Brian

No. For a "Proper" MBP for Photo editing, you start with the $2499 MBP and upgrade a few things. By the time you are done, it's around $3600 or so. Which an insane amount of money to spend on a laptop. I'd rather you purchase a Windows laptop instead. The low-end Macs just aren't worth it. That 13" Mac Laptop you are looking at is equivalent to buying a $400 Windows Laptop. Apple really wants you to go big or go home. Which is a shame, since they weren't always this way. Even the 21.5" iMacs are underpowered and not worth it.

Also, what camera body are you shooting with?

You have a lot of black (the dark sky) and this circle thing with a little detail (the moon). That's what your camera is thinking. You don't have as much "stuff" or data in the file. As long as your resolution (image size before cropping) is fine then you are good. If you want to check, take a photo of anything right now. Don't change your camera. Then compare file sizes.

Welcome to El Capitan!! Aren't you glad you updated? It sounds like either the OS is corrupted or the latest round of OS updates didn't install correctly. That format the HD and doing a fresh install of everything seems likely.

Oh, handles noise better than a D800 / D800E. Nikon isn't talking about a D4. Different class of camera.

Well, you do have 36 million pixels crammed into the same physical area as your D700 & D4. What I think you are seeing is known as "Sensor Grain" and not noise. I have heard of problems with the D810 and long exposures creating hot pixels and amp noise. This isn't an example of that. I'd say this is normal and really wouldn't show up on a physical print. I'm going to move this to the land of misfits. Let's see if any other D810 users have a similar experience.

Drives don't care what they are hooked up to, they just needed to be partitioned and formatted with the Operating System. The only gotcha is if you are running a 32-bit version of Windows, as it tops out at 2TB. If you want a big 3TB or larger single partition, you will need a 64-bit Operating System. As for which drive, what is your budget? I'm not a fan of the $79 special from a box store, the drives I typically recommend are a little expensive for some.

Either the drive isn't getting enough power, OR more than likely it's about ready to die. If you are hearing "click-a-thump...plunk...click-a-thump........plunk..." or similar sound, it's not a port problem. It's a drive getting ready die problem. I'd get all your data copied over to a new HD ASAP.

You know what? I gave you bad advice. I'm sorry. My formula was based on photographing a computer CRT monitor, which had a higher refresh rate than a typical TV. You might have to set your SS to as low as 1/25 if you are photographing a Tube TV. Also, it's recommended to photograph the TV at a slight angle, probably to counter distortion and help with possible glare. Flat screen TVs might need a SS as high as 1/125 or 1/250 maybe 1/60. It really depends on the refresh rate and you will need to fiddle. Plus figuring out WB to make things look correct. Try Apertures between f/4 - f/8. ISO 200 should be fine.

Keep saving up for that 70-200 f/2.8G VR II. YES, High ISO and sports go hand-in hand. Especially if you want to keep your shutter at 1/500th or faster. Football Games are tough. You think with the bright lights on the field, you could keep the ISO down. Well, think again. I found that I live at ISO 3200 and want to be at 6400 (or more). The only other things that's tougher to shoot in my personal experience is an indoor basketball game. Newer technology almost always trumps older tech. The D750 is a good choice, but since you are shooting sports, you might want to hold out for the new D500. The D7000 isn't that great at the high ISO range and it's not much better than my D300s.

I'm wondering if there is a way to default your monitor and then try calibrating? Hmm... Monitors do change over time though, so as long as your prints are matching, I'd say you are fine.

These point & shoot cameras aren't meant to do that, typically. You might have to invest in a DSLR, but you don't need anything fancy. An old Nikon D40 and a prime lens will do just fine.

More info is here, including a link to the manual.

Kodak Brownie Camera on eBay Its $14 Shipped. They were extremely popular and are easy to find. They sold for $5 in 1953, which is around $45 in today's money.

In case you misplaced your manual, here it is: Sony DSC-HX200 Manual This should help you set your camera to a manual mode and turn off the focusing.

It's best to do this with the camera mounted on a tripod. Set your camera to Manuel Mode, and choose 1/60 for the Shutter Speed and f/8 for the Aperture. The ISO should be set to 200. I would focus the camera on the edge of the TV with the lights on and then switch to manual focusing, this way the camera won't try to focus. Then turn out the lights. You should be able to take photos of the TV. Remember, you'll need to think as if your camera is shooting outside in daylight, since the room is pitch-black and the TV is so bright. If you leave your camera on a auto mode, then it will try to compensate for the dark room and bump up the ISO. That's why you are getting lots of "Noise" or "Grain" in your photos.

Oh, there is the Nikon D810a, which is built for Astrophotography. Have you considered switching sides? Maybe rent a D810a and 14-24 f/2.8 or even a 24mm f/1.4? Just a thought.

Well, then you will only have one lens to work with. The 50 will be "Wider" due to the angle of view change. To get the "look" as your 50 does on your rebel, you'll need at least an 85mm lens. Most folks get the Canon 85mm f/1.8, since it's cheaper than the 85 1.2L, but the 85 1.8 is NOTORIOUS for chromatic aberration. (Purple/Blue Fringes in high contrast areas. Think tree branches against a bright sky. Lots of purple and blue around the edges.) I usually recommend a Canon 100 f/2.0 lens. NOT THE MACRO LENS, THE PORTRAIT LENS. It's the 135 f/2.0 counterpoint. The Canon 100mm f/2.0 is the lens I think you should buy with your FF body purchase. Of course, since you are doing Astro Photography, you could go really wide.

Now I'm sure some folks are interested in...say it with me now!!! "What's a good laptop for photo editing?!?!!" I am so sick of this question. Believe it or not, a laptop for photo editing pretty much matches up with a desktop for photo editing. At the minimum you are looking for: i5 or i7 CPU 8GB RAM Minimum / 16GB Preferred A 1TB HD Separate and dedicated Graphics Processor with at least 1 GB of dedicated video memory Most importantly, a display that is IPS based. That's IT. Seriously, don't over-think. Basically, a low-end gaming laptop or desktop with a IPS display will be fine for photo editing. Don't make it harder and get all worried about specs and sales mumbo-jumbo. Five things to look for. 1-2-3-4-5. That's it. Now finding an external monitor that is IPS based is pretty easy. On a laptop, it's difficult and you usually have to do some searching. So if IPS isn't stated in the sales literature, more than likely it's a TN (Twisted Nematic) screen, which is great for watching movies, playing video games, answering e-mail, wasting time on Facebook, etc. Everything but photo editing! For that, it is HIGHLY RECOMMENDED you purchase a IPS based panel. IPS screens have a much larger viewing angle and are consistent color-wise from edge to edge. Which is a good thing when you edit photos. Here is a Asus 15.6" Republic of Gamers Laptop that has all of my requirements. If you look in the product highlights, it has everything a person should look for. So if you aren't keen on Asus, that's fine. Just find another brand that has all of the same specs. Oh! One more important thing! If someone does purchase a laptop to edit photos, it is a VERY GOOD IDEA to purchase one of Acratech Viewing Angle Gauges. This little thingy attaches to the back of the display. When you see the hole filled, you are at a good angle for editing photos. If you see the hole either empty or the little nub not filling the whole, you need to adjust your laptop's display angle. It comes in Silver and it comes in Red. They are both $14.95 and if it were me, I'd get the RED. Why? Because chances are, it's gonna get lost at some point and Red is easier to see or to remind you to take it off before storing your laptop.

As far as using an external monitor with a laptop, it's a really good idea. Why? Not only will you have a larger viewing area compared to a 15" screen, it will also be easier to calibrate. That said, trying to get the external screen and the laptop's built-in display to match will be extremely difficult. Like Tequila and Aspirin will be required after calibration, due to the frustration. It's also a good idea to get the "Premium" version of the calibration tool, as it has all the calibration choices enabled in the software. Think Sypder5Elite or equivalent for the best results, but I'm sure Damien can chime in on this opinion. I have seen people get their external screens calibrated just fine, even get their laptop screens almost matching, so it can be done. As for which laptops have the best chances of accomplishing this? I have no idea. Your guess is as good as mine. The other good reason for an external display is that it will be kept in the same area the majority of the time. This is a good thing for editing photos. You want to do it with a screen that is at a consistent angle, in consistent lighting conditions and that makes calibrating easier. The main downside with laptops, is that you really need to have separate dedicated video memory with a dedicated Graphics Processing Unit (GPU) to do this type of setup well. No sense in buying a fancy 27" display, with all the cool features if your laptop can't support the thing. Combine that with drivers that won't be updated and you could have some aggravation in dealing with an external screen. So what to look for? Anything in the 20"-24" sizes have the best chances of working just fine with a laptop. A monitor that has at least a HDMI port, since most laptops have that port these days. If you can only find a monitor that has a DVI-D port, there are HDMI to DVI-D adapters on the market.

One more thought. I'm sure there are plenty of folks out there that have a love affair with their D600 / D610 and are wondering why I'm not talking about them. Here are the main two reasons: The D600 and its oil on the sensor problems. The shutter mechanism's lubricant is notorious for getting on the sensor. So much that you have to send it to Nikon for them to clean it, unless you had a local place to do a wet cleaning. After a threat of a class action lawsuit, Nikon finally caved and admitted there was a problem. I think they would either offer lifetime free cleanings (you pay shipping) or they would replace the shutter if you bitched enough. The other solution was to replace it with a D610. Of course, my knowledge is a bit dated but my opinion stands: I wouldn't touch a D600, even if it was given to me for free. The D610: This is an "OK" camera, but like the D600...it's an ENTRY LEVEL FX body. Think the FX version of the D3300. I'm not forking out $1500 for anything that is considered "Entry Level." It's meant to be outgrown. I'd much rather put that $1500 towards something better than blow it, get frustrated 12-18 months later and be forced to upgrade to something else. In fact, I know several D600/D610 users that regret their purchase and wished they spent the extra money to get a D750. So there you have it. That's why I didn't list the D600/610. I'm a big fan of "Buy it Right - Buy it Once."

I forgot to add radio triggers. But we can cover that at a later time. You can get a EX or EX+ D700 and new 85 1.8 / 50 1.8 for now.

Final thoughts: Instead of spending $4500 on a D810 and lenses, I'd get the D700 kit, with a 85mm f/1.8G and a 50mm f/1.8D. Get an Einstein 640 light for $500 and a Zack Arias One Light Kit for $100. You might want to add a Savage seamless paper kit for $115. If you want to get fancy, buy one of these posing stools for $100. The cost for all of that: $2305. Then find a small studio space. You just need two walls and a floor. Commercial rent can be cheap. You should be able to find a place for $300 or so per month. Start with headshots. People need headshots for all sorts of things. From acting gigs to dating profiles. They are quick and easy. I seriously need to take my own advice and do them myself. Believe it or not, there is more profit in headshots than shooting weddings. A lot less stress too. So there you have it. Either blow your money on a D810 setup or get a D700, some lenses and lights AND a studio for about the same cost, or slightly more.

So those are your choices. In all of them, you will need to increase your budget. The kit with the most options and primes that is the cheapest is the D700 with primes. Followed by a new D500 and used 17-55 f/2.8. As soon as you go higher, the cost jumps over the $3000 mark all the way up to $4500. (Rounded off.) Photography isn't cheap. LOL!! We haven't even talked about getting a CPA, learning Quickbooks, paying quarterly taxes and all the other sh*t that comes with being a "legit" business. That's a whole other thread.

Now for other options: This is the Nikon 24-70 f/2.8G lens. This lens is responsible for MY serious case of N.A.S (Nikon Acquisition Syndrome) also known as G.A.S. (Gear Acquisition Syndrome). I'm getting this lens next month. No, I'm not getting the newer 24-70 VR version as the new version isn't as sharp for the way I shoot. It's honestly a bit soft and Nikon can't seem to sell them. In fact, they just dropped the price on the newer version to help boost sales. I'm still buying the original 24-70 f/2.8G. This lens needs to be on your RADAR. I have a love affair with mine. Her name is Bertha. She is big and heavy and expensive...and worth it. She is the Nikon 70-200 f/2.8G VR II lens. Great all-around lens. Can shoot portraits and all sorts of things with it. I HIGHLY RECOMMEND GETTING ONE, WHETHER YOU ARE SHOOTING FX OR DX. This lens gets sh*t done and I can't imagine not having one. If you were getting a D500, I'd recommend purchasing a used Nikon 17-55 f/2.8G DX Lens. It's the "24-70" for crop bodies. The only downside is that it's a DX lens, so if you ever did decide to go FX, it would be best to sell it. Currently, they are around $650 at KEH.com. So if you did get a D500, and a 17-55, you are looking at $2650, conversationally speaking.