The D850 is giving me real GAS, however I'm going to pass at this time. My D800 has far more capability than I as an "advanced" amateur. The only reason for thinking of changing is GAS. My reason for passing at this time is that at my age I expect I will only get one or two more DSLR's. The only DSLR's I've had are the D90 and the D800, both of which I still have. I entered the world of digital in 2008 with the D90, adding it to my Nikon F4 (which I still use). I was so new to digital I didn't even realize that DX meant a crop sensor, I just thought the D90 was a top of the line amateurs 35mm (FF) DSLR camera. The info I read at the time didn't really describe the crop aspect. All I knew was that it was a lot less expensive than the "Pro" Nikons. I was and am still happy with the D90 and the DX format is absolutely no hindrance to me, has no bearing on the desire to upgrade, but GAS forced me to want an actual FF camera. Didn't need it, just wanted one. Plus I have a lot of FX lenses from the F4 era and have now added more (yes, have used them on the D90). Finally bit the bullet in 2014 and jumped in to the D800. Again, far more camera than I need but love it. So this was a gap of 6 years between my first DSLR and latest DSLR. Now, looking at the timeline of Nikon FX releases I see a span of only 2 to 3 years between them, each offering interesting steps forward, especially in sensor size and/or iso. So my thought is, since I've only had my D800 for 3 years now that the D850 is out, what will Nikon be releasing in another 3 years? If I keep my 6 year gap between DSLR purchases then I'm wondering what Nikon will have for us in 2020? Figure if I start saving now, I'll even have enough money to buy whatever they have to offer by then. If I had a real reason to upgrade, I'd get a D850, but..... I can wait. Anybody else thinking of waiting?

I don't have a problem. I'm just not blinded by GAS.

Zoom lenses do not perform as well at all of their focal lengths as prime lenses. There are too many design compromises. That's not an opinion, it's a fact.

Take a look at the DxOMark rankings of zoom lenses tested on the D800e when it comes to sharpness (see below).

The sharpest zoom at the top of the list is the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/4G ED VR at an equivalent of 30 MP. That's not throughout its range and it may not be at the focal length you might care about. Now look at the overall rankings for that lens - 694th overall and 84th for sharpness.

The sharpest zoom that covers a more normal range is the Tokina AT-X 24-70 F2.8 PRO FX at an equivalent of 27 MP. But it ranks 523rd overall and 138th in sharpness.

That means that there are a lot of lenses available that are better overall and sharper. They are all prime lenses. The reason for their low overall ratings is that there are a lot of other factors working against zoom lenses like maximum aperture, uneven performance at all focal lengths, size, weight, price, etc.

There are only eleven zoom lenses listed that achieve 24 MP or more on the D800e. Do you own one of them? If not, get out your checkbook.

Try and find your favorite zoom on that list. If it can't do better than 24 MP on a D800e then it will also do poorly on a D850.

Now look at the same ranking for prime lenses. Can you see what I mean?

Do you still think zooms are great?

You might want to look at
http://www.dslrbodies.com/cameras/the-d850-blog/the-best-lenses-for-the.html

Thom Hogan has been writing the book for Nikon camera's for the last 16 years.

I think (always dangerous) that the problem is that a point coming through a lens is recorded as a disk if that disk fits within the pixel site its not a problem but if you make the pixel site smaller the point can be hitting 2 pixel sites instead of 1 you don't really lose resolution but you cant record the finer detail that could be recorded on the finer pitched sensor because the lens isn't sharp enough.

Camera shake also becomes more critical to sharp detail.
Seems the smaller the sensor and the finer the pixel pitch the better your lens needs to be.

I just hate it when a new camera in my model line comes out. The temptation to upgrade, whether we really need to or not, is tremendous.

Now the difference between the 700 and 800 was/is considerable. But that difference doesn't exist between the 800/810 vs the 850. The gap isn't considerable, unless it has a feature that you really want. And I might add, that your 800 has a built in lens where the 850 does not. And of course there's a big gap in the price difference too!

You can kick back in comfort with your 800 and enjoy it. It's still a great camera.

I just hate it when a new camera in my model line comes out. The temptation to upgrade, whether we really need to or not, is tremendous.

Now the difference between the 700 and 800 was/is considerable. But that difference doesn't exist between the 800/810 vs the 850. The gap isn't considerable, unless it has a feature that you really want. And I might add, that your 800 has a built in lens where the 850 does not. And of course there's a big gap in the price difference too!

You can kick back in comfort with your 800 and enjoy it. It's still a great camera.

Yea, but bites from ants, scorpions, spiders, etc. don't come out in the wash, nor does poison ivy. Furthermore, do you know what focus stacking is. In case you don't, it's the process of making the foreground, middle ground and background tack sharp particularly important in some landscape and macro photography. Go a head and try it with out an LCD. If you don't shoot that type of photography, then you may not need it. But don't speculate that because you don't need it, nobody needs it. If you ask most pros, they will tell you that it is a very important tool that they would not be without. Please don't try to imply that no one needs it and any type of photography can create the same quality images with a camera that does not have an LCD, because that my friend is "fake news".