If the fee seems steep, know this: I organized a group of 11 enthusiasts who drove six hours each way to participate, and we are looking forward to doing it again.

Like others, I came from a large-format (9 x 18, 9 x 9, 8 x 10 and 4 x 5 inch) and medium-format (6 x 7 cm) background. I had little use for 35 mm film except for slides (and even there, I preferred large- and medium-format chrome film for client work). The reality, however, is that long before digital cameras came along the 35 mm film camera had become the de facto standard format for its overwhelming ubiquity. So when digital sensors were being developed and produced, they were considered relative to the 35 mm film format: a 24 x 36 mm (or very close to that, in some cases) sensor was called "full-frame" and smaller sensors came to be called "crop-frame". It's a naming convention, nothing more.

To the OP: you asked to be called a fool, and I don't think you are. But wouldn't you be happier and more productive spending your time taking pictures with your camera of choice? Railing against widely-accepted norms may somehow be satisfying to some folks, but ... get a life.

+1 for the OpTech battery pouch mentioned by RAR man. Really gets the job done!

In addition to the choices of color sensitivity offered, another important factor relates to "hotspots". These can be caused by reflections between the sensor cover and the rear element of the lens; some lenses are more prone to this than others. Kolarivision offers an optional anti-reflection coating to subdue hotspotting with their conversions, and I recommend you take that step whoever does the work. I'm quite happy with my Kolarivision conversion, but like others have stated, I have no personal experience with other conversion houses. If I were having another camera converted, I would only have it done by someone offering the anti-hotspot option. For more about hotspotting, go here:

https://kolarivision.com/articles/lens-hotspot-list/

Good luck with your infrared adventures -- you'll be glad you did it!

$17 seems a screaming deal, but ...

Raising a tripod's center column above the apex reduces significantly the rigidity and wind resistance. What's the height of the rig with the center column all the way down? If that's tall enough for your purposes, you probably got a good deal.

boberic, you're correct -- however the original poster wasn't asking about exposure but about using an 18% gray card as a white balance reference.

The "old school" 18% gray card, published by the gazillions by Kodak and others, was designed to be a tool in exposure measurement, not color correction. Some of these may have been fairly color-neutral, but if it's an old card there's possibly a color shift through age and/or various substances collected on the surface. A modern white balance card, on the other hand, is just what you need to correct color in post-production. As said by others, it must be photographed in the same light as your subject. The Color Checker Passport has been mentioned; I'll add my enthusiastic +1 to that unit. Also valuable are the WhiBal cards by Michael Tapes Design. Available in a wide range of sizes -- even business-card size -- they're unique in that the reference color is not a surface application, but is the color of the plastic itself. If it gets soiled or damaged, clean or sand it and you still have the same color.

Second the ColorChecker and the WhiBal cards. The latter are available in a range of sizes, even business-card size that can be carried anywhere. I use the WhiBal for backup to the ColorChecker Passport. If I forget the ColorChecker, I always have the small WhiBal stashed in my wallet. BTW, the color in the WhiBal cards isn't printed on, it's through-and-through. If you stain the card, you can sand it out for a fresh surface. Lastly, the advice to NOT use old gray cards is spot on. They weren't intended to be, nor calibrated as, color reference standards. Same for "white" paper. Many use UV brighteners for enhanced "whiteness". All of this advice is sorta moot if you shoot raw, because you can correct the color to whatever-you-want in post production. But starting with known accuracy from a ColorChecker or WhiBal can save tons of time.

Since Kodachrome was never processable in anything but huge and expensive processing machines requiring precise and extensive chemical analysis throughout the process, you're probably referring to processing Ektachrome or other "E-6" chrome films. (Over the years, Kodak refined the process for their Ektachrome films, starting with Process E-1 and continuing to E-6 released in the 70's. Fujichrome, Agfachrome and probably other slide films were also made to be compatible with the Kodak processes, hence the generic term "E-6" films.) Kits of the chemistry allowed processing in the home darkroom, but as many discovered, it requires meticulous temperature regulation, the chemistry is short-lived once mixed up, and it's a real hassle for the casual or occasional user. Discontinued by Kodak a few years ago, there's now word that Ektachrome of some sort is due to be re-introduced in the near future. Good luck with that, Kodak (or whatever your sold-off film manufacturing assets are called.)

What cameras featured curved film planes? There have been a few, like the Minox subminiature, but the majority of film cameras do their best to keep the film flat during exposure. Many large-format aerial cameras, f'rinstance, use vacuum to hold the film flat during exposure -- no easy task when the image format is up to 9 x 18 inches. And optical designers work hard to create flat-field images (though not always with complete success).

"Tools is tools", someone once remarked. We photographers do have a tendency to be more equipment-oriented than some other creatives. You seldom hear anyone wonder what brand of typewriter Hemingway preferred or what styles of brushes Rembrandt worked with. Or to modernize it more in line with the terms of this discussion, whether a particular writer does better work on a typewriter or by using word processing software via a computer. Or, heaven forbid, the tiresome "Mac vs. PC" rantings. If the person creating the work prefers to use a particular tool set, more power to them! When all is said and done, tools are nothing more than a means to an end. What really, really matters is the work created -- not the gadgets employed in the process. IMHO, the best photographers are mostly about the creative efforts in realizing the work, and only secondarily fascinated with the hardware and/or software used.

Glad you've never had a problem without a hood. As the old saying goes, if it ain't broke, don't fix it. Regarding lens hoods, however, I've known folks whose hoods likely prevented front element damage -- as well as at least one who experienced impact damage that a hood might well have prevented. So here this saying might apply: If it ain't broke, you're lucky. The choice is yours, of course. Best of luck!

Overlooked in this discussion is the possibility of faults not caused by the camera: a finger smear on the lens (oh so easy to do) or motion blur from poor camera-holding technique.

As stated several times here, the correct lens hood should be part of your shooting routine. There are 2 possible exceptions: if using built-in flash, the lens hood may throw its shadow on the subject (but except for really close distances this isn't true with shoe-mount flashes, so keep the hood on if using one). The other possible exception is macro work, where the hood might interfere with the light on the subject (but if it doesn't interfere, keep it on the lens). IMHO, there's nothing sillier-looking than a lens hood reverse-mounted for storage while the lens is actually in use. Don't be that guy or gal...