At least if you go to Disney a lot you'll only have to cancel a couple of trips to afford a Sony FF lens :image/gif;base64,R0lGODlhAQABAIAAAAAAAP///yH5BAEAAAAALAAAAAABAAEAAAIBRAA7
Sounds good. Certainly won't need the latest greatest AF system for that though. I loved NYC when I went  A couple of my favourites from that trip
/proxy.php?image=https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4545/38152691774_50c564e2a5_c.jpg&hash=f6c30c69aaf3a950b1c8a0f90aa7f4d0PC014313 by TDG-77, on Flickr
/proxy.php?image=https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4569/25006244108_549a684a07_c.jpg&hash=fe750c535cc91721b534d30b01fdf3dePB303847-Pano by TDG-77, on Flickr
Looks good, what did you use of the Pano?
Thanks. I used fairy dust 
(or maybe I used the EM1 with 40-150mm f4-5.6 R and stitched it in Lightroom )
I agree particularly as the OP has mentioned starting on full auto which I find is a bad idea on FF, the much shallower depth of field means you have to really be aware of aperture, depth of field and iso performance to be able to balance what type of shot you want.I find auto systems often favour opening up the aperture first whereas in some shots you need greater depth of field and therefore will want to increase the iso first.
Also it takes a bit of work to bring out the best of an FF sensor as straight out of camera they're often underwhelming.
A while back I saw someone posting their delight with their new phone camera and posted an example of how it beat their FF camera.The shot was taken early evening and the person admitted they only ever used the FF camera on auto and jpegs.The phone camera picture was noticeably better in comparison, the full scene was in good focus, it had made some attempt to recover detail in the shadow/highlights and the colour was more vivid.The FF camera picture in comparison was mostly out of focus as it had chosen the maximum aperture, the sky was blown out and the trees were underexposed plus the colour was very flat.
If the FF camera had been used properly the aperture would have been stopped down a bit, it would have been a raw photo and it would have the exposure pushed to bring out the detail in the underexposed and overexposed areas plus the colours brightened to produce a much better photo.
Last year when with a friend at a race track they offered to take photos for me and I was split between handing them my D750 which was the better camera but more difficult to use or the RX10M2 which is better at full auto.In the end I lent him the D750 but I configured it first with the aperture stopped right down to get a decent depth of field, the auto iso set faster to get a higher shutter speed at the cost of a little more noise, the drive mode set to high speed burst and the auto focus set to the most suitable tracking mode.In full auto mode the camera would have been next to useless as it would have chosen middling settings that wouldn't do what was needed.
I can certainly see situations where it would worth jumping straight into a FF camera if needing for example the best low light performance and were prepared to spend the time to get that.But with no specific requirements I think it's a lot of cost and bulk to begin with as it ultimately may not be the right system.
I agree with your analogy and would extend it by saying you may find after a few months of struggling with the compromises of the Aston that actually you prefer the stability from an RS6 Avant or the clever electronics on a Nissan GT-R to help get round the track faster.
Given this then I really think you need to go to a camera shop and put some of the options in your hands.Try the controls and feel the weight difference - if you can take your own SD card and take a few test shots to play with at home that would be wise.
I used to use a full size DSLR but I left it behind in favour of a compact when I went to Boston/NYC because I didn't want to lug it around and surrender all my hand luggage allowance to the camera and lenses.
A couple of years later we went to LA>Seattle>San Francisco>LA>San Diego I took an Olympus PEN camera and 2 lenses which covered the same focal lengths as my DSLR in a shoulder bag I took on the flight as "an accessory" to my backpack.I was also able to keep it with me on the rides at Disney and Universal something I doubt you'd be allowed with a camera backpack.
There are lots of good reasons to go for a larger camera with larger lenses to work with a larger sensor - but travelling with one can be a chore.
Interesting - when I first got my Olympus cameras I used full auto a bit.I found the camera was fond of increasing ISO and maintaining higher shutter speeds rather than increasing the aperture to the max -It lead to some quite odd results.
^^^ This.
Yes that was quite odd, I've never known a camera do that before 
Ok was all set to get the A7iii this week, im going Orlando next Friday. However I have now found the Nikon Z6 and with the 24-70 F4 looks a great package. Has anyone here used both cameras and can make any recomendations? The A6400 is out of the running its just not what im after
Have you tried either? The reason that I ask is that I was all set to buy into the Sony system last year but the ergonomics don't suit me, not enough room between the grip and lens. The Nikon Z6 is much better in this regards, plus I prefer the button/dial layout of the Nikon, however overall it is not as good a camera in terms of AF performance, tracking and frame rate. Also, there's only one card slot which may or may not be a big deal.
I'm still tempted by the Z6 or Z7 though, even though spec wise it's not class leading.
Tried the A7iii and it was nice, kit lens felt horrid tho, tonight im going to my local JL in the hope they have the z6