The D5600 sensor is as good as you say, and image quality would not be a reason for switching to the D7500. The D7500 is a step up in most other aspects, however, and its D500 sensor is certainly no slouch.

Printed at 13x16, I doubt you could see the difference in resolution between the 100s and a high end full frame camera. And that's assuming a pro level printer that could do the 100s justice. Hard to imagine you'd see a difference in detail with the cameras you're considering at that print size.

Haven't handled a 100s but it looks like it would be more enjoyable to shoot with than the 645z. That might be a reason to see what the new 50s has to offer.

Strongly agree with you regarding location of the ISO button. Since I don't shoot video with a DSLR, I assigned the ISO function on my D810 (and D7200) to the Record Movie button located just left of the exposure compensation button. Greatly improves the handling of both cameras.

Don't know if you've handled a Nikon Z50, but it's a lovely little thing. I suspect Nikon's next DX sensor Z series mirrorless camera might be what you're looking for, it's what I would have to see before switching to a smaller sensor. Of course that depends on the urgency to switch, how soon Nikon releases the higher end DX camera, and whether their mirrorless lens offerings would meet your needs.

No insult intended, actually a decent conversation. Just frustrated with those who actually are unwilling or unable to make rational decisions, and with the misinformation making it difficult for them to do so.

What a bunch of pussies. Take the shots and let's put an end to this mass insanity.

Nice shot.
I was visiting the (marvelous) veterinary teaching hospital at WSU when someone working with raptors had one of these little guys in the lobby/waiting area. Summer sunlight flooding the large glass fronted space contracted the owl's pupils to tiny black dots. Its eyes were huge 3 dimensional yellow jewels, difficult to look away from.

Below is Thom Hogan's Dec. 5 post on the subject:

"A point or two of clarification on XQD/CFexpress (CFe) is needed. The physical hardware in the D500, D850, and D5 (and Z6/Z7) has some limits to what it can do. While the hardware portion of XQD and CFe is essentially the same, the software stack that does all the work is different.

In making the XQD cameras CFe capable, Nikon is essentially swapping out some embedded and internal EXPEED capabilities (XQD) with some external firmware (CFe), which means that there can be overhead in using a CFe card in an XQD camera. This typically shows up as the buffer fills, reducing in-camera performance slightly. On the other hand, if you use a CFe card in a card reader that's Thunderbolt 3, you'll be amazed at how fast it ingests to your computer, even compared to XQD. So: in-camera performance isn't improved, but ingest-to-computer might be.

But there's more to it than that. Most XQD card readers also have dedicated software in them. You can't update most such readers, so you'll end up needing a new card reader that understands both XQD and CFe. Unfortunately, there are some card readers now that only understand CFe, further complicating things. (And Canon chose to only support CFe.)

The real benefit of the CFe firmware updates (D5, D500, D850, Z6, Z7) isn't performance oriented, it's convenience oriented. It means that you can buy new cards with future potential (CFe) instead of continuing to buy older cards (XQD) with a top end that won't get better. CFe also increased the number of vendors participating, so CFe cards will become more ubiquitous, while XQD cards will slowly go the way of all dying formats and disappear eventually. Still, XQD will be around for awhile, as it's used in some high-end pro video and industrial gear.

Thus, CFe compatibility isn't something that most D500, D850, or D5 users need to rush out and embrace. It just opens up more options, and options that will continue to play in future cameras.

Which brings me to this: the only CFe "native" cameras Nikon has made so far are the D6, Z6 II, and Z7 II. And they're backwards compatible with XQD, thus proving my point about convenience. Nikon did the right thing here, though it took them longer than expected".

http://www.bythom.com/

I'd second that. You can learn something useful from an unfortunate situation. The event is important to the couple; if they are important to you I don't think you'd be reluctant to give them what they request. I'd strip any personally identifying information from the originals, give them the couple, delete the wedding from my files and waste no more of my precious time.

There’s not a moral issue inherent in manipulating photos. Any photo could be misrepresented in a deliberate effort to deceive. The moral issue would be the deception and not the photograph involved.

There is, however, an aspect of sky replacement (and the idea of artificial intelligence advanced to the point where manipulation becomes “reality”) that I dislike. Making photographs under conditions where the desired subject, light, skies and weather actually exist often requires significant investment of time, personal sacrifice, physical effort and discomfort. (Not talking about SOOC, an argument I consider absurd). I admire photographers with the energy and dedication to be there under difficult conditions, and view those photos altogether differently than similar efforts that might be achieved virtually. I worry that appreciation for their work is and increasingly will be diminished by “easy” buttons.

Looking directly through those big guns... poor fish!
I've never seen photos of the shaking sequence, thank you.

And increase the price for... what? You might consider 3.7 mil "abysmal" if you place pixel count ahead of what you see in the viewfinder, but image quality of the Z camera EVFs is widely considered among the best.
Regarding DSLR users loving their optical viewfinders, Thom Hogan had the following to say about not upgrading the EVF in the new Z's:

"Nikon's an optical company, first and foremost. To them, it's not the pixel count of the viewfinder that's the most important, it's how the image appears to the eye of the user. I've used a lot of EVF cameras. The Z6 and Z7 are about the best of the bunch, regardless of dot counts, refresh speeds, or other attributes. The Z6 and Z7 are the "most like" DSLRs I've seen, too. I often forget I'm using a mirrorless camera when I pick up my Z's."

https://www.zsystemuser.com/nikon-z-system-news-and/nikon-announces-the-next.html

I use the FX version of this lens (Nikon AF-P 70-300mm f/4.5-5.6E ED VR) on the D7200 and D810. It has switches for VR Off/Normal and Sport modes, giving you full control on your D7100. The lens is pleasant to use hand held on both cameras, VR is excellent and the image quality stands up to the demanding 36 mp full frame sensor.

I don't believe the DX and FX versions physically have much in common beyond AF-P motors. A review of the FX version in Photography Life states that has a dust and moisture resistant design. I can't verify that, but the lens certainly feels much more substantial and better built. Dust resistance is generally considered a desirable feature on African safaris.

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-70-300mm-vr-af-p

I listened to Thom Hogan in a round table discussion of the second generation Nikons yesterday. He's been using the Z6 and Z7 professionally since they came out. Not having the new cameras in hand he couldn't comment on the specified additional stop of low light performance. He did witness the new eye detection system in action and said the improvement is dramatic as the camera instantly locked onto the nearest eye when a human face entered the frame.

That judgement might be outdated with Nikon's just-released second generation Z6 and 7.