Having previously had one or more of all the above formats, here are my conclusions: a full frame is approximately 24×36 mm, DX or crop is about half that size or 18x24 mm , and 4/3 half again smaller @ 12x18 mm. For the same amount of megapixels, you have an advantage to reach out further with a smaller sensor, and greater overall quality, better bokeh, colors, dynamic range, finer grain, better low light performance with a larger sensor. Any one of these formats can produce very good results. High quality lenses and adequate, good light is equally important as the camera format.
Some cameras are great and some are not as good, regardless of format, and not necessarily that most expensive is best.
You got to figure out what works for you.
After several years of research I currently use a 12 megapixel, old camera, old lenses, and have no need or desire for an upgrade.
That's my 3 cents, thanks

As previously stated, thereabouts of 50 approximates the magnification and perspective of the eye. Personally I often like to use a 24 mm for the surreal look it can produce, but even if I used it exclusively for all my photos I am not so self centered as to claim it as normal. It is simply my preference. 43- 55 is normal.

In a sense yes. Approximately the view of ONE eye but since most of us have 2 of them, and they overlap somewhat, it is more like a 2 frame panorama with a bit of overlap. Easy!

P.S. After I get the struts replaced on my 99 mitsubishi and water in my cistern (no well here) I'll ask about DSLRs :)[/quote]

As you already know, photography in general but especially keeping up with latest technology is a rich man's game , nevertheless you can still find great cameras on a small budget.
What is your budget?
NikonD40, D70 = about $50-70 with the crazy good 18-55 kit lens. ( pay no attention to the measly 6 MP count). I got some razor sharp photos with it. Alternatively one of the older M4/3 mirror less Panasonic G1, G2, or similar ( 12MP sensor ) will take almost any lens with a cheap fleabay $10 adapter, are quite capable cameras, will cost you about $100 with kit lens , Cannon XTI, T2i about $100 ea, though Cannon cheap kit lenses are not very good in my opinion. These are all capable of much better quality pictures than any 1/8th" sensor point and shoot cameras at about the same price point

When out traveling with my family, I will usually try to bring the smallest complete kit to allow for family, portrait, landscape and exterior architectural shots.
Generally that would include a D700 w battery grip, 35-70f2.8, 70-210f4, 24mm f2.8 for the wider shots, 14mm f2.8 Rokinon for super wide, a speed light, 6ft TTL cord, Fong lambency diffuser, a monopod and a tripod. ;)

Film is much harder to master. Film is archival. Older film cameras are incredible tactile marvels of electro-mechanical ingenuity. Film is expensive to shoot. Film colors, dynamic range are lousy, but it was all we had. There is a much greater sense of accomplishment with film when it turns out , because of inherent difficulty.
However, with my dslrs I am limited only by my level of creativity. Awesome color - it's there. B&W it's there. Make a sound movie - it's there also. 360* panoramic images and videos - easy. So for me , the archival quality of film would be the only real advantage, and even THAT is of limited relevance, since the end is near, Jesus Christ is coming back to judge this wicked world and you also will have to appear at the judgement. Repent and be saved. Get your house in order.

So Canon is winning , so what.
I still prefer and love my Nikon. D7100, D700,
No real reason to upgrade. Maybe D850 or it's mirrorless equivalent would be very nice.
Don't want or need anything else.

Not everyone is loaded with money, but there are some awesome old lenses that you can buy cheaply you just have to know which ones to get.

Af Nikkor 28mm ,f2.8 is just not very sharp , had 2 just meh, sold them with no regrets.
The old ai 28 f3.5 Nikkor is very sharp and reasonably cheap though. Af Nikkor 24, f2.8 is good also 👍

There's a lot of great info here, but let me add my 2 cents also, something that wasn't already addressed : correct light metering. I don't want to sound like a know-it-all, but at least for me With negative film there's an inbuilt tendency to compress the highlights, they are hard to blow out, and so by leaning exposure towards the shadows, we make sure there's adequate light there , and so all important details are preserved. Alternatively with digital sensors, we correctly expose for the highlights, avoiding blow out, and shadows can generally be recovered in RAW

I am surprised that no one has mentioned Zoner. It's like Lightroom with some features of Photoshop. There are versions from 13 to 17 which can be found as a free download for an unlimited trial with 30 days free RAW support. After 30 days only jpeg, but it is only about $30 to unlock, or you can develop RAW in something else and finish in Zoner.

I also like some nikon custom picture style presets. If then exported from NX2 as tiff for further editing in my favorite app. Am I missing something, in my reasoning, there are so many ways to do this.

I also shoot in raw, but if processed in nikons NX 2, the settings are applied to the mix when exporting as a jpeg, correct?

In my understanding ADL compresses the dynamic range of the highlights on the nikon cameras. I normally leave it on at normal setting and it is a part of my work flow. Would there be an advantage to leaving it off. Thanks!

I am a professional handyman with 30 plus years experience.
Get the Sharkbite slip on fittings, you'll be done in 5- 10 minutes.
Confusing disscution not nesecarry .
You're welcome.