First Nikon FX body recommendations?

[JamesRose]

Hi all,

Currently have a D7100 and a few lenses, including a 70-200mm F2.8 and a 300MM F4 as well as some DX lenses (35/50/18-140mm).

I've been looking at the D750 and seems to be quite popular and a decent price, but i've never owned an FX Nikon body before. I primarily shoot wildlife and I'd like to get the best out of the FX lenses i have, budget not really an issue and i'll be keeping the D7100 to use alongside. Just wondered if its worth upgrading to FX or going for a newer DX body?

Thank you in advance

 

[gramps]

Have you thought about a D500?
Cracking AF and superb buffer for wildlife.
Alternatively if budget isn't an issue and you really want FX then the D850 would be a great choice offering you around 46mp FX and 20mp DX.

 

[stickytape]

Budget wise, search for a D700? I loved that one while I had it for a while!

 

[T_J_G]

D750 or D850

 

[keeweeman]

D750 is an amazing all rounder, its obviously a few years old now but they are sensible money for an awful lot of camera. The d850 is outstanding if you have that sort of cash, but for the money the d750 is incredible

 

[SFTPhotography]

D850. You'll buy the D750, wonder what if, then sell it taking a loss, to end up buying a D850.

 

[Stu Meech]

D850. You'll buy the D750, wonder what if, then sell it taking a loss, to end up buying a D850.

You say this, but the D750 is still a stupidly good camera given it's age. Nothing else FF comes close in it's category (well, dSLR anyway). I would recommend it as an option, but equally the D850 would not be a wasted purchase either.

 

[SFTPhotography]

You say this, but the D750 is still a stupidly good camera given it's age. Nothing else FF comes close in it's category (well, dSLR anyway). I would recommend it as an option, but equally the D850 would not be a wasted purchase either.

I had the d610 which bar the AF and flippy screen is the d750 - didn’t dislike it but the d800 and d810s I have are just nicer and I regret buying it - not the 36mp ones.

A workshop client who has kept in touch rocked up to 2 of mine with the d750 - had a play with the RAWS and yes colour, shadow etc they can be pushed plenty but the detail (I’m a pixel peeper) just didn’t satisfy me.

Layout wise you’ll either like it or prefer the bigger cameras.

I’d love a d850 (or 3) but I’m not dropping that level of money on 3 cameras.

 

[Jim_Tod]

You say this, but the D750 is still a stupidly good camera given it's age. Nothing else FF comes close in it's category (well, dSLR anyway). I would recommend it as an option, but equally the D850 would not be a wasted purchase either.

I’m with gramps. D500 seems appropriate if looking for an upgrade on DX and not clear what a move to FX would benefit OP.

If really wanting to move to FX then D850 gives best aproach to wildlife basis if you consider fps potential.

I say this owning D500,D810 and D850 at the moment and if i end ip with 2 o D850 dor all my photography ( landscape, portrait, macro and wildlife) i’s be happy

 

[Stu Meech]

I had the d610 which bar the AF and flippy screen is the d750 - didn’t dislike it but the d800 and d810s I have are just nicer and I regret buying it - not the 36mp ones.

A workshop client who has kept in touch rocked up to 2 of mine with the d750 - had a play with the RAWS and yes colour, shadow etc they can be pushed plenty but the detail (I’m a pixel peeper) just didn’t satisfy me.

Layout wise you’ll either like it or prefer the bigger cameras.

I’d love a d850 (or 3) but I’m not dropping that level of money on 3 cameras.

Having owned the D610 and D750, the D750 is more than just a 610 with flippy screen and AF. The D750 is far more rounded camera in spec and usability.

 

[TGphoto]

D750. It's a great camera.

 

[Fraser Euan White]

D810 - best value for money and IQ is incredible!

 

[myotis]

I primarily shoot wildlife and I'd like to get the best out of the FX lenses i have, budget not really an issue and i'll be keeping the D7100 to use alongside. Just wondered if its worth upgrading to FX or going for a newer DX body?

I would go along with the others who suggest a D500, I use mine alongside a D600, and the D500 in terms of handling is better in every respect. Quality wise for landscape the D600 has the edge, but you can't complain about the D500 quality.

However, If budget were no object, I would have a D850 (but keep my D500), its bigger and from all the comments I've seen from people using the D850/D500/D5 for wildlife it isn't as responsive as the D500 (and has lower max fps, and the D500, in turn isn't as responsive as the D5), but when you can get close enough, you have the benefit of full frame quality, and when you can't get close enough, the DX crop is still giving you similar pixel density to the D500.

So, if you use long primes, you have a bit of a built in zoom through cropping e.g. angles of view from a 300mm to around 500mm accepting a crop. The wider angle of view staring point makes it much easier to find flying birds, and then you can crop in to fill the frame later. For me, as a landscape/wildlife photographer, the D850 would be my choice - if I could afford one. But it is also a much bigger/heavier camera, and as I get older, this is also important :-(

The D750 while great as an all round camera (and it has a lot of minor features that make it a much better camera than the D600/610, e.g being able to program the video button as an iso button), it just doesn't have the pixel density to give the cropping capability of the D850, which is so useful for wildlife. The D810/D800 lies somewhere in between the D750 and D850, with only 4fps for the D800 and 5fps for the D810 compared to 6.5 fps for the D750, There is a useful table here on buffers and fps. So the D810 has slight cropping and quality advantage over the D750, but probably not as good a wildlife camera. The D750 is meant to be slightly better at higher iso than the the D8xx cameras.

I would also look at the D7500, this is a better wildlife camera than the D7100, and has a control layout similar to the D7100 if you are using them together in an action situation, which might be useful. However, I have come to dislike my D600 handling since getting the D500. Overall, the D500 is just an outstandingly good wildlife camera, and the money saved over a D850, which I think is the only real alternative (if you dismiss the D5), would buy a nice third party super zoom or go towards the outstanding new 500mm pf lens.

I think it comes down to comparative costs and the comparative bulk and weight as to which to buy, but for wildlife, I think the shortlist should be D7500, D500, and D850. But as a great "all round" camera in terms of cost, bulk weight, quality and capability the D750 is difficult to beat.

 

[snerkler]

D750 is cracking, one of the best bang for buck cameras ever. However you primarily shoot wildlife, I assume you're aware of the effective reach difference between FX and DX? Some of this can be compensated for with FX as it crops better (ie you can crop to more extremes whilst keeping decent IQ) however if you're primarily a wildlife shooter I would choose the D500 over the D750. Very little to choose in IQ, and noise (I've owned both) but the D500 has the effective reach advantage, better AF, better frame rate and better buffer.

However, if budget allows the D850 is kind of the best of both worlds. FX camera with DX reach (still 19mp in DX mode). Frame rate is nearly on par with the D500 (with grip), AF is better than the D750 and only a smidge behind the D500, buffer is good enough for 99.9% of people, build quality is top notch, and IQ is stellar. Noise handling is not as good as the D750 in full res, but by the time you downsample noise handling is comparable.

 

[gad-westy]

D750 is cracking, one of the best bang for buck cameras ever. However you primarily shoot wildlife, I assume you're aware of the effective reach difference between FX and DX? Some of this can be compensated for with FX as it crops better (ie you can crop to more extremes whilst keeping decent IQ) however if you're primarily a wildlife shooter I would choose the D500 over the D750. Very little to choose in IQ, and noise (I've owned both) but the D500 has the effective reach advantage, better AF, better frame rate and better buffer.

However, if budget allows the D850 is kind of the best of both worlds. FX camera with DX reach (still 19mp in DX mode). Frame rate is nearly on par with the D500 (with grip), AF is better than the D750 and only a smidge behind the D500, buffer is good enough for 99.9% of people, build quality is top notch, and IQ is stellar. Noise handling is not as good as the D750 in full res, but by the time you downsample noise handling is comparable.

Yep D500 sounds most sensible. I'm curious though, what is the VF like on the D500? It's ages since I made the leap from DX to FX so things have changed a lot but I remember one of the biggest benefits of the D700 over the D300 was the big, bright VF.

 

[snerkler]

Yep D500 sounds most sensible. I'm curious though, what is the VF like on the D500? It's ages since I made the leap from DX to FX so things have changed a lot but I remember one of the biggest benefits of the D700 over the D300 was the big, bright VF.

VF on the D500 is very good, I think it's a touch smaller than the D750 but I didn't really notice, it wasn't like going from the D750 to the D7200 where I did notice the smaller VF. However, if you want a big bright VF then it's got to be the D850, noticeably bigger than the D750 and the biggest VF I've used in a DSLR or mirrorless.

 

[Jesus Quintana]

Had the D750, D810 and D500 (plus the D5) before I jumped ship.

My D750 was my best all-rounder. ISO performance is very important for me and ISO on the 750 was fantastic. I was really reluctant to sell the D500 but in the end, I did because I didn't want 2 systems. I really didn't like the D810 at all. The D750 was always first in my bag...the 810 was last. The D750 also wasn't as fragile as people make out.

I think you may well wonder what the D8xx is like though if you ever did buy the D750 though!!!

 

[JamesRose]

Thanks so much for the wealth of advice guys its really helped...and made me ask more questions

D850 looks lovely and while its not really out of budget, to be honest i'd rather go for something slightly more reasonable and invest in more lenses.

Reason to switch to FX is purely out of curiosity, i have a few FX lenses and have never used a body they are largely designed for. I've owned a D80, 90 and now the 7100 and while its a great Camera, as i've become a little more experienced its beginning to show its age a tad, and as its already DX format i thought why not FX?

As said i primarily shoot Wildlife so understand that DX is great for adding a bit more range because of the crop factor, and if a newer DX body is the best option for me then that is what i'll go for. Just thought i would pose the question

Thank you for the advice so far, looks like a straight shoot out between the D500 or the D750.

 

[redhed17]

Thanks so much for the wealth of advice guys its really helped...and made me ask more questions

D850 looks lovely and while its not really out of budget, to be honest i'd rather go for something slightly more reasonable and invest in more lenses.

Reason to switch to FX is purely out of curiosity, i have a few FX lenses and have never used a body they are largely designed for. I've owned a D80, 90 and now the 7100 and while its a great Camera, as i've become a little more experienced its beginning to show its age a tad, and as its already DX format i thought why not FX?

As said i primarily shoot Wildlife so understand that DX is great for adding a bit more range because of the crop factor, and if a newer DX body is the best option for me then that is what i'll go for. Just thought i would pose the question

Thank you for the advice so far, looks like a straight shoot out between the D500 or the D750.

From a technical pov you can see here what benefits you would get with a D750 v D7100 here. And here you can see how the D750 compares to the D500. You can see in the comparisons what you gain with each choice. Only you can say what is important to you.

Imho, in the real world the D750 v D7100 you would get a bit better image quality with better high ISO performance and Dynamic Range. A brighter viewfinder. All your FX lenses would seem wider than before. Both have 51 AF points, but all the focus points would be clustered centrally on the D750. Any DX lenses would crop down to I think 9Mp. And you would gain 0.5 fps (6 v 6.5 fps).

The D500 would give very similar image quality compared to the D7100, which could be a let down with a new camera. The viewfinder would be slightly bigger and brighter. All your lenses would look and work the same way. You get a higher resolution touchscreen. 153 focus points cover a lot of the scene which is Nikon's top AF. Compared to the D750 10fps v 6.5fps, with a massive buffer, between 70-200 depending on which card used.

I like to do a bit of everything, and so DX is the format for me. And the best DX camera is the D500 imho. Some people have a FF thing that they aspire to though, which I understand.

A D850 would be a FF camera with virtually a D500 inside. At least with a grip. (lovely) Big files to move around though.

 

[myotis]

. And you would gain 0.5 fps (6 v 6.5 fps).

Plus a bigger buffer

 

[gramps]

The D500 would give very similar image quality compared to the D7100, which could be a let down with a new camera.

Interesting thought ... it could be technically true but with the AF advantages of the D500 I would be very surprised if the D500 didn't produce a superior image in 'real world' wildlife scenarios.

 

[redhed17]

Interesting thought ... it could be technically true but with the AF advantages of the D500 I would be very surprised if the D500 didn't produce a superior image in 'real world' wildlife scenarios.

I was talking about the sensor performance, and in that regard the D7100 and the D500 are pretty close. For a similar pixel count I can't see how they could improve the performance significantly. It may not be possble to get too much better.

The D500 AF is a big improvement on the 51 point AF of previous Nikon cameras, and the D7100 is not the latest version of that AF either. The 153 AF system is an improvement, and the coverage is great, and a benefit to the AF on a crop sensor is the coverage of the scene. The 153 point AF may give more successful shots in the real world, and couple that with the higher fps and buffer, and the chances of better images increase. It is no guarantee though.

 

[snerkler]

I was talking about the sensor performance, and in that regard the D7100 and the D500 are pretty close. For a similar pixel count I can't see how they could improve the performance significantly. It may not be possble to get too much better.

The D500 AF is a big improvement on the 51 point AF of previous Nikon cameras, and the D7100 is not the latest version of that AF either. The 153 AF system is an improvement, and the coverage is great, and a benefit to the AF on a crop sensor is the coverage of the scene. The 153 point AF may give more successful shots in the real world, and couple that with the higher fps and buffer, and the chances of better images increase. It is no guarantee though.

From my experience high ISO performance of the D500 is noticeably better than the D7100 (and D7200 for that matter), and this seems to back that up.

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/im...=1&x=0.1273693298797901&y=-0.9861072664359862

 

[f/2.8]

The D750 is the best value for money dslr Nikon have made since the D700.

The D810 isn't that great would skip that one.

The D850 is the best Nikon dslr ever made.

It may be wise though to not invest too much into what will soon be a dead system.

Perhaps it might be wise to pick up a used D750 to scratch the full frame itch, they can be bought for ridiculous prices now and that would limit your loss when you move it on for one of the mirrorless options eventually. The D500 might be a better shout though as the buffer on the D750 is pretty pants.

If you have the budget you might also want to look the other options that are available for example the Sony A9 can do 20fps which might be useful for wildlife and Sony are set to introduce animal eye a.f in the near future. The A9 also has the silent shooting option. That would mean a complete system change though which may not be what you are looking to do at the moment.

 

[Fraser Euan White]

The D810 isn't that great would skip that one.

Anyone who states the D810 isn't that great I wouldn't listen to TBH. (It's all opinion)

From DP Review conclusion:

In fact, the D810 might just be one of the best all-round full-frame DSLRs out there. But it doesn't stop there - the D810 introduced some revolutionary technologies, with its ISO 64 performance allowing it to rival medium format image quality. And we don't throw around terms like this lightly: we're basing that statement on actual signal:noise ratio analyses. That sheer image quality combined with responsive autofocus and class-leading '3D tracking' make the D810 a joy to use, as long as you can overlook its shortcomings with respect to low light focus and vibration issues

https://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/reviews/dslrs/nikon-d810-review

https://www.techradar.com/uk/review...igital-slrs-hybrids/nikon-d810-1254883/review

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-d810

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d810

...........and the list goes on!

Out of the cameras mentioned only the D810 & D850 will 'blow your socks off' image quality wise in comparison to what you have.

 

[gad-westy]

Anyone who states the D810 isn't that great I wouldn't listen to TBH. (It's all opinion)

From DP Review conclusion:


https://www.amateurphotographer.co.uk/reviews/dslrs/nikon-d810-review

https://www.techradar.com/uk/review...igital-slrs-hybrids/nikon-d810-1254883/review

https://photographylife.com/reviews/nikon-d810

https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d810

...........and the list goes on!

Out of the cameras mentioned only the D810 & D850 will 'blow your socks off' image quality wise in comparison to what you have.

I agree that the D810 is fantastic but I don't think it excels at wildlife. It would work fine of course and do a very good job but most of it's best features are geared toward landscape and portrait work IMO. Think a D750 is probably a better wildlife camera.

Not been mentioned yet but used D4's are dropping nicely in price....

 

[myotis]

It may be wise though to not invest too much into what will soon be a dead system.

This depends on your definition of "soon"

Nikon, like me (not that my views matter very much) see the DSLRs and mirrorless as complementary systems and they still have new DSLRs (the D6 we knew about, but it seems there will be other new models) on the way and anticipate making new F-mount lenses for another 60 years. Even the A9 doesn't fully the match the responsiveness and handling of the D5 for wildlife (no personal experience of this, just based on direct comparisons that I've read from wildlife photographer trying out the A9 against their D5s), but this is only a matter of time and Nikon again have agreed that eventually mirrorless will replace DSLRs, but not in the immediate future.

I'm looking forward to replacing my DSLRs with something smaller and lighter, and with the benefits you get from an EVF. But so far I haven't found an EVF that I enjoyed using, and although the new Z7 is meant to the best EVF currently on the market, the reviews still suggest that it lags behind an optical finder for viewing experience - so while the Z8 (which I assume will be Nikon's D850 mirrorless equivalent) may well further improve on the Z7, I fear my next camera will still be be a D850, or depending on what other DSLRs Nikon bring out maybe their replacement for the D750, but I fear that is what the Z7 is meant to be

See this interview with Nikon.

 

[snerkler]

It may be wise though to not invest too much into what will soon be a dead system.

I don't think it will happen "soon" tbh.

 

[f/2.8]

Anyone who states the D810 isn't that great I wouldn't listen to TBH. (It's all opinion)

Of course all just opinions. You are the resident forum troll though so yours means nothing too me. Everything you post on here is complete nonsense.

At one point I had a couple of D810's and they where the most disappointing Nikon camera bodies I have ever purchased. They where just an incremental update from the D800 offering nothing more than the model it replaced other than a very slight speed improvement.

This depends on your definition of "soon"

Nikon, like me (not that my views matter very much) see the DSLRs and mirrorless as complementary systems and they still have new DSLRs (the D6 we knew about, but it seems there will be other new models) on the way and anticipate making new F-mount lenses for another 60 years. Even the A9 doesn't fully the match the responsiveness and handling of the D5 for wildlife (no personal experience of this, just based on direct comparisons that I've read from wildlife photographer trying out the A9 against their D5s), but this is only a matter of time and Nikon again have agreed that eventually mirrorless will replace DSLRs, but not in the immediate future.

I'm looking forward to replacing my DSLRs with something smaller and lighter, and with the benefits you get from an EVF. But so far I haven't found an EVF that I enjoyed using, and although the new Z7 is meant to the best EVF currently on the market, the reviews still suggest that it lags behind an optical finder for viewing experience - so while the Z8 (which I assume will be Nikon's D850 mirrorless equivalent) may well further improve on the Z7, I fear my next camera will still be be a D850, or depending on what other DSLRs Nikon bring out maybe their replacement for the D750, but I fear that is what the Z7 is meant to be

See this interview with Nikon.

Nikon say a lot of things, doesn't mean that it is true. The system is already dead in terms of residual value.

Just as one example go out today and buy a brand new Nikon 85mm f/1.4G lens at the cheapest new price of £1450.00, then take it home and contact the used camera dealers and see how much they will give you for it for. As new MPB will give you £690.00. That's a loss of over 50% straight away. The only reason for that is because they are concerned at being left with a bunch of kit they can't get rid off because it's a dead system. Sad but true. You will find it is pretty much the same with all Nikon dslr equipment. From what friends have told me Canon is just the same.

Not really fair to compare the Sony A9 to the Nikon D5 because of the cost differences between the two. A brand new A9 can be bought grey import for £2469 a D5 will set you back £3700. The A9 has a lot of features that the D5 doesn't. The ability to see your exposure in real time due to the EVF, silent shooting, 20 fps instead of 12 fps, much lighter weight, no need to micro adjust lenses just to name a few and animal eye a.f is on it's way which will revolutionise wildlife photography.Depends on what is important to you really. If I shot wildlife or sports I would be choosing an A9 over a D5 all day long.

I have shot Nikon for over 15 years and have had pretty much every prosumer and professional camera body they have produced in that time apart from the D5. I still own several Nikon bodies and lenses including 2 x D850's. They have pretty much all sat in the cupboard gathering dust since I switched my wedding gear too Sony.

 

[myotis]

Nikon say a lot of things, doesn't mean that it is true. The system is already dead in terms of residual value.

Yes, right to the very end they reinforced their long term commitment to the Nikon 1 system ! Having said that, I'm not convinced its completely dead, but just sleeping, until they sort out the FF mirrorless and a better 1" sensor comes along. Things change however, and what they are saying today may well be true at the time of saying it.

I don't really disagree with a lot of what you have said, but I'm not sure if the price of the A9 is that relevant as its still comparing the best that mirrorless will give you and the best that a DSLR will give you, and that professional wildlife photographers, when making the direct comparison are finding the D5 "overall" better. But as I said there are obvious useful features that mirrorless offer that DSLRs don't.

However, although, my own experiences with mirrorless has been less positive than yours, I am fairly confident that if I was still doing weddings, which I used to use Hasselblads and Mamiya RB67s for, I would also be using mirrorless, but probably Fuji, rather than Sony. As you say everyone is different and although I've been using mirrorless of one description or another for 10 years, after a day using one it has always great relief to get back to DSLR. Admittedly no high end mirrorless, my best has been a Panasonic GX7, but I eagerly try out every new model that comes out (not the A9, or the new Nikons, but including every iteration of the Sony A7 ) to see if I feel I could get on with it. So far I remain in the mainly a DSLR user camp.

My experience of buying and selling kit, has always been that I'm offered 50-60% of the new price, which allows the dealer to make a mark up and still make it attractively less than the new price to the second hand buyer (the 85mm you mention is selling for just under £1000 at MBP), and its even worse for accessories, my Panasonic external EVF that cost me nearly £200 received a trade in offer of £35 from MBP. But while I agree this is can be a issue I view it a bit differently in terms of have I got my moneys worth out of the purchase, rather than the resale value.

 

[f/2.8]

Yes, right to the very end they reinforced their long term commitment to the Nikon 1 system ! Having said that, I'm not convinced its completely dead, but just sleeping, until they sort out the FF mirrorless and a better 1" sensor comes along. Things change however, and what they are saying today may well be true at the time of saying it.

I don't really disagree with a lot of what you have said, but I'm not sure if the price of the A9 is that relevant as its still comparing the best that mirrorless will give you and the best that a DSLR will give you, and that professional wildlife photographers, when making the direct comparison are finding the D5 "overall" better. But as I said there are obvious useful features that mirrorless offer that DSLRs don't.

However, although, my own experiences with mirrorless has been less positive than yours, I am fairly confident that if I was still doing weddings, which I used to use Hasselblads and Mamiya RB67s for, I would also be using mirrorless, but probably Fuji, rather than Sony. As you say everyone is different and although I've been using mirrorless of one description or another for 10 years, after a day using one it has always great relief to get back to DSLR. Admittedly no high end mirrorless, my best has been a Panasonic GX7, but I eagerly try out every new model that comes out (not the A9, or the new Nikons, but including every iteration of the Sony A7 ) to see if I feel I could get on with it. So far I remain in the mainly a DSLR user camp.

My experience of buying and selling kit, has always been that I'm offered 50-60% of the new price, which allows the dealer to make a mark up and still make it attractively less than the new price to the second hand buyer (the 85mm you mention is selling for just under £1000 at MBP), and its even worse for accessories, my Panasonic external EVF that cost me nearly £200 received a trade in offer of £35 from MBP. But while I agree this is can be a issue I view it a bit differently in terms of have I got my moneys worth out of the purchase, rather than the resale value.

Plenty of wildlife photographers prefer the A9 to the D5.

View: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DhbCKIwMS2A

 

[TheTimeChamber]

I went from a D7000 to a D750 a few years ago; the jump was incredible and only improved my photography imo.

 

[PetethePrimate]

This depends on your definition of "soon"

Nikon, like me (not that my views matter very much) see the DSLRs and mirrorless as complementary systems and they still have new DSLRs (the D6 we knew about, but it seems there will be other new models) on the way and anticipate making new F-mount lenses for another 60 years. Even the A9 doesn't fully the match the responsiveness and handling of the D5 for wildlife (no personal experience of this, just based on direct comparisons that I've read from wildlife photographer trying out the A9 against their D5s), but this is only a matter of time and Nikon again have agreed that eventually mirrorless will replace DSLRs, but not in the immediate future.

I'm looking forward to replacing my DSLRs with something smaller and lighter, and with the benefits you get from an EVF. But so far I haven't found an EVF that I enjoyed using, and although the new Z7 is meant to the best EVF currently on the market, the reviews still suggest that it lags behind an optical finder for viewing experience - so while the Z8 (which I assume will be Nikon's D850 mirrorless equivalent) may well further improve on the Z7, I fear my next camera will still be be a D850, or depending on what other DSLRs Nikon bring out maybe their replacement for the D750, but I fear that is what the Z7 is meant to be

See this interview with Nikon.

Pretty much this.
Also;
Below is a quote from a full review from photographylife.com. Your view may vary but the whole review + readers' comments is perhaps worth a look if you think that the DSLR is going to obsolete anytime soon.
"The bad news is that the Z7 focus system is, still, just an improved version of Nikon’s live view autofocus. It isn’t at the same level as the 153-point phase detect system found in the Nikon D5, D850, and D500, or even the 51-point system found in older Nikon DSLRs – particularly in terms of tracking capabilities. You’ll also find the DSLR autofocus layout and options to be much more extensive and logical, while the Z7 includes some peculiar handling choices in this respect".

 

[myotis]

Plenty of wildlife photographers prefer the A9 to the D5.

Yep, I've seen this, its all about balancing the "trade offs" he mentions. I am a pretty avid follower of everything I can find on mirrorless and wildlife, and this doesn't convince me that the A9 is a "better" all round wildlife camera than the D5, even if different people have different views on what is important to them. The view that DSLRs still just have the edge is the usual conclusion.

But I am primarily a landscape photographer, and for me personally, it still comes down to the viewfinder experience, and its this (or old age) that will need to improve before I will happily give up bulk and weight of my DSLR, especially as it seems the newer mirrorless bodies are coming out at more sensible sizes that should improve handling and controls, which has been my other issue with mirrorless.

 

[Fraser Euan White]

Of course all just opinions. You are the resident forum troll though so yours means nothing too me. Everything you post on here is complete nonsense.

How childish!!

your opinion is very different from all the reviews on the first page of Google when you type in 'D810 review'; I would rather read those TBH.

I accept the D810 might not 'spring to mind' for wildlife but the resolution allows some good cropping so the cost of 'super telephotos' is cut down. In addition, although the OP prefers wildlife most amateurs use their cameras for a range of photography and the D810 excels. The professional photographer that follows our race series uses a D810, D4s & D500, he loves the D4 & D810 but isn't massively keen on the D500 - only using the cropped sensor for reach. He also states that no matter what Nikon say about the D500 having the D5 focusing the D4 is much better in this respect.

I like the suggestion of a D4 but this is a pro spec body with a 16MP sensor so it really does need the expensive glass to get the 'reach'. - Great camera though.

 

[IntenseJason]

I may be able to offer some perspective here, I got bad GAS.

Used a D7000 for several years, loved it, never had a problem with the image quality, but the urge to go to full frame was strong, so when a 5diii with two good lenses became available at a good price from a friend I jumped.

But i was disappointed, I had known the Canon would be different, but I really didn't enjoy using it, I found it, large and cumbersome to use, I had two great pieces of L spec glass, it could produce great images, but I just didn't gel with it, so I sold it and jumped on the A7 bandwagon.

Nope, another mistake, again, its a great camera, but in this case, I find it too small for my hands, even adding a grip hasn't helped and I cant get used to the poor battery life. I have a couple of lenses for this, but not everything I need, so get what I want from this I need to drop another 2K on glass.

There is nothing wrong with either camera, and I could use them both and get good images, this isn't an Anti Canon or Sony rant, both kits are better than I am.

8 months or so down the line i wish I had just kept my Nikon kit and done some glass upgrades instead, ultimately the camera is just a box with a hole in it.

My A7 kit will shortly be up for sale; I need the cash to rebuild my Nikon glass collection.............................

(The answer is D750, taking advantage of the Cashback deal)

 

[chazzw]

I had a pair of D7100's and replaced one of them with the D850. Best camera I've ever had / used.

I went to SRS in Watford and tried a D750 & D850 and I fell in love with the D850. Its made me fall in love with photography again and I am now in the "Wait until you jump to full frame" alumni as I still sit back & look at some of my images from it in awe... razor sharp, fastest focus of any other camera I've used.

I purchased mine with the MB-D18 grip & I am now just trying to work out what EN-EL18 battery and charger combination to get! (Sorry Nikon but £349 for a battery charger is not justified!).

I would advise to go to your local shop and try them, its the best way. Also consider the XQD slot as well - we dont have many options for this at the mo at least until they firmware update to support CFExpress.

 

[gramps]

I purchased mine with the MB-D18 grip & I am now just trying to work out what EN-EL18 battery and charger combination to get! (Sorry Nikon but £349 for a battery charger is not justified!).

I bought THIS for mine and it works as good as any Nikon battery I've had ... Ex-Pro battery & charger combo's are available for around £100 on eBay.
Don't forget that you will need the BL-5 (?) battery door to use it.

 

[chazzw]

I bought THIS for mine and it works as good as any Nikon battery I've had ... Ex-Pro battery & charger combo's are available for around £100 on eBay.
Don't forget that you will need the BL-5 (?) battery door to use it.

I was looking at these or the Duracell battery. Whats the performance like?

 

[Deleted member 49428]

A little late but Quickly browsing through the available galleries of members in this thread I see more difference in skills and style (no offence meant) than camera related technical quality differences so money might be better put in your skills ( again no offence meant) than gear.