Never fix a camera that was slow to start with. Panasonic has made such huge improvements just in the last four years that if you have a slightly older Lumix, any repair over about 20% of the cost of a new one is not worth it.

The FZ60, for example, came out in 2012. You can get a new one for about $250., but unless you really loved the old one, $50 would be a lot of money to spend to fix it.

The G7, on the other hand, came out in 2015, and a new one will cost you $500. Most users liked most everything about that camera, and if I had a broken one, I would repair it, even at $100.

My experience with tiny cameras is that no one really has problems with the buttons being to small. What they are really having problems with is that the grip is too small, and it doesn't leave their fingers sitting on the right button.

If you have to get a bigger grip, it is usually worth the trouble. Even though it will make the camera larger and heavier, it will make it easier to pick up, and will leave your fingers in the right place when you do.

It is better to have a slightly larger camera that you love using than a tiny camera that you hate.

I use Sony, but if you like the D850, it is an amazing camera. You literally can't go wrong.

For what you shoot, portraits, real estate, classic cars, and landscapes, you do not need the speed and Autofocus tracking capabilities of the D850, but it is nice to know it is there if you want it.

I would say go ahead and spend the money.

Yes, you can get the same megapixel count and save a couple thousand by buying a Sony A7Rii, but I would recommend against it unless you would get a really substantial enjoyment out of the savings. Most people on this board would rather skip a few meals and have the camera that they want.

You can also get a Sony A7Riv, which has even more remarkable autofocus, and a handful of extra megapixels. But as far as what you want and what you need, you will be more than happy with the D850.

A few studies in the last year have shown that (for newer sensors) the amount of additional noise that you get from doubling the pixel count is almost zero.

As a result, the camera companies dramatically increased the pixel count. This lets the user decide how many pixels they want, and gives us files that are more versatile to work with. It is an added benefit with almost no down-side, other than to your wallet.

I am kind of with the people who say "cell phone". Modern cell phones are way better than they were just a few years ago, and the ability to have them with you all the time is a better feature than pure image quality.

Be sure to get an app that allows you to shoot in "sports mode" for when the kids won't be still. It is better to freeze the action sometimes, even if you get a really grainy picture.

If they have the room and the inclination to carry a pocket camera, I still recommend the Canon Elph 180. It has a decent zoom range, a decent level of features, and you can buy it with one of the little tabletop tripods for about $150.

It also depends on your style of shooting. If you are more slow and deliberate, and you shoot a lot of portraits, the Sony will give you a better apparent sharpness, and usable picture quality. Even though MFT has made progress, the shallow depth of field that you get from a full-frame and a prime is still better than almost anything in MFT. The only drawback is that the autofocus on an A7II can be annoying if you are in a hurry.

If you need the faster autofocus, or you "run and gun" and adjust your style and perspective a lot, then then Olympus is the way to go. The autofocus is much faster, and the additional depth of field at F2.8 gives you some abilities that full frame cameras do not. (Even though the background is not as blurry, there are certain times that you don't want it to be quite that freaking blurry.)

All cameras involve trade-offs. Each one is a compromise between size, price, quality, speed, and features.

To get one thing, you have to give up something else.

The NEX 5n is basically the same as the older NEX5, but they upgraded the sensor, and added a touchscreen. Because it is one of the first cameras in the NEX line to compensate automatically for the little kit lens, it produces good color, and eliminates most of the CA and distortion that the lens was known for.

The only problem that I had with mine was the autofocus, which was fairly reliable in SAF, but slow. In CAF, it was troublesome even in bright sunlight, and would cause the lenses to "breathe" in and out so much that I frequently switched to manual autofocus.

In low light, manual autofocus was almost your only choice, because the hunting was so annoying. In bright light, it would usually take its best shot, and you would get a number of keepers. In low light, the only way to get a high rate of keepers was to switch to a faster lens.

The first Sony mirrorless camera in the series that really offered "DSLR-level" autofocus was the a6000. It was better than anything cheaper, and cheaper than anything better, and it still is. It rarely hunts except with the kit lens in low light, and in good light it is as fast as many modern competitors.

Unless you have a specific type of photography in mind, I would spend the extra money and get an a6000. They are only about $400 these days with the kit lens, and even though it lacks the touchscreen, it is a much better camera.

I tried out a D500 in the store just to see what the fuss was about. I have to admit it was an amazing camera. The speed and accuracy of autofocus in relatively low light was the thing that stuck out in my mind.

The D7100 is a good camera, and the autofocus is good enough for almost every use. But if you want something that you can occasionally use as a sports camera, even in low light, then you can't really go wrong with the D500.

The camera you have is a good camera. Before I looked into newer cameras, I would first look at other lenses. If you are shooting with just the "kit lens", then that will usually the limiting factor in many (if not most) of your photos.

Start with a 50mm prime (or a 35 mm prime) and practice with that. There are good fast primes available for the D3200 that are much cheaper than a new camera. Once you get the feel for exactly what type of lens you want to use most often, that will direct your choice of next camera.

For example, if you really want to shoot in low light with low noise, then either of the cameras you mentioned will let you shoot in lower light with lower noise. But they will not make as much of a difference as you will get from shooting at F1.8 instead of F3.4.

The live view autofocus on the Canon is a little faster than Nikon, but the Nikon has a higher resolution sensor. The Canon also has built in GPS, (and I think the Nikon does not.)

I think the viewfinder on the Nikon is slightly larger, the video cropping is slightly less, the autofocus tracking (except in video) is a little faster, and the tilting LCD a little easier to see.

I personally prefer the Nikon D850, but you really can't go wrong with either one. They are both fantastic cameras, and will take great pictures (and hold their value) for many years.

The pixel size in the A7R4 is 3.76 µm. The Galaxy S6 cell phone is 1.12 µm.

All diffraction (like all other detail) comes from the lens. More small pixels just allow you to reproduce the existing detail better.

The pixels are still bigger than cell-phone pixels, so I suspect Sony knows what they are doing.

They also have a good feel for what people want. Instead of adding 4K 60p, (or 128K 480p, or whatever), they left this one at 4K 30p and spent their time on eye-autofocus.

I don't know if this is a good decision or not for Sony, but for me, I have noticed that 60p out-of-focus does not look as good as 30p in-focus.

This is just my personal opinion, but if I were still using film, I would stick with the older cameras.

Half the fun of film was figuring out the exposure on your own. By the time Nikon built the F6, almost everyone had already switched to digital (professionals and hobbyists alike). The F6 has one of the best exposure meters ever, so people who love film as a hobby can nail the exposure on every shot.

The key word here is "hobby". If you love film as a hobby, then you already have an FE.

If you love film for any other reason than "the fun of it", then those days are gone. If I were buying an F6 for the purpose of nailing the exposure, I would just take the next step and buy a digital camera. It solves all the problems that the F6 solves, and many more.

With the lenses that you have, the RX10 will be better. Those lenses really limit the camera, and do not take advantage of the bigger sensor at all.

I own the A6000, and have used it for many years. There are only a few advantages over the RX10.

1. Size and flexibility. There are times that you really just want a slightly smaller camera, and the cell phone just won't do. Or you need something that takes sharp pictures at F1.8. For those times you need an a6000 with a small prime, or maybe the 16-50 for hiking. The lenses that you have are not particularly small or fast. So instead of doing one thing well, they do two things average.

2. Low light. When you are pushing each camera up past ISO3200, the a6000 is slightly better. The RX10iv, for example, has a huge telephoto range, but the brightest stop is F2.8. The newer sensor in the RX10iv helps, but does not completely make up for the bigger sensor in the a6000.

3. Depth of field. The RX10iv (the only one of the series I have used) at 75mm is fairly deep. If deep is what you want, it is fine. If you slap the 50mm F1.8 on the Sony A6000, though, it will give you a fairly good impression of a portrait camera. It is not razor thin like a full frame, (and you have to back off to F2.2 to get the sharpness you want), but the background will have a moderate blur with a high quality of smoothness.

In general, I would say if you want to get more use out of your a6000, the better choice would be to buy a couple of inexpensive prime lenses, and see if they give you what you want. I would recommend the Sigma 30mm 1.4 for starters. It can do things that you just can't do with the Rx10 series.

If you need the zoom range more than you need the flexibility, background blur, and low-light, then the RX10 is the way to go.