Sure, I settle for that.

You are correct, however the DX frame is cropped and you do not have a choice to see the missing field that an FX sensor can capture. Effectively, without any external manipulation the FX bird will be smaller than a DX bird. Since I store most of the images without making changes to the size, the FX results will alway show a smaller subject than the results of the DX sensor picture and will have a 1.5 magnification ratio to images of a given focal lens compared to an FX sensor. Depth of field has no bearing on the image size.

Believe your eyes not the pixels, the image is 1.5 times bigger with a DX sensor compared to an FX one using the same lens. It does not matter the equivalent or other nonsense, when compared to a different sensor, the bird is bigger, period. Even Apple said so.

What you see is what you get; an FX camera will have a smaller image of the bird than a DX sensor using the same lens. Pixels smixels, it does not matter; the bird will be larger from a DX sensor when shown on a monitor or printed on the same size paper. That does not sound confusing, everything else said was.

I could never get used to the Sony menus. I spent more time fiddling with menus than I did with taking pictures. I know it is just me; but then when the shoe does not fit get a different shoe, and I did. Went back to my trusted Nikon cameras. Ratings did not address my issues.

I am not that good at remembering to bring everything when I rush. Having a flash on the camera is better than no flash on the camera when you need it and left the external flash at home or worse, the batteries are corroded.

I am not that good at remembering to bring everything when I rush. Having a flash on the camera is better than no flash on the camera when you need it and left the external flash at home or worse, the batteries are corroded.

I miss my built-in flash; on occasions it saved a nice picture. However since I wanted the Nikon Z and no such option was available, I compromised. The interesting part is that these cameras have such great low light capability that the flash has become less of an issue. If I know I will be shooting close subjects in low or poor light, I will bring the smallest Nikon flash, to fit nicely in my pocket. Therefore, I am saying good bye to the built in flash,

I thought you wanted to remote control the shutter and use the phone as a viewfinder. As a side note you can also transfer images.

The phone hotspot is not used to connect to the camera. For lack of a better description, the camera creates the hot spot. You could change the SSID name and the log in password or use the camera default name. Then you can use those credentials to log onto the camera’s WiFi network from your phone. When the connection is established, the SnapBridge app will have control and you can view and transfer images to the phone.

The camera has a WiFi setting in "Connect to smart device" menu; click on that and then turn on the WiFi setting note the SSID and set your phone to that network. go back to the app and you should be able to control your camera from the phone.

Make sure the phone is connected to the camera Wifi, not the home or office WiFi; need to turn on the Z6 or 7 wifi setting and search on the phone for that SSID. Then go to the app and you should be able to link Snapbridge to the camera; you will be able to see all the images that are stored on the XQD or whatever format used to store images on the camera.

I am not shooting RAW, only JPEG. Could that be the difference? RAW may not allow full res transfer.

Not true, it has the option to transfer 2Mb or full resolution with my Z6. I always use full res to transfer.
I don't have any issues with snapbridge using WiFi; however I was never successful using Bluetooth connection. so I stick to what works. I can also control the camera, by using my phone as the camera viewfinder and trigger the shutter. Comes in handy when I set the camera on a tripod and not being able to be near the camera.

I wonder what the UHH record of blogs is; this one has amassed 21 pages and still going strong. Such a simple subject; what's better, Ansel Adams prints or digital images? Or to be more specific and staying on the subject; trying to replicate his images with digital cameras. I would suggest that such a comparison raises Ansel Adams to a new height in photography standards, he has successfully been compared to the most advanced images produced in modern times after almost 100 years later. I must say that makes Ansel the gold standard of photography. We are all playing catch up with his images. Kudos to Ansel Adams.