After pretty much exhausting the interesting subjects in my undersized back yard, I've been using my time in confinement to review some of my technical approaches and photographic techniques as well as some of my more "strategic" choices, like which lenses should reside on which cameras by default, now that I am fortunate enough to have more than just a single camera to work with. The more I look at this, the more really good and defensible options appear, So while I could tell you which way I am leaning, I'm not at a final solution yet. What follows is not presented here as any sort of trolling post. Thoughtful, intelligent responses will be appreciated, but I'm not yet trying to change anyone's mind...just turning thoughts over in my own mind, which admittedly can sometimes be dangerous.

Anyway...the upshot of this is that I've had multiple cameras and multiple lenses out, and have been playing with various combinations and noting the advantages and disadvantages of each. I'm working with two full frame and two crop frame bodies, and a range of lenses, only two of which are DX versions, since I stopped buying them some time ago.

A couple of days ago, I was in a hurry to use my D500 for a specific assignment, so I very quickly swapped the 18-200mm zoom that was on it with the 24-120mm zoom that was on my D810. (For the reader, this means that the 18-200mm DX lens was now on the D810.) When I finished, for some reason, I just returned the D500 and 24-120 to their resting spot, leaving all lenses installed as they were.

Fast forward to today. I grabbed the D810 to carry into the back yard with my coffee mug, just in case there was something there worth capturing. Of course, it was supposed to be equipped with the 24-120, but now had the 18-200. To be honest, the level of opportunity didn't seem to merit getting up and swapping everything back to be as it should be, so I just sat down with what I had. The big question to be solved was how to set everything up, since there were at least three workable options. (I do not have my full frame bodies set to automatically crop when a DX lens is installed.) The first was just to just leave everything as it was. This would provide an image covering essentially all of the frame at the 18mm end, and some vignetting at longer focal lengths. Images could be easily fixed by cropping later. The second was to set to a 24x24mm square format, which would be fully covered by the lens at all focal lengths. The last was to set for a DX crop. This is my least favorite choice, because it is the least imaginative and makes the most minimal use of the sensor. But it's what I did this time, for no particularly important reason.

As it turned out, there really was nothing of interest meriting an image. But it was pretty nice being out with my D810 and that really lightweight lens. And the experience did plant a thought in my head. (I already stated above that this can sometimes be a dangerous thing...)

If I were in a position of moving from DX to FX, and if I knew that I would be able to have only one camera going forward, I would intentionally retain my same camera manufacturer so that I could retain the option to use my old DX lenses. And I would not sell all of those lenses. I'd keep at least one of them, probably the one that most capably fulfills a "general usage" function (and that I'd used the most). I'd use it while saving to buy a really good FX lens and while learning to use my new camera. And I'd keep it for those occasions that I wanted to do "casual" photography...where I wanted to be able to capture images, but where I was not going to be able to salivate over the "perfect" image. And where I wanted to control the weight that I was carrying or to not expose my best lenses to damage or theft. And for those occasions where I wanted to capture images that were probably at least as good as those that I'd been capturing all along (and probably somewhat or quite a bit better).

Now I fully expect that a herd of purists will come forward and say that this is the dumbest waste of who knows what that they have ever heard about. And that's OK, I guess. But I am planning to explore this option further for myself, and until I find a rational argument against, I'm going to include it among any suggested options for those who are thinking of migrating

You have too many options because you have so much equipment. I have a Z6 and a D500. The latter sits unused because the Z6 is so good, coupling it with Z series lenses. I think that the camera manufacturers have done a great job by specifying which camera is the best for which particular situation. The D500 was marketed as a great camera for action. However, through the three years that I used it and used it extensively, it was great for portraits, still life, multiple images, landscapes - in fact any type of photography that I wanted to do. I was limited by the quality of certain lenses that I owned. I purchased the Z6 last summer and have two Z series lenses. Should I only use this camera for whatever purpose the manufacturer said it was designed for? Bunk - I use it in all shooting situations. I am presently into capturing motion and have done multiple images, zoom bursts, panning, long shutter speeds up to the maximum of 30 seconds (without going to Bulb), etc. etc. Woe is me if someone were to tell me that I must use this or that camera for this or that shoot! I fortunately have the resources to go out and buy more Nikon cameras - I like Nikon. I would love the D850 or the Z7 but when would I use it and why? The Z6 does it all. I do agree that carrying two cameras on a shoot can be an advantage to not changing lenses in the field, whole on a shoot. However, with tripod (tripods?), extra batteries, clothing needs and whatnot, the heavy burden makes for some heavy slogging. I don't know about you but I have a challenge watching over one camera, my extra lenses, my tripod or monopod. Everything seems to drop, not all at once, but in a disordered fashion.

After pretty much exhausting the interesting subjects in my undersized back yard, I've been using my time in confinement to review some of my technical approaches and photographic techniques as well as some of my more "strategic" choices, like which lenses should reside on which cameras by default, now that I am fortunate enough to have more than just a single camera to work with. The more I look at this, the more really good and defensible options appear, So while I could tell you which way I am leaning, I'm not at a final solution yet. What follows is not presented here as any sort of trolling post. Thoughtful, intelligent responses will be appreciated, but I'm not yet trying to change anyone's mind...just turning thoughts over in my own mind, which admittedly can sometimes be dangerous.

Anyway...the upshot of this is that I've had multiple cameras and multiple lenses out, and have been playing with various combinations and noting the advantages and disadvantages of each. I'm working with two full frame and two crop frame bodies, and a range of lenses, only two of which are DX versions, since I stopped buying them some time ago.

A couple of days ago, I was in a hurry to use my D500 for a specific assignment, so I very quickly swapped the 18-200mm zoom that was on it with the 24-120mm zoom that was on my D810. (For the reader, this means that the 18-200mm DX lens was now on the D810.) When I finished, for some reason, I just returned the D500 and 24-120 to their resting spot, leaving all lenses installed as they were.

Fast forward to today. I grabbed the D810 to carry into the back yard with my coffee mug, just in case there was something there worth capturing. Of course, it was supposed to be equipped with the 24-120, but now had the 18-200. To be honest, the level of opportunity didn't seem to merit getting up and swapping everything back to be as it should be, so I just sat down with what I had. The big question to be solved was how to set everything up, since there were at least three workable options. (I do not have my full frame bodies set to automatically crop when a DX lens is installed.) The first was just to just leave everything as it was. This would provide an image covering essentially all of the frame at the 18mm end, and some vignetting at longer focal lengths. Images could be easily fixed by cropping later. The second was to set to a 24x24mm square format, which would be fully covered by the lens at all focal lengths. The last was to set for a DX crop. This is my least favorite choice, because it is the least imaginative and makes the most minimal use of the sensor. But it's what I did this time, for no particularly important reason.

As it turned out, there really was nothing of interest meriting an image. But it was pretty nice being out with my D810 and that really lightweight lens. And the experience did plant a thought in my head. (I already stated above that this can sometimes be a dangerous thing...)

If I were in a position of moving from DX to FX, and if I knew that I would be able to have only one camera going forward, I would intentionally retain my same camera manufacturer so that I could retain the option to use my old DX lenses. And I would not sell all of those lenses. I'd keep at least one of them, probably the one that most capably fulfills a "general usage" function (and that I'd used the most). I'd use it while saving to buy a really good FX lens and while learning to use my new camera. And I'd keep it for those occasions that I wanted to do "casual" photography...where I wanted to be able to capture images, but where I was not going to be able to salivate over the "perfect" image. And where I wanted to control the weight that I was carrying or to not expose my best lenses to damage or theft. And for those occasions where I wanted to capture images that were probably at least as good as those that I'd been capturing all along (and probably somewhat or quite a bit better).

Now I fully expect that a herd of purists will come forward and say that this is the dumbest waste of who knows what that they have ever heard about. And that's OK, I guess. But I am planning to explore this option further for myself, and until I find a rational argument against, I'm going to include it among any suggested options for those who are thinking of migrating

OK. Here’s some actual “Better Advice” concerning “migration” ... as pertains to the issue of a limited budget:

If the budget will improve later, then the impatient user gets to suffer from their own intentional bad timing.

If the budget is chronically limited then it’s simply a bad idea all around, and again the user suffers by their own hand.

========================

It’s not all budgetary doom and gloom. FF is hardly a necessity. APSC is a terrifically capable format. It gets a bad rap cuz it happens to be the platform for most of the entry level dreck. Clearly, one does NOT need FF to tremendously improve away from that level. AAMOF verrrrry few users NEED anything larger than APSC.

My first digital camera was a Nikon D-300. Most of my work was still on medium and large format film and I did have several Nikon F-series camera leftover from my press days and for the odd job that required 35mm color slides. I had a fairly decent collection of Nikon lenses that were somewhat compatible with the D-300.

I saw the "writing on the wall". the digital photography age was upon us- coming fast and it was time to get a basic camera, at least to begin installing the post-processing gear and learning how to use it efficiently and phase it in. A funny thing happened- within a week an order came in for "photomurals"- extremely large prints that were going to be used in a sales office, trade show booth, and signage to be displayed on the sides of buses and trucks. The job was for a company franchising out fitness businesses- gyms with personal trainers and all kinds of equipment. The actual prints were to be produced by a company that specialized in producing theses displays form digital media. I took a chance and shot it on the D-300 and the results were surprisingly good- some might say "excellent"! The client, the art director, and the printing company though so!

I knew that as the technologies emerged that bigger, better, and sharper cameras with more sophisticated features would soon replace my modest system but the additional upcoming expenses did not phase me because it was much worse, investment and obsolescence wise, in the film days. When photographers progressed to a larger format like from 35mm to medium format or further up the road to large format- none of the lenses overlaped- each system was onto itself, usually from different manufacturers, little or no adaptation were available or possible, and there emerged a whole new set of optical issues to address.

Large format view cameras added new meaning to the concept of format coverage. It was nice to have all those shifts and tilts but the circle of coverage had to be enormous. Vignetting was a dirty word because not only could it occur for an ill-fitting lens shade or filter but from a lens that could not cover the entire film plane when the front standard was shifted. The concept of the circle of coverage became a big issue The degree of vignetting was not really apparent on the ground glass till the lens was stopped down. So... your 240mm (normal) lens for a 4x5 camera had to cover an 8x10 film so that all the image management could be applied. A super wide-angle less for an 8X10 camera had to cover a 16x20 format and set me back 6-grand (pre-inflation dollars) that I did not have but had to come up with for my architectural clients who insisted on 8x10 transparencies. Then I had to upgrade the camera from a wooden old Deerdorf to a metal Linhof one because the lens was the size of a bazooka, weighed a "ton" and the old camera couldn't support it!

When I purchased that D-300, some of my photographer friends laughed at me- they said it was a toy and that film will prevail. My argument was that electronic newsgathering technology (video)started to replace "newsreel" film production in the late 1960s and "film at 11" became "tape" not at 11 o'clock but almost as the news broke and it was just a matter of time that digital/electronic photography will repace film and computer-driven production will replace the darkroom!

The great thing is that an upgrade in format size usually does yield a surprising and welcome improvement in image fidelity. This was and still is the case- an upgrade of format size did and does yield a surprising and welcome improvement in image fidelity, especially were large prints and screen images are called for.

There is no use in complaining about why bigger sensors did no emerge sooner. Being an old man with a gray beard, the only thing that annoys me about dying is that I'm gonna miss all the great stuff that is coming in the future - so I'm trying to keep healthy and hang in the world as long as possible!