Whuff, take your Canon and one lens and use it for a week. Then a different lens for a week, etc. You could also take all your lenses and take a picture of the same thing with each, from the same spot and again from different spots to get the same image from each. Study your results. And have fun.
Walt

Yes, sharpshooter, I had a friend many years ago that took Beautiful Photos with a handheld lightmeter and an old Rolleiflex. That and a couple of rolls of film in his camping gear on long hikes. So after 50 some odd years of photography, I wish mine looked as good!
New cameras and lenses are interesting equipment, but don’t improve my technique or images... trial ane error do. Still errors occur, but all is part of the learning process, as the cropduster says, “when you know it all, quit flying”.

N90s never gave a bad exposure, except when I didn’t follow the camera’s suggestions and twicked it. Camera knows best. :-)

On the subject of old and best 35 SLR, my Exakta VXIIa from ~1956, Exakta started making 35 SLR’s in the 1930’s, was All mechanical, no lightmeter. But it has interchangeable viewfinders, a knife to cut off just the pictures taken to develope those pictures before shooting the rest of the roll, or to change film midroll, shutter speeds from 1/1000 to 12 seconds, flash connections for X, F, and M, for a time when most still used flash bulbs, not electronic flash, and was built like a tank, ie indestructible, still works great! You can see pictures and info at thecamerasite.net, just the one update, they say shutter speeds to 1/25sec., but the picture below the shutter speeds plainly shows the slow speeds on the dial on the top right side dial. Use any lens from any manufacturer you like, since Exakta didn’t make their own lenses.

I still have my Dad’s Exakta VXIIa, all mechanical and still works, mostly sits in a box... Now for film I have to decide to use one of my three favorites, Nikon N90s, Mamiya RZ67, or Tachihara 4x5 with Schneider glass. So my favorite 35 is the N90s, never had a poor exposure with this camera!

About 8 years ago a friend gave me his old K1000 and last year I passed it on to another friend who was interested in learning photography. She Loves it! A very dependable and easy to use camera, but without all the computerized helps in exposure “fixes” in difficult lighting. Excellent to learn on.
But my favorite? The one I was using at the time. :-) When I was about ten, my Father bought me a Yashica J, a rangefinder without a lightmeter built in. Only used slides, Kodachrome II for years! Beautiful results when I didn’t “know better” and overrode the handheld light meter.
Next Excellent camera, inherited Exakta VXIIa only camera of mid 50’s with interchangeable view finders and a builtin cutter to slice the film and make it possible to take a few shots and develope the film before taking remaining shots, to check exposures or to load a different type of film midroll.
I’ve had many cameras since and liked most, but not all. My wife bought an inexpensive Canon TX with a unique lens mount for 35 mm cameras - Mamiya RB & RZ camera lenses also use this type of mount - but changed it so when I went to buy a new lens for her camera, no longer made and no adapters. Then Canon changed lens mounts again for autofocus. So I bought Nikon and never wanted a Canon since!
Also bought an RZ, excelent camera, just the necesities, no extra “features” to get in the way.
Have a 4x5 that I Love the results from, but getting lazy and mostly use my Nikon digital or just my phone if not out to take pictures. I still love film, but having to mail film to get transparencies developed is Expensive, still...

I love the cotton! Great photo! Thanks for sharing. :)

If you use film, say Tri-X in a Nikon FE and an Olympus Pen-F half frame, then the resolution of a print from both show the Nikon to be finer grain since there are more grains of film on the larger film area and a lower magnification is required for the same size print. If you use a D7100 & a D600 camera, the "grain" size is smaller on the D7100 so you get a 24MP image quality with either camera when using the full image. But with the smaller senser size you get a smaller field of view if using the same focal length lens and a full frame lens on the FX Body. To get the same field of view with both cameras a lens of shorter focal length will be used on the DX body and since the image projected is a smaller area on the DX it, the lens, can be smaller and lighter on the DX system.

Personally I like prime lenses. On my DX Nikon I have used a 35-70/2.8D and a Tamron 90/2.8Macro, but I found the zoom lens heavy, at 24oz. On a recent trip I took the zoom and a new 50/1.8D lens and used the 50 about 90% of the time. The 50 is about 6 oz. and doesn't require any special help, tripods or high ISO for all except night sky star gazing. Simple is better, although a nice wide angle and a telephoto would be nice...

A camera doesn't add 10 pounds, poor posing does.

Since a trip many years ago to Alaska, when my SLR locked up, I always take a backup body. Wish for a simple full frame Nikon FE in digital format, or an 8x10 RF film camera. For the full frame, 24, 50, & 80-200 zoom. For 8x10, 165 Broad field & a 360.

I've always liked prime lenses. They are faster for low light and lighter. The 35 is normal equivalent meaning it sees about what your eyes see in field of view. The 50 is 75 eq. or a good portrait focal length. Both of these are small and light, easy to carry. 17 to something is ~25mm eq, nice for wide angle, but zooms are usually just used at one focal length, depending on your preference. 30 years ago almost nobody had anything over 300mm, and couldn't afford it. You can use anything you can afford and carry. Personally I like less equipment and more freedom. Check your photos to see what length lens you use most of the time. Just my 2 cents worth.

With color it's sometimes difficult to get past "look at the pretty colors"
In B&W it's the content that you see first. Simple & beautiful B&W! I love it!

Just to add another option, check out "Nikon 800E vs Pentax K5 II Resolution Test par 1" on YouTube. I was surprised at their results.

I am reading from "The New Ansel Adams Photography Series" in the first volume: "The Camera" copyright 1980. In chapter 5 on Lenses pages 48 to 49 depth of field is discussed. I have used the marks on my prime lenses for many years to get sharp focus on areas of my pictures. With the new G series Zoom lenses you lose the Depth of Field scales. If you take a photo without the ND filter and then view it on your screen and zoom into it you will be able to see weather the the resulting image is sharp or not. It won't be extremely accurate but should be helpful. Try this at several F Stops and then you can mount your ND filter for your long exposure. Turning off the camera while you mount the ND filter should lock your focus point and then once ready set the camera and lens on Manual Focus before turning on the camera again. Your Depth of Field also depends on how you view the images. Do you print large, 16x20" or view them on a 12" notebook? Just a thought. Your usable DoF might not be what the charts say. Enjoy!