Well, I'm sorry if I repeated what you had already said. No, I take that back, I'm not. I had already visited this thread several times, each time starting with the post listed in the e-mail I received. And yes, sometimes I forget what I've already read - blame it on my gray hair!
As to the size and weight of an m4/3 camera, I don't know the weight of all the different models, but the m4/3 I have (Oly OM-D E-M1) would be too heavy for left-handed use. Heck, it's even too heavy for right-handed use without the help of the left hand!

I watched the online Nikon Z6/7 Hands-on Panel Discussion (twice) as well as watched or read user reviews on numerous web sites, but I still don’t understand why I should want or need this new mirrorless camera. I currently own a Nikon D810 and two Nikon Df’s along with a variety of AI-S, D, G and E lenses. What are the compelling reasons why I should add this camera to my current Nikon product collection or replace one of my existing cameras? And if for some reason I need a mirrorless camera, wouldn’t I be better off buying a Fujifilm XT2 with a Nikon F mount converter?

This week in a B&H email there was an article/ad about Nikon's new mirrolress DSLR coming soon (see link below). There are rumors about Canon also coming out with their own as well. That's great that they are finally getting into the game. I would expect that these two giant's will knock the socks of Sony with all of years of experience.

But, what was real interesting to me was the confirmation that the Nikon mirrorless will feature a brand-new mount (no official word from Canon yet), one that Nikon claims opens the door for groundbreaking optical opportunities. Now, bringing it home, that puts me in a bind, because I was looking to purchase the Canon 100-400 IS II L lens this year and a new camera in 2019 or early 2020. There is talk about an adapter, but who know how that will work out. My budget is limited and I hate to spend money into a dying line.

Your thoughts on continuing to invest in the current line of DSLR?

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/photography/news/nikons-exciting-entry-into-full-frame-mirrorless?utm_medium=Email%201686209&utm_campaign=Newsletter&utm_source=Newsletter%20180725&utm_content=Retail&utm_term=nikons-exciting-entry-into-full-frame-mirrorless&encEmail=964B8F39F761D7DFF6FF726CA3679A786B3059AF55EC711E95DC83FAE9BD5BF9

I do regret that I apparently can not attach photos to these messages to show my hopelessly inadequate landscape pictures taken with a 135 mm lens on my A6000, for which 135 mm is the equivalent of about 200 mm. Even is they are not as tack sharp as I would like.

I *do* statistically analyze the scenic pictures I taken that I think are worthy of keeping. More than 15% of them are taken with the 135 mm lens.

I do fail to see why my discussing my quest for a better lens should then subject me to ridicule. I'd like to think I know what I am doing. If I don't - hard lines. It's my money I'm spending.

Most of the comments here have been constructive and those I do appreciate.

Cheers

Time to add some comments in response.

For one, when I do lens testing, I use a tripod. I use the focus magnifier the Sony A6000 series has. I trigger the test exposure using an infra-red remote. I test the lens at multiple apertures. Since I am shooting across a valley from my house, I only shoot test exposures in the morning before there is any heat distortion.

I do own wide angle lenses down to 18 mm. And I sometimes use them. But most of my shots are taken with longer lenses. I suggest anyone who thinks scenic photography requires wide angle lenses is missing a lot of opportunity. I personally live in an area of hills and mountains, where there is plenty of opportunity for long lens shots.

One of the advantages of a very sharp lens is that you can find multiple pictures inside one exposure, crop them out and still have presentable images. And when possible go back and shoot them again with a longer lens...

As to affording the hobby, let me only say that money is not a primary issue. But I worked hard for my money and I expect value for it. I refuse to spend a lot of money for "features" I do not need or want.

What do I want in a lens of a given focal length? First, sharpness and contrast. Second - build quality. Third - light weight. Fourth - price. Note that a large aperture is not on my list. Lenses in the class of the 60 mm f/2.8 Sigma lens referenced earlier are my sweet spot - not the large aperture bombsights that seem to be what lens suppliers are rushing to market.

Cheers