Brian

Finally, if you own a Mac, the Mac OS is based on a old operating system from the 1970's, called Unix. (Pronounced You-Nicks). The Mac OS treats devices like EHD, CD-ROM/DVD-ROM, CF/SD Readers as physical hard-wired devices to the computer. It's like they are all hard drives. Transferring Photos on a Mac almost REQUIRES some sort of reader, unless you enjoy hating life and making things difficult for yourself. If that's the case, have at it. LOL!! But seriously, if you have a Mac, please use a Card Reader.

Speed. Card Readers are often A LOT faster than any camera, unless you have a fancy $6000+ Pro Grade Body and has an Ethernet Port built in. Possible Battery Failure during transfer. I know, this is rare, but it's plausible. Even though you may not be doing anything, if your camera is hooked up to the computer, it's using the battery. If that dies during transfer, you could have a scrambled card. Bent Pins in a CF slot. One of my famous quotes applies here, "...The First Law of Human Ingenuity: At first it doesn't fit...shove it in harder." Bent pins suck. I know, as time goes on and we move away from CF (Pin-Style Media) this type of failure will eventually go away. While we wait for another 10+ years for that to happen across the board, I will reiterate...BENT PINS SUCK. They cause all sorts of damage to CF cards. You know what's worse? Bent Pins in the CF Slot on the camera! I personally know of one photographer who blew up three cameras due to a bent pin in a slot during a Wedding. Card didn't work in Camera One. Took the CF card from Camera One and put it into Camera Two, which was the backup. Card was shorted from Camera One and blew up Camera Two. Photographer Grabbed 2nd shooter's backup camera and blew that one up. Again, bent pins suck. I hate wasting money, so which would you rather have, a $30 Card Reader Replacement or a $300 repair bill from your camera manufacturer? Now, I understand that lots of folks in here are just "Hobbyists" and only do this for "Fun" and have "...NEVER had a problem..." so I shouldn't be so "Serious" about this topic. I get it. After all, it's just photographs...we aren't curing cancer, or ending world hunger, right? I mean, it's not like photographs are important or anything like that in the grand scheme of things, right? RIGHT? Until they are. Until your luck runs out. Oh, give this article a read. Thom Hogan interviewed the ORIGINAL PROGRAMMER that came up with the idea for data recovery on CF Media. His software is the one that Sandisk uses and he has great insights on how to treat your cards. (Hint: NEVER DELETE IN-CAMERA.) Please read the whole thing. The Data Recovery Interview by Thom Hogan.

You can use Raw Right Away to view Raw files in the Finder. Photo Mechanic is also a popular and recommended tool, but it costs $150. If you shoot Nikon, you could use their free photo-viewer program, ViewNX. I personally use ViewNX and have for years. It's good for something basic, but as with practically all Nikon Software, it's buggy and is quirky...and it's free. I'm sure there are equivalent software products from the other camera manufacturers.

How long? Depending on the speed of your internet connection, I'd say roughly 1-2 hours total? Maybe less?

Re-read my answer above. Specifically... "OSX Mavericks was the last Mac OS that had the LEAST amount of problems with PS!!! If you can upgrade to Mavericks...DO IT!!!" Why not just go straight to Sierra? Because of weird quirky problems with PS. Since you make money from this computer (Remember, you can always upgrade to Sierra, but Mavericks...your situation is unique.) I'm really concerned. Hopefully Apple hasn't pulled the plug. If you can't update to Mavericks and are forced to upgrade to Sierra...guess what? You are going to Sierra. The only way to know is to try and see what happens. You should be able to click "Cancel" to stop the install procedure. I'm hoping you can go to Mavericks, but it's been a LONG time and with Apple, either you play by their rules or you don't play. Oh, Windows Peeps, Microsoft is doing this as well these days, so don't be so smug. Hell, they forced a Windows 10 upgrade on many computers in 2016 which resulted in businesses losing revenue. In fact, a Travel Agency sued Microsoft for screwing up their computers and WON. But I'm digressing here... I am personally running Mavericks 10.9.5 and iTunes 12.5.4.42, which I believe is the latest version of iTunes. My iPhone is running iOS 10.2. So I would upgrade to Mavericks, then update iTunes. Then update your iPhones / iPads to the latest iOS. Yep. You are kinda stuck. You are either going to have to upgrade, or since this machine generates income, purchase a new computer and transfer your iTunes library over to the new one. With a Time Machine Backup, once the TM EHD starts getting full, the Time Machine Software DELETES the oldest backup(s) to make room. Time Machine is not meant to be a complete and forever archival method, it's meant to be there if you accidentally delete something, restore a corrupted file, or to restore your main hard drive in case of failure. It's very good at what it's meant for. If you think Time Machine is to keep files forever...it is not. I'd just leave the TM drive alone and don't mess with it. Let the Time Machine Software handle things.

Nope. Not with a iMac.

I bought a used D700 a few months back. I added the D3s battery to the grip, so it shoots at 8fps now, which is helpful with my son's Baseball games. I also have the Nikon 14-24, 24-70 and 70-200 VR II to go with it. Those lenses make a BIG difference. Oh, and I'm not humble-bragging. It's taken me several years, more than one tax return, a loan (which is paid off) and several weddings / gigs to purchase the "Nikon Trinity." It was not easy, I had to find a way to make it happen. My next camera purchase is probably a used D3s in decent shape. The skin tones from a D3s are fantastic and it still holds its own for a camera that came out in 2009. If I were to upgrade to a camera body that had 24mp or more, I'd have to upgrade my 2009 iMac. So for the moment, I'm still living in 2009 technology-wise.

Believe it or not, I'm going to recommend that you use the old Apple Cinema Display! Reasons are as follows: It's an External Display. It stays at the same viewing angle until you change it. An External Display stays in the same area. You won't be editing from the couch, in bed, beside the pool, or the kitchen table...each with different color casts and type/quality of light. When you use a laptop, the angle of the display changes each time you open it. This can shift how you see detail in the shadows as well as in highlights. The Retina Displays tend to have higher resolutions, which make photos look crappy, especially during editing. I know, you can't get anything but a 5K screen these days, but with all that resolution in the same physical area, things appear smaller. So when you enlarge them to see what you are editing, it doesn't look as good. External Displays tend to be easier to Calibrate.

I found this on the internet, have you given it a try? The solution for this is to disable two settings that are on by default in Win7: "Press and Hold" and "Flicks". Open the Windows Control Panel and type "tablet" into the search field. Or if you have "Small Icons," proceed to step two. Select "Pen and Touch" settings. From the "Pen Options" tab, select "Press and Hold" and click "Settings..." Make sure "Enable press and hold for right-clicking" is unchecked. Click OK. Select the "Flicks" tab Make sure that "Use flicks to perform common actions quickly and easily" is unchecked. Click Apply, and OK.

Yep, they are the JPEG settings. The camera has built-in settings and does a bit of post-processing with JPEGS AND THE JPEG PREVIEW, which is the image that you see on the Rear LCD. Always remember, that the image on the LCD is not the Raw file, but the embedded JPEG. That is why your camera's rear-lcd is a lying and cheating whore who will sell you down the river if given a chance. It is also the reason why your images goes from #amazeballz to #blah when you import into ACR / LR, etc.

@Tenille: Look towards the end of Feb. / beginning of March 2017 for any "big" releases / updates. Nikon has a habit of making announcements then. Followed by a August / Sept. release of some sort.

Let me get my D700. For to shoot in RAW, the easy way is to hold down the QUAL button on the top and rotate the rear dial. Look on the Top LCD and on the left, you will see the various settings as you scroll through them, you want to see the word RAW only. Now hit the Menu Button and head to the Shooting Menu (Little Camera) Icon. The Image Quality should display RAW. Now arrow down to JPEG Compression and set it to Optimal Quality. The reason for doing this, is just in case you fat-finger something and end up on JPEG, it's best to use the highest quality mode. Believe it or not, this setting has saved my arse twice. Now, arrow down to NEF (RAW) Recording. Type should be ON and the NEF (RAW) bit depth should be set to 12-bit. You could set it to 14-bit, but in real-world circumstances, there isn't THAT much different between the two and 14-bit Images take more space. That said, I've created a bank for "Portraits" and one for Landscapes and set it to 14-bit. I figured, what the hell. For EVERYTHING else, Weddings, Sports and Action, normal stuff, I'm using 12-bit Raw. As long as you are good with your exposure the 12-bit / 14-bit becomes a non-issue. Oh, while you are in the shooting menu, make sure your Color Space is set to sRGB. Yes, I know it doesn't make a difference if you are shooting in Raw, but it's another Cover-Your-Ass setting just in case you are accidentally shooting JPEG. To enable Back Button Focusing, head to the Pencil Icon, which is the custom setting menu. Select the A section. A1 - Set it to Focus. A2 - Set it to Focus. These two settings tell the camera to only take the photo if it feels that the subject is in focus. For Back Button Focusing, select A5 - AF Activation and set it to AF-ON only. This tells the camera to NOT use the shutter button to engage auto-focus and only use the AF-ON button. Could you take a photo with your phone and upload it. In other words, "Huh?"

For Drives that I recommend, I tend to have expensive tastes. What is your budget? Also, do you plan on moving this EHD to various places or will it stay in one spot?

For this circumstance, yes. It's the same. Pro has some features that Home doesn't, like going above 16GB RAM, being able to join a Windows Domain, stuff like that. But for the backup software that I linked to above, it doesn't matter. I try to avoid the $79 specials at Costco or Best Buy, etc. 3TB external drives are all a crap-shoot. There is still a mix and you might get a 3TB that works for a long time, or one that dies on you. Most of the time, the manufacturers use the cheapest enclosures with the crappiest USB ports, so the drive inside the case might be fine, it's that you can't get to it. As for brands, I like specific models of Western Digital's products, specifically the Caviar Black Drives. I've been burned by Seagates more than once over the years and I personally avoid them. I've even had one Seagate smoke in front of my eyes. Fortunately, I didn't have anything important on that drive when it blew up / smoked. In addition, Seagate bought Maxtor a few years back and Maxtor made the world's crappiest drives. High failure rates on those drives. Dell loved using those drives, since they were so cheap and offered high-capacities. Out of 10 HDs that I replaced way back when, 8 out of 10 were bad Maxtor Hds, One would be a Seagate and one would be WD or another brand. So my point for this story? Since Seagate bought Maxtor, it's not that far of a stretch to think of the "$79 Special at Costco" to be a rebranded Maxtor HDs. Of course this is my opinion, but is based on a real-world personal experience. I've physically replaced those crappy Maxtor HDs on a normal basis, and now Seagate owns them. So to make a long story short, I personally avoid Seagate Hard Drives, no matter how good the deal is. Bottom Line: 4TB Hard Drives are a safer bet vs 3TB Models.

I would download the driver from the manufacturer's website to a thumbdrive (from another computer) and Install it locally. Since things are timing out, the windows update isn't helping you. Also, you might have to format 1st and do a fresh install. Is your friend available?

Here is another one, though it saddened me to learn of this programmer's death. Karen Kentworthy made really good stuff/utilities back in the day, and here is her free backup program. While it's still available, it's not being updated. It should work though. That said, I would try the others first before using Karen's at this point.

The reason that I recommend purchasing a 4TB EHD over a 3TB, is that when the 3TB drives first hit the scene, Thailand got hit with MAJOR FLOODS. It's Thailand that produces hard drives and even consumer DSLR models. So when factories were under water, the manufacturers had to take drastic measures. For a time, Western Digital Drives were made at the Seagate Plant, and vice-versa. It was a real mess and Quality Control wasn't that great. 3TB Drives had a tendency to have high failure rates. So even though that things seemed to have leveled off, there is still a lot of 3TB HDs that are time-bombs and I would hate for one of the members here to lose all of there photos. 4TB HDs never were affected by the floods, so if it fails, you just got a bad drive, not because things were underwater / all sorts of crazy. Yes. You need special backup software to do it. That type of backup is called an incremental backup. The one I recommend is SyncToy from Microsoft. It's not bullet-proof, but it's free and does a decent job. Second Copy from Centered Systems also comes to mind. That one you'll have to pay for, though $30 isn't too bad. FolderClone is another one, it costs $45 after the trial, but advertises a "set it and forget it" type of mode, which seems to be what you are after. I'd start with one of those programs first and let me know if they do what you want them to do.

Keep checking NikonRumors.com. In fact, there is a rumor about a D760 on the front page as I type this.

You might want to invest in a monopod and ball head. That will help out greatly and still be able to give you movement. Then again, that's gonna be an extra $150 or so on top of what you spent already. How about getting rid of the stuff in your bag that collects dust? How about selling this 70-200 and going for the IS version? Make it happen in 2017. Find a way.

Technique! Technique!! Technique!!! Holding a non IS Zoom lens is a lot like holding a gun. Breathing, how your arms are held, the position of them against your body...you are going to have to develop good technique. That takes time and practice. There are no shortcuts, or "...secret methods taking you to the next level." What you need to do is shoot with your 70-200 only for about a month or more. Shoot EVERYTHING with it. Eat-Sleep-Breathe that lens. Figure out what it can and can't do. Be proactive. Make notes. Find out how the lens behaves at all focal lengths. I know it's easy to get hooked on 200mm, but try it at other focal lengths and pay attention to where you are standing, distance to your subject, how your body is positioned, etc. Figure out your breathing patterns, feel your heart beat, get truly in the moment. All of this stuff will affect your shots. IS / VR helps a lot with these things, but you still need good technique. I can't tell you how many shots I blow just by rushing or being nervous. Even after all these years (started with B&W Film in 1986.) When I get away from the basics, my shots are crappy. This is wax-on / wax-off type of stuff, again no shortcuts. If you want a shortcut, you are paying for the $1899 Canon 70-200 f/2.8 L IS II Lens. Just think, Image Stabilization Tech wasn't available until the early 2000's. People used Monopods, Tripods, and had good technique. So it can be done. As for wasting money, I'd say yes. Only because I have done the same exact thing as you in the past. The "I can't afford _______ and can't be patient. I need it NOW, so I'm gonna settle for _______." I'm a big proponent of "Buy it Right - Buy it Once" mentality. Even if I have to buy it used. So it's very rare for me to not recommend the high-quality stuff. In my honest opinion, the 70-200 f/4L IS lens for $500 more would have been a better buy. This shit is expensive. I get it. I'm right there with you. But throwing money away is not an option either. People, including myself, go after the things they value. They will find a way to make things happen. It's when you go half-assed into something, you settle. Tax refunds, not eating out 3-4 times a week. Skipping the morning trip to the $5 coffee place and divert that money into savings. You'd be surprised on just how quickly you throw money away. Coming up with the extra $500 isn't as hard as it sounds. How about selling things? Plenty of Buy/Sell Groups on FB, yard sales, etc. Don't ever settle. Right now I'm shooting with a D700. I thought I would NEVER be able to shoot with a full frame body. Seriously, I was stuck in DX-Land for a long time. But guess what? I made it happen. Now I have my sights on a used D3s next. I know I'm going after a 80-400mm lens in 2017 and I'm trying to figure out a way to make that happen. I should have that lens by June of 2017, just in time for my trip to Cape Cod. Now, don't misunderstand me, I'm not being an ass. I just hate seeing people waste good money. I get the fact that this could just be a hobby for you or you are looking to shoot professionally, I don't care...the end-result is the same. Go after what you want and never settle. Don't ever cheap out on lenses. Even if you have to wait a little.

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.