paddler4

There is an important typo here. All of your photos are in a Lightroom catalog, and you can use only one catalog at a time. I think what Mike meant was "collections". Lightoom allows you to assign any photo in any part of your catalog to a "collection." The collection is just a pointer to where the photos are in your directory structure and the catalog. I didn't use collections for the first few years I used Lightroom, but I use them now. For example, suppose you want to show 5 of your photos at an event, and the 5 you choose are from different dates and live in different parts of your directory structure. You can assign them to a collection (you can do it by dragging and dropping) so that you can access all of those photos without having to hunt for them. Likewise, if you are collecting a bunch of photos for a photo book, and so on.

The free Irfanview image viewing software can save as JP2, so I assume it can read it also. Once it's open in Irfanview, you can save it in any of more than a dozen other formats.

I agree: what matters is what a review tells you about the features that matter to you, given what you shoot. Ignore the rest. I almost never use my cameras for video, so I simply don't give any weight to what reviewers say about video. I'd also suggest that you ignore all sample images unless they are full-size raws that you can download. There are two reasons. One is that even weak images often look very good when downsized to screen size. This is particularly an issue if you are concerned about lens sharpness or resolution. On screeen images only help for that if they are blown up. the second reason is that the processing needed to produce a JPEG can have more of an impact on an image than the quality of the equipment.

Don't look for what's on sale at KEH. Check for what they will pay you for them. You may get more on eBay, but once you deduct eBay fees and shipping, not always. I usually sell to KEH because it's simple and hassle free.

I agree. First, there is no one answer; it depends on what you want to do. Most important is whether you want the level of sophisticated control that a pixel editor like Photoshop provides, with layers, blending modes, superb selection and masking options, etc. Are you going to print? Some software has very good print modules, like Lightroom. Second, it's partly a matter of taste. I really like Lightroom a lot and would hate to lose it, but some people complain about it. To some degree, I agree with Conrad: easy is easy until it won't do what you want. Still, some software has a steeper learning curve than others. Photoshop's is pretty steep, partly because the software is so enormously powerful and flexible. Also, there are often half a dozen different ways to get to the same end, which is nice once you know the software but a pain when you are learning it. I think if you don't need the power of Photoshop, Lightroom is one of several very good options. It has very strong database capabilities. It doesn't have layers, etc., but its editing capabilities are getting better and better, and I have quite a number of images that have been processed only in Lightoom. As of the most recent version, its masking tools are quite sophticated. It includes good noise reduction and sharpening tools. It has an absolutely wonderful print module. And while it's not simple, it's far, far easier than Photoshop to learn.

Most vendors, including Epson, buy from a small number of mills. For example, when my favorite coated paper, the original Canson Baryta Photographique, disappeared, so did a number of other barytas from other vendors, including I think one Epson Legacy paper. I know longer recall whether the Epson Legacy and Canon Platines are from the same source, but it might be that the Canson Platine ICC is reasonably close.

Some excellent images. I particularly like the ones that use an unusual viewpoint, such as Levels of Berlin Main Station

The Fernsehturm? I agree with Dieter about the halos. However, leaving that it's still overprocessed for my taste--too dark and too high in contrast. It looks unnatural, and much of the detail is gone because it's so dark. Also, it has two competing high-contrast focal points that compete to draw the eye: the building on the right and the bright spot in the sky. But that's just my taste.

The nifty fifty is cheap, but even with that, I would ask: what do you want to use it for that you can't use your kit lens for? There are things it can do that the kit lens can't, but unless one of them is on your list, I think you'd do better to save the $$ and wait until you have something in mind that will expand what you can do. For example, given what you list, I suspect that a tripod and head and a remote release may be helpful. A remote release can be bought for almost nothing, but a decent tripod and head (not a top shelf one, but one good enough that you won't regret having bought it in a year) costs real money. I'd just wait: practice, study, and wait until your current gear holds you back in some way.

I started with the XTi, which is one generation older than your XSi. I completely agree with the people who posted that you should simply use this until you decide that you need more. Until you have more experience, you will have no idea what's worth buying. Wait until you find that your kit doesn't do something you want to do. In my case, one of the first things I decided I wanted to do that the XTi kit couldn't do is macro, so I added an inexpensive macro lens. Here's a photo I took with that combination. It shows that the body you have is more than sufficient to produce nice images.

Yup, the end is nigh. Still, my 5D IV and EF lenses work exactly as well as they did when I bought them, which is to say, very well. Better than the person behind the viewfinder. If a truck runs over my equipment or someone steals it, I'll buy mirrorless, but for the time being, I can't see enough reason to switch (despite the wonderful AF on the R5, which I would love to have). For that reason, I actually snapped up an EF 70-200 f/4 IS L II when Canon announced they were discontinuing it. I can always add an adapter if someone does run over my 5D.

MUCH better. That's similar to the simple rig I use for candids of kids. It still sometimes requires some fiddling with WB because you are generally mixing light sources, but nothing like what you faced before.

Printique (formerly Adoramapix) does not require that you use their templates. I have made several Printique books without using any templates. However, they are different from some of the cheap ones in that they use real photo paper, so you get thick pages that look like dye-sub or injet prints (I assume they are dye-sub, but I don't know).

I use a reputable ad blocker and disconnect.me in my primary browser. I use is Firefox as my primary browser, which is quite good in terms of security. I also avoid Google Chrome like the plague, as it is a known problem in terms of tracking. (See https://www.washingtonpost.com/technology/2019/06/21/google-chrome-has-become-surveillance-software-its-time-switch/). Those steps take care of most of the problem. I don't find that using a VPN has much if any effect on this particular problem.

If you don't need archival prints, you can avoid clogging/cleaning issues by using dye-based inks. I printed with several Canon dye-ink printers for years with no problems at all.

I'd ignore the people who disparage you for not knowing more about computers. Not worth your psychological energy thinking about them. Re old peripheral equipment: it depends. Some older equipment will work fine. Some may not. For example, if I remember right (I may not), the calibration tool I had been using was never made Windows 10 compliant, so I had to buy a new one when I upgraded to Windows 10 years ago. However, from what I have read, the internals of Windows 11 are quite similar to Windows 10, so I'm guessing that most of your old peripherals will work fine. If not, search online for workarounds for the specific equipment, and if there aren't any, you'll have to replace them. If you think you will update your Adobe apps, the choice of graphics card matters. Some of the newer features of Photoshop will run poorly or won't run at all if you have a card that doesn't meet their specs. You can find their requirements here and here. Your USB peripherals are presumably USB 2.0 because they are old. Your new machine will have at least some USB 3.0 ports (the more the merrier), and those ports are downwardly compatible. However, transfer speed will still be slow because of the peripherals themselves. My suggestion: don't worry about this. If you need to leave the computer running a few times while you go do something else, no big deal. If your computer comes with USB-C ports (that's the physical form, not the transfer rate), that's also no big deal; you can buy USB-B to USB-c dongles for a few bucks. Memory requirements are also on one of the pages I linked. Adobe recommends 16 GB. That's what I have. It works fine. I don't know whether 32 would produce much of an increase in speed. I wouldn't consider 64. Re processor: I can't help there. I stopped tracking this a long time ago, and I find Intel's current naming conventions confusing. I'm using a 4-year old 4-core i7-7700 @ 3.6 GHz, and it's adequate. I would buy faster now, but I don't know which to recommend. Re how to do it: because of where I work, I usually have to replace all of my computers (I have 3) every 3 years or so. I start by making a list of all of the software on the old machine and any configurations I can think of that I want to preserve. I then prep the new one by gradually installing software and configuring the new one, while continuing to use the old one as the functioning computer. Toward the end, I terminate the registration for any software that can only be installed on a few machines to transfer those to the new one. You'll need a way to transfer files from your old internal drive to your new one. that is only one of the reasons that one of my first steps is to install an aftermarket file manager that allows me to see two directories or drives at once and allows me to sync between them. There are lots of these, but I currently use Directory Opus. I get a big thumb drive (they are now dirt cheap), sync or copy content to that, then pull it from that to the new drive. Good luck. One thing that I find invaluable is a decent file manager, which Windows doesn't include.

That's completely inapt and unfair. There is no "theory" in the post. The comment was about specific features the poster does find useful, not "some new dangled [new-fangled?] feature they don't have." And the poster started out assuming that he didn't need to upgrade. The sensible thing to do is to look at or even try out some of the new features and decide whether they will help you. I know the answer for me: I can work both more quickly and more effectively with the new versions of the software than I could with the old. YMMV. If you don't find anything sufficiently helpful, your choice will be different.

Indeed. It's easy to find lists of the features added by version on the web. Wikipedia has them. While a lot of added features are things I don't use, quite a number of them are things I use all the time. It's worth looking.

Internal vs. external drive isn't an either-or decision. One of the nice features of Lightroom is that you can move any part of a catalog and its photos to another location fairly easily. I do this often when I travel with a laptop. When I get back, I select in Lightroom the photos I want to keep and export them as a catalog. I then go to my main computer and import them as a catalog. The way I do it, I end up having to move the folders to where I really want them, but that takes perhaps a minute. So you can comfortably keep your working photos on an internal drive, use a laptop or external drive while you're away, and combine everything when you get back. BTW, I agree with Barry that the current versions of LR and Photoshop are much better than the versions from the pre-subscription era. To take just one example, the selection and masking functions in the newest versions of Lightroom are light years better than anything the program had in the past.

I won't get into the subscription/vs old perpetual license argument. It's not productive. I think the first choice you face is whether you really need all 50,000 photos on internal drives. Aren't there old ones you rarely if ever access? If not, why not store those on (backed up) external drives? It would make the new machine far cheaper and easier to spec out. that's bgelfand's point too: where do you want to put your data? I find it works fine to have two internal drives, an NvME SSD for speed, which holds the OS, all of my software, and small files, and a larger physical hard drive for storing images. However, my computer isn't new, and I haven't recently checked the price differences between SSDs and physical drives. It might be reasonable now to have only SSDs. Re graphics devices: I don't have the link, but Adobe posts a list of the features a graphics card needs to run all of the features in Photoshop. If you stick with an old version of the software, you can probably make do with less, as the most resource-hungry features seem to be new ones. If you are keeping your monitor, that eliminates one important and potentially expensive decision. Some good sRGB compliant monitors are inexpensive. Good wide-gamut monitors can be quite expensive. If you do a lot of printing, it's a worthwhile expense, IMHO. If you don't print much and display mostly online, it's a waste of money because you have to post images in sRGB to have them look right on most people's devices.

Robin gave the answer. The lock switch locks the dial (makes it have no effect), not the aperture.

I would worry less about size than type. It looks like a Phillips, but there is at least one other type, the JIS screw, that has the same cross pattern but a different angle of the slots. JIS screws are used in Japanese electronics, so they might be used in the 5D IV. I'd definitely check with someone in the know.

PS: In case you are new to B&W conversion, this is what I meant by tonality controls by color. This particular version is in Lightroom, but any conversion software worth considering should have something similar. (Some have fewer color choices.) It allows you to darken or lighten pixels that are of any given color in the unconverted original--e.g., to darken a sky, much as us old folks used to do back in the day with a red filter. The little circle in the top left of the mix panel is particularly useful. It's one of Lightroom's "targeted adjustment tools". Click on that, then place the cursor any place you want in the image, and drag up (to lighten) or down (to darken). It will mix the the sliders based on the mix of colors in that area of the image.

I like Lightroom for the basic B&W conversion because it's entirely nondestrctive and reversible, has very good controls for changing tonality by color (like using filters in the old days, but far more flexible and powerful), allows virtual copies so that you can have several processing approaches side by side, and seamlessly integrates with Photoshop when you need more powerful editing. Silver Efex has a lot of effects, in particular, film emulations. Silver Efex also works as a plug-in to lightroom and photoshop.I don't use Silver Efex much anymore, but when I use any Nik filters, I use them as plug-ins toward the end of the editing process.

Right. The faded appearance was therefore not a concern for me. I'm used to it. My concern was solely color rendition, particularly yellow-green