Have others had thoughts about this?
Something along those lines, yes, although not exactly the same as your plan. I find I go through phases of exploration, where I expand the possibilities for myself and try things out. And at some point, I need/want to refocus, so I cut out some of those options to get rid of the ballast.
So yeah, I can sort of relate. And I think that in photographic terms, focus is generally a good thing. It's too easy to get stuck on technique, gear and infinite possibilities. Does it really help one to produce better images? Are you happier with the images you make if you're capable of enlarging everything from sub-miniature to 8x10 negatives in both b&w and color, with also the gear and materials to make cyanotypes, kallitypes, Van Dykes, intaglio, carbon transfer and a host of other printing processes? Maybe the thought of being able to do all those things is nice. I guess it depends on one's ambition.
I sold off the etching press I kept around for a few years for photopolymer intaglio. I mostly "gave up" on several alt. processes that just didn't appeal enough to me, apparently. The space and time I freed up this way I put into things that I like better and that make more sense to me. Consequently, I get better at those. It's a perfectly fine trade-off for me.
If your path is digitally processed images originating from 35mm film, then by all means focus on that approach and get rid of the ballast that doesn't contribute to it. As they say, "haters gonna hate". Ignore them.