LyondellBasell

That's a good point, I don't think I've researched this enough. Thank you!

Whatever you choose, don't base any decision you make on "input lag" or "response time".
 
You will not be able to tell with your usage case. We're not talking high-tier, competitive FPS here.
There's no camera movement, there's no crosshair, and nothing you do is split-second.
 
The things that will matter to YOU are pixel density, screen size, and display mounting options, since it sounds like you have limited space and may want the change how everything's lined up at some point. You should buy solely based on these things.

Yes, the more light you can give yourself, the better your end-image will be.
 
As far as color temperature goes, 6500K is going to be a little bit on the cooler side, or more blue.
You can adjust the color temperature right there in-camera, but if for some reason you had no way to adjust it, I'd recommend going with a slightly warmer light rather than a colder one, cold light tends to be less flattering for skin tones.

In that case it's probably best to find a bright lamp or several that fits within your budget and either bounce it off the wall, shoot it through a sheet, or make a homemade softbox.

The short answer is, it depends.
The long answer is, it really depends.
 
We need some more information:
Are you going to be taking photos or video? What environment are you going to be working in? Indoors? Outdoors? How much control do you have over the light that already exists in your space? How far away are these lights going to be from your subject(s)? Are these lights going to need modifiers for the look you're shooting for? Basically, if you want an exact answer to "how many lumens do I need", you'd have to give us a Cine Designer file and a render of what you hope the final effect would look like.
That's not how lights are bought, what you really want is something adjustable.
That being said, if you just want an off-the-cuff number, get something that says it can do up to a 1000W tungsten equivalent. That'll be enough to light most basic scenarios that you might want starting off. Take a look at the Aputure C120d or C120d Mark II
 

That's fair. Getting rid of the stand is going to be a huge plus, no matter which way you decide to go with it.
You won't be able to do any vertical height adjustment on that one but if you don't mind, it's pretty much impossible to beat that price. 
 
You can always decide what solution you'd like to use for your second monitor later. Once you get the UW mounted, you can see what kind of space it leaves you and I'm sure it'll give you a much better idea of what looks best for your setup. Best of luck!

I think it depends on what you're looking for when you say 4K.
There's panels like the LG 38GL950G, which is 3840*1600. You're correct in that it isn't "true" 4K or DCI 4K.
No ultrawide will be in the expected 3840*2160 resolution, simply because of the aspect ratio.
So you'll either have to look for something like the 38GL950G, which is 4K in the horizontal dimension, or something like the LG 34WK95U-W, which is 5120*2160, which is "4K" in the vertical dimension. (and 5K in the horizontal).
 
To help the rest of us make better suggestions, can you elaborate a little more on *exactly* what you're looking for?

Totally a subjective opinion thing that depends on your personal visual acuity, the type of content you interact with, and how close you sit to your displays.
 
That being said, the *general* recommended advice is that 24" is a good size for 1080p, 27" is a good size for 1440p, and 32" is a good size for 4K. 
 
4K at 27" is definitely going to be sharper. You can do the PPI calculation and compare it to other sizes and see if you're in the neighborhood of what you're shooting for.
 
I personally find that 32" is a great size for my 4K display such that I can use it without any additional scaling and am not able to discern individual pixels unless I look closely. This is purely anecdotal and you may find your preferences differ greatly from mine. 

As nox stated above, it may be more helpful in this case to not think of the chair as your standard, run-of-the-mill desk chair that most people are used to buying.
 
These chairs are expensive, built to last, and built to be sat in for MANY hours of the day. As a durable good, they hold their value better than many other office items. Hence the entire business of office seconds distributors, who are in business to try and capture some of that value that these items hold.
A better analogy may be something like a used car. (I know cars are more expensive, it's just an apt analogy.)
The car and chair both went for a high price when new. Some business has had this chair sitting in a conference room in an office park somewhere for a few years where it got used during meetings. When that business closes, or decides to relocate, they're not going to deal with the hassle of transporting all their furniture to the new spot. It's much cheaper for them to get a contract for delivery of entirely new items.
So a seconds distrubutor will come in, buy the furniture from the business, pull it out and warehouse it, and then sell it to people like you who want a quality item without the expense of having to buy factory new.

I bought used HM chair 12 years ago and it still works and looks great, it's worth every cent imo and I am a wheelchair user that has to transfer himself from the wheelchair to use the chair and I do that because it's more comfortable than my 15k custom made wheelchair.

Right there with ya. Although, now that they've officially released a lot more of the specs for the R5, I feel much more confident that they've felt the fire that Sony lit under them and came out swinging.
 
I'm hoping that the dynamic range and DPAF live up to the hype of the promo images.
Fingers crossed, we might get the top dog this go-round.

All cables and ports specifically called "DisplayPort" will have the same shape and pin-out arrangement. For the MOST part, all DisplayPort cables will work up to the full spec of any version designation, *unless* they're labeled as a "reduced bit rate" cable.
 
Basically, feel comfortable in choosing any monitor that has a DP input. As long as you have a decent, non-bargainbasement cable, it will be plug-and-play, and you'll get the max out of your display.

Doesn't exist.

EOS R5 would look like a good option, or even the R6.
 
The EOS R is a decent camera, but I wouldn't use it for birding, though with a bit of patience and work, it can work, it's just not ideal.

I actually like the opposing idea better. And then as @LyondellBasell mentioned, a disclaimer for lenses as well.
It's just such a big market on it's own, but hard to introduce to someone who's just  trying to get into it.

okay so body only with lens mentioned will be what I go with.

This might be an outlier opinion but I would leave the lens costs out. Put in a "disclaimer" or reminder that newcomers will need to factor in lens costs before immediately jumping into a purchase, but I don't think lens costs are part of a camera buying guide.
 
There are so many use cases, preferences, options, and cross-mount adapters that making lens recommendations is best done on a case-by-case basis.
 
I recognize that alot of people new to photography might be reading the guide.
If they're so new that they don't know what to look for, then a used starter camera with the kit lens is pretty much always the best recommendation.
If they have enough experience that they know they want to go in a certain direction, then they can absolutely make a post asking for "best next lens to get".

Regarding the poll, I think once you get up into the higher priced bodies, the only focus could really just be the body itself.
If you're paying upward of 1-2000$ on a camera, you'll probably know what type of lens you'll need

Nah, you're good. As long as the mechanical operation of the pump hasn't been affected and you can seal it back up properly, it's gonna be okay. Fill it back up to the max with water and carefully reassemble. You won't be able to use the warranty but you haven't bricked it.

the galaxy s20 is definitely NOT 108 MP most pro cameras don't even go half that high, besides the sony A9 sony's most expensive and high end camera for photos is only 34 mp if you don't plan on learning photography get a phone because if you leave a camera on auto exposure... it's not going to do much better. real cameras are complex tools, you can get amazing pictures out of cameras... but you need to know how to use your tools.  if you are planning on getting into photography get an actual camera (a6000 is a great choice) and learn it. if you want to just snap a pic and have it look pretty good... get a phone. it all depends on what you plan to use it for.

I think I need to update my camera firmware to get the maximum potential of my camera.
 
Yes, after all the readings and posts I've been through, I think by getting a better lens is the best way to avoid chromatic aberration, but I'm still on a beginner level to get a better lens than my current prime lens as I'm still learning how to photograph properly with it and I haven't used it to its full potential yet, so I won't get myself a better lens before I start to feel that my current lens is already not enough for my purposes.
 
Nice inputs I got here, so thanks for the knowledge.

My guess would be overloaded hardware, open up task manger and watch. It could also just be configured poorly.

Both optical and electronic viewfinders have it positives and negatives. Everyone that says that one of them better in all ways or all situations or for everyone is just plain wrong.
 
I prefer EVF because I can in normal situations can se more what the photo actually will look like. (Rather than OVF that you see more what irl world looks like) also the exsta information you can add in the viewfinder. 
But it's up to a person what of them is better, none of them is superior in all ways, and that will always be the case.
 
That said, EVF is going to continue to get better, but OVF won't.

Just to contribute to this: no matter what camera you end up deciding to buy, adding lighting will be more impactful.
It will be worth your budget to pick up a few compact LED lights that you can use to spotlight some of the action.
It's not going to be some giant lamp with day-from-night capabilities, but if you can even get a backlight to help your viewers pick out the silhouette of the rider while they're doing their tricks, it'll make your videos alot better than 1 more f-stop on a lens will.

I don't see an issue with the original, unless you are seriously pixel peeking with something like a 4k monitor, which you should stop doing.
 
Seriously, learn how to do video work; go read some books and watch some videos on the topic. If you don't know what you are doing, you aren't going to get good results.