Brian

It's better to do this in a well-lit room. I'd rather see something that was taken at 1/500th of a second. I also want to see shots that are straight-on and if you could tell me exactly what word / thing you put the AF thing on would be great. From what I can tell, your Focus is fine, though I do see a little front focusing. For example, "Put Faces & Places" seems to be sharper than "What's on." Also, for the last photo, the left page, "on own" seems to be slightly sharper than "The News." That page is slightly higher / more towards the camera. For the tape measure shot, the 3 & 9 seem to be acceptable, but the 1/16th and 1/8 markers...the edges that are raised up are slightly more in focus. So you might want to try a focus compensation setting (if you have that feature on your camera) of +2 or +3. Of course, the mirror flipping up causes vibrations, which could result in missed focus, so I think another round of photos at 1/500th or 1/1000th might be in order. That said, I think BBF is really killing you and if you want sharper images, you are going to have to upgrade to a better lens that has Image Stabilization. Also, on today's DSLR cameras, nothing looks good at 100%. If you want things to be tack sharp and 100%, you are going to need something like Medium Format. LOL!! That starts at $25,000 for that system. Even then you blow a lot of shots with Medium Format, it's much less forgiving than a Full Frame DSLR.

You might be interested in this thread from a few months back:

OK, Nikon Rumors had a article on a "Test Sensor" being put into a D750 body and a few sample images were released. The Sensor was about 20.2MP, or somewhere around there. That puts it into a D5s category (due for the 2018 Olympics) or even a D700 replacement. (Excuse me for a second, BWHAHAHAHAHAHAAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHA!!!! LMAO!!! A Nikon D700 REPLACEMENT?!!?!!! Oh, THAT IS funny!! Bwhahahahah....deep breath.... BWUAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAH!!!!) OK, I'm back. Perhaps a D5 sensor will make its way into a D810 body, but this is pure speculation on my part. The truth is, I don't know what Nikon is going to do next. I don't think Nikon knows what it's doing next. LOL!! That said, the D810 is really a fixed D800, and is getting a bit long in the tooth. The D750 might see an incremental update as well. Nothing earth-shattering, sort of like going from a Nikon D5200 to a D5300. As far as a true D700 replacement, Nikon has stated the D810 IS THE REPLACEMENT. Like many others, I don't buy this. They stated for years that the D7200 was the replacement for the D300s, then they finally released the D500 and THAT body is definitely the replacement for the D300s. The D810 is nothing like what the D700 was...a baby D3. Nikon isn't going to repeat that mistake unless it was on purpose. (If you added the battery grip to the D700 and used the battery from a D3/D3s, you could increase the fps from 5 to 8. The D3 was 9fps. Of course the D3 had A LOT more menu options and features, in addition to a 2nd CF slot, though the sensor was the same so the photos pretty much looked the same, which killed D3 sales.) OK, I'm rambling. Here is what I think: Don't ever think that Nikon is going to release a true update to the D700. They are sticking with the "Pay to Play" method and are trying to avoid the "Last Camera Syndrome" at all costs. What is the last camera syndrome? It is what the name implies. The thinking of, "I just want to purchase a camera and not outgrow it. The next camera that I buy better last me at least 10 years or more because I can't afford forking out $2000-$3000 every couple of years..." Unfortunately, today's DSLR cameras are computers that think they are cameras. Gone are the days of inheriting Grandpa's Nikon F2 and a box of lenses, and be able to use them right away. Manufactures want you in the market sooner rather than later. That's why camera bodies only seem to last 3-4 years before they start having quirky issues. (Locking up, being sluggish, and doing other weird things.) Bottom Line on switching over: Only do it if you think there is real merit to switching. It needs to be a logical decision, not an emotional one. It can't come from the "This stupid fucking camera!!! It won't focus!! That's IT!! I'm switching to Nikon!!!" way of thinking. The Canon 6D is a entry-level full frame camera. It's the "Digital Rebel" in the full frame lineup and is meant to be outgrown. The goal is to eventually piss you off and force you to purchase a larger body, which has more features. So instead of spending $3200, you end up spending over $5000 at the end. Guess what? It seems to have worked. LOL!! If you do switch over to an equivalent camera-class, you are going to end up right back where you started, which is the "This stupid fucking camera...." phrase. Trust me. You need to to big or go home and that comes with a large price-tag. For Canon to really lower the price on anything, the US Dollar (assuming that you are located in the United States) would have to be REALLY STRONG against the Japanese Yen. I don't think the 5D Mark IV is going to drop much. If it does, I'd expect it to be at the $3200 price-point, which is what the 5D Mark III was for a long time. At $2249 for a 5DMk3, it might go to $1999/$2099 and that's when they are completely discontinuing it. Again, wishful thinking. Both Canon and Nikon are hurting and people aren't buying cameras like they once were, that's why the 5D Mark IV is $3499 instead of $3299. Even Nikon's prices are more expensive these days, with the brand new 70-200 @ $2800 being a prime example. Bottom Line: If the Canon 5D Mark III drops in price, it's only going to be about $100 less, so I'd still buy one right now. For a Wide Angle Lens, I'd look at the Canon 16-35 lens. They have a f/4 and f/2.8 version and depending on what you use it for, will determine which lens. For example, if you are shooting landscapes and are at f/8 and f/11 a lot, then it doesn't make sense to buy a f/2.8 version. That said, if you shoot indoors or are into Astrophotography, than the f/2.8 version is what you are buying. If it were me? I'd get the f/2.8 version, then again, I have expensive tastes and shoot weddings in addition to my landscape stuff so f/2.8 is what I go after. Sell the 85mm and put that money towards the 16-35mm f/2.8. PS: I wasn't being a jerk with the "Clickin' Mom's" statement. I'm dead serious about the fastest growing market for the last decade has been women when it comes to cameras. It's not just the cameras and lenses, but all the accessories, the cute camera bags / straps and the explosion of photo workshops / classes that are out there today. If it weren't for the Clickin' Mom's (and a few other groups) Generation, I feel that the camera market would look vastly different today.

This is a tough one. Switching can be expensive, for obvious reasons. In my humble opinion, I would recommend a 5D Mark III body. The Mark IV is nice, but it's not an earth-shattering upgrade from the Mark III. It's more of a "natural progression" upgrade. Now, I will say, Nikon cameras tend to have a better focusing system in their lower-end bodies, so I can understand wanting to switch. So let's break a few things down with the Nikon equivalents of what you currently own: Sigma Art Nikon Version: $899 Nikon AF-S 85mm f/1.8G: $476.95 Nikon 24-120 f/4 VR: $1096.95 Nikon 70-200 f/2.8E FL VR: $2796.95 - The reason for this lens, is that the new 70-200 behaves more like your Canon 70-200 f/2.8L. When Nikon rebuilt the 70-200 from the ground up to fix the vignetting issues at f/2.8 & 200mm, (with the VR I version,) they introduced "focus breathing," meaning you can't get as close to the subject as you used to. For the purists out there who like filling the frame, the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8 VR II lens at 200mm, performs more like a 135mm would, for lack of a better term. So while you can get the older 70-200 f/2.8G VR II lens for less money, I just want to make you aware of what you are getting into. You will need the newer and more expensive Nikon 70-200 to get similar results that you get with your Canon 70-200. So far the total in lenses is (Drumroll Pleeze...) $5269.85. That's JUST for the lenses. Now add the cost of a D750 at the normal price of $1996.95 and we are talking $7266.80, plus applicable tax & shipping. For that money, you can get a Canon EOS 1D X Mark II for less money than switching. In fact, it's right around for the cost of the Nikon lenses. The 1D X Mark II has a professional grade focusing system that is light-years ahead of your 6D. (...and people wonder why I hate recommending the Nikon D610 and Canon 6D bodies, as they are meant to be outgrown, but I digress...) Here is the thing, Nikon is hurting. Their QC has gone way down and the market isn't buying new cameras like they once were. It seems that the Clickin' Mom's Generation is looking for their "Forever Camera," or has finally realized on just how much a PITA it is to make a profit. No, I'm not being sexist, the biggest market driving sales for around the last decade have been female photographers and those "Cutesy Name Photography" businesses aren't buying cameras like they used to. For the guys, there really hasn't been a major update for us to give the "Tim the Toolman Grunt." So it's leveled off for the guys as well. The camera manufactures have finally taken notice and hopefully things will turn around. Stock-Holders need to be kept happy. I really think a couple of new FX bodies are going to be released in 2017, perhaps finally a true D700 replacement or more than likely a Nikon D810 update. That's why the D750 is so cheap. Even the D810. They are looking for revenue and to clear out stock. Nikon just doesn't put out sweet deals for nothing. Something is cooking up their sleeves. So I'd hate for you to switch, invest all that money, only to have Nikon release a better camera body than a D750, which would suit your needs better. The AF System in the D750 is much better than the D610, but not as good as the one in the D810. The AF system in the D810 is from the Nikon D4s. The D750's AF Points are clustered together in the center of the viewfinder, the D810's AF points are further spread apart. So before jumping ship, PLEASE FIND A D750 AND PHYSICALLY HOLD IT. Go through the menus and give it a test drive. See how it feels in your hands. Here is how Nikon has their lineup situated, FX (Full Frame) is on the left, DX (Crop) is on the right: D610 --> D3400 D750 --> D5300 D810 --> D7200 D5 --> D500 So as you can see, and this is what really irks me with Nikon, you have to pay to play. The D750 is a fine camera, but if you need more, even if it's just something as simple as a more robust AF system, you have to upgrade to the D810 with it's 36MP massive Raw files. Oh...want faster fps and a awesome focusing system? Sorry, we need to upgrade to the D5. Can't afford a D750? The D610 for you then!! Complete with all the lack of features. Now we have to take into consideration of what kind of money that you are going to get for your lenses. The Sigma, even though people RAVE on how great it is, it's still a 3rd party lens and you might get $700 for it, maybe even less. Like $600 or so. It's still a Sigma. The Canon 70-200 that you have? About $1600-$1700 used. Canon 85mm f/1.8? $300-ish. 24-105? Call it $800 or so. My estimate for your lenses is going to be $3000-$3500. That leaves you with a $1769 loss, and then you still have to purchase the body, in which the final cost would be around the $3800 mark, give or take. I'm being optimistic and using $3500 for your lenses, minus the cost of the Nikon equivalents, plus the price of a D750 at $1999. My numbers added up to $3768. Oh, I forgot about the Canon 6D. In excellent shape, you could get $1100 or so. If it has normal wear, around $1000. So the final number should be less than $3000. That said, a new 5D Mark III is $2249, which is about $500 less than the total amount of what it would cost you to switch. See where I'm coming from? In my humble opinion, I'd get a Canon 5D Mark III and rock the shit out of it.

Since you are running on a 64x CPU, you are fine. Plus you were running Windows 8 64-bit, so no worries. Is the Ethernet Port built into the motherboard? If so, you'll need the make / model of the board and head to the company's website. There should be a downloads or support section where you can download stuff. Or you might even have driver disks. Your friend should be able to point you in the right direction but like I said before, it's probably not that big of a deal. Windows 10 supports A LOT of stuff.

All of the original Star Wars Movies were filmed using a Panavision PSR 35mm Film Camera. 20th Century Fox primarily used Cinemascope with a 2.35:1 Aspect Ratio in the 1970's and 1980's. There were instances in movie theaters that had the movie shown with a 2.39:1 ratio, but you are splitting hairs at that point. Now, if you are trying to create the scene based on TV, that's a whole other thing. 4:3 (1.33:1) or 16:9 with a common aspect ratio of 1.85:1 is what you would see at home. To really re-create the scene based on the movie, I'd just use 2.35:1 and call it good. Oh, I'd use a full frame camera to create this shot as well. No sense in dealing with the Angle of View change since the movies were shot with a 35mm film camera.

You could use a service like Dropbox, and purchase the 1TB version. I think it's $99 a year. Then charge your clients a yearly fee to hold their images. It could be as low as $20 and all you would need is 5-6 clients to break even. 1TB will hold A LOT of JPEGS and you can organize things by year / project / session. If things need to be recovered, simply copy the session to a Public Folder and e-mail them a link to the files. Since you are using Amazon, maybe use them instead of Dropbox? Edit: I just re-read your question. The Dropbox software will automatically back up their phones if you allow it. All I do on my Mac is simply plug in my phone and the Dropbox software does it's thing.

Get some lights/light-bulbs which are from the 5000k-6500K color-temp range. Some folks like around the 6000k-6500K range, I find them to be "too blue" for my eyes and work better with a 5000K-5200K range.

Conversationally speaking, a 32-bit operating system caps out at 4GB, with 3.5GB usually being accessible. Yes, I have heard of people getting around the 4GB limitation with some sort of hack/work-around (I think you can get it to 6GB or something,) but between you and me...and for the 99.999999% of us out there, we will stick with the 4GB Limitation of what Microsoft says. You can not upgrade from 32-bit to 64-bit. You are going to have to nuke the HD and do a fresh install of the OS. The Windows Media Creation Tool will create a 64-bit installer, but there is not an in-place upgrade path. 64-bit is completely different than 32-bit. Fortunately, your friend is half-correct...the reformat and re-install everything part is correct, but the Windows Media Creation Tool will create a 64-bit installer and I think the Key will be the same, provided that all the hardware is the same and since this is the same computer, you should be good. First, before taking the plunge, is your system 64-bit capable? Do you have 64-bit drivers for the various components in your computer? Video Card Drivers, Sound Card Drivers, Chipset Drivers, Network Card Drivers, etc. The most important driver out of everything is to get the Ethernet Driver. That allows you to connect to the internet to download other drivers to get things running if needed. Windows 10 has a fairly large database of drivers these days, so it's not as big of a deal as it once was, but I'm still paranoid about this driver. Second, once you have everything backed up and you have a list of license keys for everything, download the 32-bit Windows Media Creation Tool. Make sure your Windows 10 is activated (it should be,) and then run the Tool. Have a fresh/clean/no software/blank 8GB Thumbdrive (or 16GB would be a safer bet) at the ready. When you run the tool, select "Create installation media for another PC" and under the Architecture Drop Down Menu, select 64-bit (x64). Create the Windows 10 64-bit installer on that clean Thumbdrive. When you reboot off the Thumbdrive, select a custom install and choose "Overwrite the Current Version of Windows," or something like that. Since you are staying with the "Home" Edition of Windows 10 and are just switching from 32-bit to 64-bit, your License Number should work. Now if you were upgrading from Windows 10 Home to Windows 10 Pro, that's a different story. Then you'd need a different key. If your friend builds any future PCs, tell him to stick with 64-bit. The ONLY reason to install 32-bit is if you have a old piece of software that requires it. For the people here who edit photos and use Photoshop / Lightroom / Photoshop Elements, there are 64-bit versions of the software and are Windows 10 compatible. Not only will it make things run MUCH faster, it's less of a hassle down the road, especially when an end-user wants to upgrade from 4GB to 16GB / 32GB.

Even the very expensive Mac Pro is getting long in the tooth, again.

I don't think it will be anything amazing, just a natural progression technology-wise. USB-C & Thunderbolt 3, maybe a Bluetooth Keyboard with a touch-bar (sold separately of course,) though I wouldn't hold your breath. Different video card with more video RAM, maybe the RAM will increase to 64GB max, another don't hold your breath thing, Maybe a larger Fusion Drive, such as a 4TB model The removal of the DVD drive and then the 5000k screen was the last two big "Things." Still it's worth waiting a few months, just to see.

Please humor me and try using the shutter button to focus and take the photo. Back button focusing is not the end-all-and-be-all method that it's made to be. It's not a super-secret, it's not a game changer; the Chorus of Angels will not sing when you use it, even though every other easy blog-post makes you think that it will. Does it work? For some, yes. Others it produces more focus problems than it solves. You have to be really steady and not move when you BBF. In addition, the shutter button setting needs to be changed so that it doesn't engage AF when it's pressed. You can BBF all day long, but if the shutter button still activates the focusing system and you focus & recompose, or your subject moves slightly, you are gonna have blurry / not sharp photos. So let's get back to basics. Use the shutter button to focus, and use the center AF point, since it is the strongest. Let's get a few test shots with your 70-200 and see if things improve. Try ALL apertures from f/4 to f/16. Focus on something like a coffee can with bold lettering or something similar and post the results in this thread.

Stupid question alert! You are using "Single Point AF" and not "Zone AF" or "19 Point Automatic Selection," correct? You aren't trying to use the stupid Back Button Focus that everyone raves about?

One other question, are you using some sort of live-view or are using the focus points when looking in the viewfinder?

BUY IT!!

What focus point are you using? What focus mode are you using?

Always need? No. Should you? If the picture is worth taking, then you should use a Tripod or Monopod. I know, I know...I get that it's not always convenient and sometimes, you can't use one. So before I go on one of my famous rants, can you show me some examples of what you are talking about? Post a few shots in this thread.

Some info on the 2017 Spring releases. USB-C look like it will make its way to the iMac line. http://www.macrumors.com/2016/12/20/usb-c-imac-touch-bar-magic-keyboard/

You can also go one step further, have a "Personal Photos" Catalog and then create a new Catalog to go with the editing for the project that you are working on. Catalog Management is something that should be learned, since a large LR catalog has slow performance and can get grumpy. I'm glad you have a process in place.

Ideally, you want to reserve the C: Drive for the Windows OS and Programs. So yes, put the LR catalogs on the D: Drive. Is this D: drive built into the Laptop or is it an external?

Hard Drives really do not care what computer system they are attached to. That said, it needs to be prepped with the correct partition type / filesystem and be formatted so it can be used. You are used to purchasing Hard Drives that are pre-formatted for use with Windows, meaning you just plug them in and they work. Sometimes, you have to blow away with that setup and redo things so it will work with your computer. (Like if you were prepping a HD for use with a Mac.) There is nothing you need to buy as it's built into the OS. It just takes about 5-10 min of prepping. Unless it's already reformatted for use with Windows. Since this is a HD that is meant to hook up to an Xbox One, there might be some configuration. It's not a big deal.

Believe it or not, I'd get this drive and reformat it for use with your computer. It takes about 5 Min to do. Yes, I know the HD says it's for the Xbox 1. It's a higher quality drive, has better transfer speeds and doesn't come with the stupid WD backup software that doesn't work.

It's really hard to say what's wrong with the drive. The worst thing you can do is try to "Fix It" by throwing all sorts of software recovery at it. That will do more harm than good. Unfortunately, extreme data recovery is not cheap. Like $1500 not cheap. Can you copy anything off that EHD or is it just showing up as empty folders?

Personally, I like G-Drives myself. They are a little on the pricey side, as I tend to avoid the "$79 Special" at a big box store, but that's just me. Here is the drive that I have, as pictured on the left in my photo. Since I have a 2009 iMac, I only have a FireWire 800 Port and not a Thunderbolt Port. If I were to buy a drive today, I'd get a Thunderbolt Version.

Looks like a new External Hard Drive is in your future. What make / model is this drive? How large is it?