What ever happened to your anaswer to my last question: why won't you admit the obvious and well-known truth?

And here's another: What makes you think you're a photographer, tdekany?

You walked into a store (K-Mart? Best Buy?) and bought a camera. That makes you
a camera owner. Period. Unless you learn to understand photography, you are not a
photographer.

If you had bought a paintbox instead, you'd think you were an artist. Or if you'd
bought a pen, that would make you a writer. Buying is easy; understanding
is difficult. If you don't know what you're doing--then you don't know what you
doing!

My dog once sniffed a camera and depressed the shutter button. In your book, that
makes my dog a photographer. And guess what: the photo my dog took is more
interesting than the images you posted. And he's a smart dog.

Re your question of 16MP half frame vs 12MP full frame.

I had this discussion when I was trying to decide Olympus M1 or Nikon D700. At the end of a Scott Kelby seminar I attended, I
asked him this:

In the film days, bigger film meant more detail. What governs the detail in digital? Will a full frame 12MP give you more detail than a 16MP APS or 4/3 sensor?

His answer was that pixels are pixels - more is better for detail. Where you will trade off is in noise - FF is better because the pixels are bigger.

This is logical, as you are dividing an image up into 16 or 12 million small pieces and the displaying it. Which way would have more detail? Of course the one consisting of more pieces.

You are shooting landscape, so the other advantage of FF, where you can get shallower DOF than with the crop sensor, is no great advantage to you.

I chose the Olympus over the Nikon because I just could not see myself carrying that D700 everywhere (it overwhelmed the MeFoto tripod I was using).
I am very happy with my choice and I recently bought a Mark II which is 20MP and even has better noise control than the M1.1.

Part of my decision was monetary - for the money I had, I could buy a brand new Oly kit or a used Nikon. The other factor was that I trusted Scott's analysis - he encouraged me to go with the Nikon because it is main stream but acknowledged that the greater detail would come from the half frame camera, so I knew he wasn't speaking out of his - oops - I mean he was giving me an honest answer.

Also, the mainstream issue is not such a factor anymore. You can get a lot of aftermarket equipment for Oly now that did not exist when I was shooting their DSLRs.
And the menu is just something you need to deal with when you decide to make some change that can't be handled by Aperture, Shutter Speed, ISO, and WB settings. Pretty much the stuff you use day to day is right there on the 2 buttons near the power switch or accessible via the Super Control Panel. People obsess too much over the menus in this camera and I just remember that "Google is you friend".

Your images are great so looks like the equipment you have is serving you well. (Is that Bath Rd. heronry?) If you're comfortable with Nikon then keep it and sell off what you don't use or want. After you sell it, then you can have GAS with your earnings. Maybe get something to challenge your skills even more, like a macro lens for your Nikons. Don't lose sleep over it. In the end, what you have now is a good collection. When the kids get done with college, then you can go hog wild in the camera store! (This is what I'm waiting for....)

Look in your family photo albums. All photos before the 1930s will be in medium or large format.
It used to be common. Kodak sold millions of medium format cameras to snapshotters.

Then go and try to buy a large format camera. You might need to take out a second mortgage.

The photos in your family album will probably some taken with box cameras, view cameras, field camers,
and TLRs. Most will probaby be taken with rangefinders.

About three digital true rangefinders are avaiable -- all extermely expensive. Only one is monochrome--and
ever more expensive (around $8000).

What we have here is a near mass exctintion of all types of camera other than one: miniature and subminiature
color digital sensors. This is a huge change. Used film cameras are still available, but "the species has stopped
reproducing".

If that doesn't matter to you, great! But allow that it might matter to other people who need these tools and are not wealthy.

You said the "the right tool for the job" -- but I guess that only means your job.

I formulate all my darkroom chemicals: film developer, stop, fixer, print developer, print fixer, toner,
print washer, and even photoflow. That way, I know who to blame if something goes wrong.

Were it necessary, I could sensitize paper. So the only thing I am forced to buy is film. The selection is a tiny
fraction of what it once was, but the modern films that are avaliable are very, very good.

However, equipment is hard to come by. And not every photographer is a repairman.
It is becoming very difficult to find people who can repair cameras and lenses (I do not mean
send them back to the factory). They are going the way of watchmakers.

Hey, it's a disposable world! Live with it. Or, as the case may be....die with it. Because the
planet can only take so much consumption and waste.

And from a purely economic perspective: digital camera shpiments are down over 70% since 2011,
yet there are still just as many camera companies and models. The numbe of lens mounts in current
production just doubled.

That is not a stable situation. Remember Minolta cameras? Konica Minolta made a smart decision
and got out of the camera business in 2006 -- just five years before the camera market collapsed.
Minolta will not be the last Japanese company to exit the camera business. Nor will Kodak
be the last camera company to file for bankruptcy.

In the future, you may be shooting with a smart phone because that's all you can buy for less than
some absurd amount of money. It could happen.

The consumer doesn't care about photography as a profession or as an art form. He just likes
snapping photos. Smart phones will do that. And in today's world, the consumer is king.

Contentless, as usual. Abusive, as usual.

It's not a "claim" that miniature format has more diffraction (= less resolution) and less depth-of-field than
large format: it's a fact.

There are indeed some landscape subjects that do not require either resolution or depth-of-field: for example,
a fog bank. But most landscape subjects benefit from good detail both over as much depth as possible.

If you can produce an image with as much detail as the following using miniature format, I'd love ot see it:

By Bruce Barnbaum:
http://www.fourfriendsgallery.com/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/Bruce-Barnbaum01-1.jpg