It would also have to have the professional user interface/operating system (like the Z8, not the Z7) to be a true replacement. My impression is that a camera called a Z90 will be a consumer-grade camera by the current nomenclature. There are also a whole host of other requirements. I would expect a price much closer to $3000. It's closest relative would be the Z8, not the lower-tier murrorless cameras.

I personally am not holding my breath for such a camera. The crop sensor was a manufacturing compromise, because it was just too difficult to make "full size" sensors. Now that sensor technology is more mature, that motivation is not nearly as strong. It is also going to be ever more difficult for companies to support making multiple formats if the market continues to shrink.

The next "new" camera that I buy (if it happens) will be a Z8 or whatever similar model is available when that happens. But I do not plan to ever get rid of my D500s. They are just too good (for everything, not just birds, sports, and wildlife). Several here like to make fun of me for having that attitude, but I really don't care. Their ignorance doesn't phase me in the least.

So my advice is to take good care of that D500. You might even consider buying a second one if you can find a nice one at a good price.

I would second the 24-105mm zoom. I've taken two significant trips over the past two years with a full-frame camera and a 24-120mm f/4 zoom. That's what my camera maker offers instead of a 24-105. These trips involved visits to major passenger stations, passenger train rides, bus tours, museum visits, and visits to model railroads. Past trips have also involved tours of various industries. I missed exactly zero shots, although I did need to stirch one panorama of the exterior of the Topeka Union Pacific passenger station. It's a huge building, and our vantage point was just a little too close.

I had never been interested in the 16-80 until recently. There are several nice things about it. The maximum aperture drops very slowly from f/2.8 and doesn't reach f/4 until right at 80mm. It is quite light weight, and is optically quite good, but not perfect. If you do video, the electronic aperture (the "E" in the description), is very quiet.

There are some negatives. The new price for this lens is almost $1100. It is not an $1100 lens. The full-frame 24-120 f/4 G is the same price and is a much better and better made lens. Also...the one I bought will often not initiate autofocus below 35mm or so. I haven't been able to determine if that is a common problem or not, but mine is getting ready to go to Nikon for repair.

If mine comes back operating more reliably, I'll have much nicer things to say about it. My main suggestion is to be careful about how much you pay. I wouldn't go more than about $500 or $550 for a very nice used one.

Actually, I'm finding the responses to the original question quite interesting. And the editorial responses are absolutely illuminating.

I have used your same analogy, except that I didn't remove the numbers. There's probably a spectrum of analogies that can be used, ranging from a blank coloring book page, to paint-by-numbers, to hand-tinting black & white prints, to restoring old paintings, and maybe beyond that. Of course, Adobe and other tools really don't even require the coloring book lines. They support starting with a blank page.

I do not presume to speak for anyone else. Ever. I do find the responses on this forum fascinating and quite often quite puzzling. My signature also clearly states that I do not give one whit about anyone else doing anything the way that I do.

As an obvious member of the minority here, I also find it fascinating to repeatedly accused of claiming to speak for some mysterious majority. Perhaps there is some pervasive but hidden insecurity lurking among the ranks.

For this discussion, I suggest a little bit of patience to see what the results of the current survey might show. Folks way beyond the limits of "the usual suspects" are responding.

The poll that is currently ongoing is producing some very interesting results. A surprising number of responders are indicating that they ask their cameras to produce both formats.

No one has ever heard me say that SOOC is the only way. I don't believe that, and I don't do photography that way. I am doing quite a bit of photography right now that requires me submit usable JPEGs for possible publication at the end of each session, but that's nowhere near the same as preaching that SOOC is the only way. And I have a lot of images from my D200 days that I really wish I had raw versions to work with.

What I do say is that today's cameras offer outstanding performance and a huge range of adjustments that easily support making print-ready JPEGs straight from the camera, even in what used to be considered very difficult situations. But accomplishing those results requires some amount of learning and the willingness to accomplish that learning. And the willingness to thi k a little bit differently. On top of all that, accomplishing those results can be done without causing any damage to the precious raw files.

And yes...I am aware that some raw enthusiasts follow some quite extreme methods to support their approach. But again, with the modern cameras that have been available for the last 10 years or so, that extremism is no longer necessary. I take no offense to the continued usage, only to the continued claim that "it is the only way," or even that "it is the best way."

So yes...there are extremes on both sides, but there is a significant imbalance.

Thanks again to those who provided useful information. I have created a service case and will have this lens on the way to the Signal Hill repair center either tomorrow or Wednesday. It should come back as essentially a new lens, since it is cosmetically near-perfect.

Both.

What I said is true. And yes, all images are processed in some way by the camera. What the OP and I are talking about is being very intentional to use available camera adjustments to achieve usable JPEGs straight from the camera. As long as people here are unaware of what has gone on, life is fine. Once they know, most posts shift to why it can't be done. And if it can, it certainly shouldn't be.

I consider it so. Otherwise, why pay all that money for cameras that can do it.

And the capabilities are pretty great. After our earlier discussion, I went back and looked at the difference in what my D200 offered in-camera against what my newer cameras can do. Huge difference. Moved me a lot closer to your thinking about the D200.

Just as a comment...you will find that the vocal majority here are quite hostile to the notion that it is possible to achieve worthy results directly from the camera (read that as "any camera).
You will get the best results by posting such images without comment or distinguishing notes. When responses come back positive, you can later inform that no processing was done.

I agree with your approach. Processing as necessary should be done to optimize, not to fill a period of time. I do agree that proceeding in a logical or proven sequence has merit. But it's not a "once through and done" process. I participated in a comprehensive post processing workshop last month. Our leader demonstrated to us the significant number of interconnections and dependencies among the various adjustments. He showed us numerous cases in which subsequent adjustments altered carefully done changes made earlier in the process.

So any sequence, if intended as directing one pass and done, is almost certain to yield final results not representative of what was intended.

Just a couple of observations and questions. I sense some familiarity with your son's home. I'm guessing that you may have visited before. I see from your profile that you are a birder. From what I know, Columbia is a near-ideal place to do that. So my guess is that your time will be spent on the patio and visiting birding locations with whoever wants to share the experience.

So the questions are whether you need your longest lenses in such a rich shooting environment and whether your 18-400 zoom can deliver images that you will be happy with. I can't answer either of those, but I'm betting that you can, with a little thought.