JosvanEekelen

Let Canon surprise us as they did with the 300D. A decent spec'd body, somewhat like the 6DII, a new FF-M mount. With converter for EF lenses in the box for $1200. Lots of people will buy it. Forgot to mention: with optional battery grip.

I use the EOS M and M10 regularly for specific jobs. They are nice cameras but with some limitations, one is the small size. I never went from a 10D to a 20D because the latter felt too small. Bought a 5D instead. FF EOS: Body size needs to be regular size, like the old day film bodies (A-series, EOS 30) with a vertical/battery grip available. Perhaps a new mount with a dedicated adapter for EF lenses would be great. Use of all EF lenses and Canon can introduce new ones with/for shorter flange in the next years. If they do this and the price is right I'm in. Regarding price: no jokes like the 80D/M5 comparison: leave the mirrorbox out and sell at a higher price.

+1 for the Manfrotto RC4/410PL system. Just snaps in place; much faster to use than the AS system but YMMV. OTOH I have doubts about the Manfrotto universal L bracket system. It might work but I'd need to see/use it before making up my mind on it.

Any recommendations for photo mozaic software? Preferably freeware and/or stand alone versions that run under Windows 10 or Ubuntu. Google lists some programs but not how well they work, how long it takes to make a picture and how good the output is. Thanks for sharing your thoughts.

Check if you have all your LR settings and preferences. Adobe/LR may have placed them on the C drive. These don't necessarily go onto the same drive as your catalog.

Not too weird. $10 a month may be ok but in the future there may be other issues. Adobe is moving to the cloud which may raise issues of bandwith. Also storing large amounts of pictures may raise the price significantly. With this in mind I think looking for alternatives makes sense.

I see no easy way of doing this in LR. Using other software might do the job: perhaps Irfanview can do this or you can use some good old DOS rename commands but this will distort your LR catalog so you run from one problem into another. Also search for LR rename plugins. There are a few around that will do renaming. Apart from that, I don't know why you'd want to change the names. Can't you reach the same goal in another way?

What's wrong with a 5D? It may be a bit old but if it's still working I see no reason to replace it, unless you want something that it can't do. Always think about a 2nd body, just in case #1 fails. BTW, was the mirror in your 5D replaced? If not that would be reason for me to think of a replacement. I'm still happy with my 5D, if I'd go on a major trip I'd consider a 6D and take the 5D as backup. Or use the 5D along a 80D.

Two reasons to prefer a 5D: better ergonomics, it feels better in my hands than a 6/70/80D and it uses CF cards which I prefer because of their size. I guess in all other aspects a 6D beats a 5D. Of course YMMV.

When you have a legal version of LR5 you can upgrade to version 6. I paid something in the range of EUR 70 for it, I assume it's about the same in USD. I have use DNG converter for some time, for reasons about operating software, 32/64 bit etc I had to use LR 4 + DNG converter and I must admit that it is just one extra step in the workflow. Apart from that it works ok, nothing to it. You can always get the original CR2 file out of the DNG or you can save/backup the original RAW's. In the end of course I stopped using LR4/DNG converter and went for the LR6 upgrade. About dehaze and similar functions: think of it, the necessary variables are present in LR6 stand alone but Adobe keeps you from using them.

It should be possible with the proper adapters but it will be difficult to control the aperture of the EF lens. There are adapters which will do this (Novoflex?) but they don't come cheap. There is also a trick to close the aperture while the lens is connected to a body and then remove it, it will stay closed at the aperture set but this is not much fun either. Perhaps better look for a dedicated manual focus macro lens (Nikon, Canon FD, others) or look for an enlarger lens. These can be had for perhaps USD 25 or so and are great for macro work.

This link may be useful (or not) for getting the NikonScan software to work: Axel Rietschin: Nikon LS-40 / LS-50 / LS-5000 Scanners on Windows 8.1, Windows 8, Windows 7 and Windows Vista 64-bit! I'm not sure since your scanner is firewire and the link is about usb but a little knowledge will never hurt.

The only problem of a Q-tip is that it can leave fibres on the sensor. If so they will show at smaller apertures (f/16) so they need to be removed by sensor cleaning. The best way to test the sensor IMO is to take two pictures of a plain light area (clear sky, white paper), lens out of focus, at f/11 and f/22. Inspect the pictures at 100% for spots. I stop cleaning when there are no spots visible at f/11 and none or a few at most at f/22. In practice spots at f/22 will soon re-appear. BTW, thsi is based on a Canon EOS 5D which is a kind of a dust magnet. Newer bodies are less prone to collecting dust hand have dust removal mechanisms in place so you don't have to worry so much about dust.

Let me just share an experience from 10 yrs ago. While checking dust on the sensor I noticed a big smear/oil spray. Late afternoon, all shops closed and the next day I had to get up early for a flight to Nepal and of course I needed the camera for that trip. Tried several things to clean the sensor, hence I know that Q-tips are not ok. Then cut a piece of cardboard to about 1.5 cm width, folded a lens tissue over it and cleaned the sensor with a modest amount of lens cleaner (ispropanol). After a few tries the sensor was clean enough. Fortunately the sensor stayed clean for the next four weeks. I'm sure I couldn't have repeated the cleaning in a dusty tent.

Well, a Q-tip, even moist, is not the best way to clean your sensor. Have it wet cleaned. In this case wet is not equal to water but mostly a clean grade of methanol or isopropanol. wet cleaning should remove all grease and debris. Don't worry too much, the sensor (actually the plate in front of the sensor) can take some abuse. And start reading the manual. FYI there are little screws all over the camera. Time to get a philips screwdriver and take the thing apart. That's the easy part. Just guess about the difficult part :-)

+1 for Leslie. Have a look in the manual whether you heave not been touching the rear display.

According to Adobe's website D810 is supported by LR6 so you should have to look at other issues than LR compatability. Sorry, I can't post a link but you can google "Lightroom supported cameras" to get the list.

Have you considered the tape trick? Apart from that, don't all or most cameras focus at f/8 in Live View? AF at f/8 was where the 1-series shine, not exactly budget territory. If memory serves me well the 80D is the only budget oriented camera that has AF at f/8 but I may be wrong on this one. If it were not for handling issues I'd go for an M5 but it's probably too small to use comfortly with a 100-400 + extender.

I'd start with installing DPP. If you're lucky it installs the proper DLL's so the images become visible in other software as well. Just a wild guess. Or install Faststone Image Viewer or Irfanview (including plugins).

For magnifications greater than 1:! perhaps the best and cheapest option is the combination of bellows and a reverse-mounted enlarger lens. Clumsy but not too expensive on ebay (I paid EUR 22 for a Nikor EI 50 mm lens). Have a look at the Canon MPE-65 mm lens. It gives you the same magnification as bellows +lens but it is clumsy too.

Guess you have to take the bateries as hand luggage and pray your camera/laptop/etc will arrive with you. And bring a book or so to keep you busy during the flight.

https://www.nikonimgsupport.com/ni/NI_article?articleNo=000002646&lang=en_US ? Looks genuine to me.

Been there in 1995. Jars have apparently not been moved although then they were sharper :-)

It's highly praised on dpreview.com and other sites. I don't have a camera to test it so I left my final conclusion for later. When I worked in a laboratory some 30 years ago we used to say "garbage in - garbage out", meaning that the analysis has to be good in the first place despite the possibilities of computers for later recalculations. IMO a similar principle applies to photography. Start with the best possible picture.

@mark: converting to TIFF wil not bring any extras, information that was lost in the (in camera) JPG conversion is lost forever. Converting to TIFF will only fill the gaps with useless information. In the further editing routine it will not be any better as long as the OP does not save the work. If intermediary steps need to be saved TIFF is indeed better, or PSD.