CO

The D5, D500, and D850 all have the separate AF processor.

Tim Hoover

Yes larrypage, you are correct. The grip with battery and charger is indeed expensive, but it is still less than the cost a D500. I have no idea why the grip costs so much and there is no way I would pay the money for such a marginal improvement. [side note: Is this grip compatible with other Nikon cameras? Will it be compatible with the next upgrade? If so, the cost is basically amortized over those bodies as well. Still, the price seems like a Nikon ripoff.] However, the point remains valid, a D500 along with a D850 adds very little value.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

That is an option one has to weigh out for the 2 extra frames per second, and ask, is that worth it.
For me, I already had a D5, charger and battery, all I needed was the Nikon BL-5 battery door. A 24.95 piece of equipment.
I got the D5, with battery and charger off ebay, mint, never used for $2800.00, no box, nothing else included. So, considering that saved my just under a grand, the D5 was actually, only $1800.00 for a new, US version D5 body.
Not to shabby.

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

I have to add, the D500 is considerably quieter than the D850. That might be significant if you were to be shooting from a blind.
You can buy, wait for it...gasp...third party battery grips and batteries for a lot of $$$savings. I have and do.
In my, not so humble opinion, Nikon accessories are obscenely over-expensive.

vbhargava Loc: San Diego

We went to Utah National Parks. During a hike in Arches National Park to Delicate Arch my Nikon D750 gave a memory error. I did not have a second camera. After a three and half mile hike each way, I had no working camera. After I returned I downloaded my images, re-formatted the memory card and started to carry my old D5000 along with the D750. I also had a similar experience while hiking in Anza Borego Desert when my D750 quit on me and I could not take any more photos. I am glad you did not experience any problems with your gear.

PHRubin Loc: Nashville TN USA

As a general rule, when cropping a Nikon FF camera photo down to the field of view of a DX camera, you cut the height and width by 1.5. So you wind up using 1/(1.5)²=44%. For Canon it would be 1/(1.6)²=39%. You are using less than ½ of the sensor's pixels. As a result THE PIXEL DENSITY OF THE FINAL PHOTO is reduced dramatically.

traderjohn Loc: New York City

Perfect opportunity for a cell phone.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

If I were a Nikon user, this answer might make sense. In this case, as a Pentax user, I was asking you {as a Canon user} top confirm what I was seeing.

billnikon Loc: Pennsylvania/Ohio/Florida/Maui/Oregon/Vermont

OR, do what I do and wait until they throw in a NIKON battery grip when you buy a D850. Like NOW they are currently offering it.

bbradford Loc: Wake Forest NC

Paul, makes me laugh.

home brewer Loc: Fort Wayne, Indiana

I think how good a photo a camera takes is very dependent on the glass. I think the the following is true; my new d850 takes much sharper photos with the 24-70 f/2.8 ED VR FX lens costing $2399.99 than my d500 does with the 18-300 mm DX VR costing $699.99 I will run some tests tomorrow shooting a target with the 18-300 dx, the F/2.8 24-70 FX and the F2.8 70-200 FL2.8 FX costing $2799.99 on both cameras. I will post the photos without post processing.
If one wants to carry the d850 with the 70-200 hitting the gym will be a good idea,

wetreed

Why can’t we all just get along.

ralf Loc: NJ

I cannot say why people like DX over FX, but the questions you are asking occurred to me as well, so I did some experimentation with my old D7100 (DX) and the new D850 (FX). I shot the same lens (a Sigma 24-105) on both cameras -- zoomed to 24 on the D7100 -- equivalent to about 35mm on an FX body. Then I shot the same lens zoomed to 35 on the D850. I also shot the D850 zoomed to 24, but in DX mode, and I shot the D850 zoomed to 24 in FX mode and then cropped in post to 35mm equivalent. Tripod and stationary subject for all shots. Results:
I could not see any significant differences between any of the D850 shots. My manual zooming to 35mm was not perfect, of course, but it was close enough. All D850 images had about the same sharpness, contrast, and color depth. I pixel peeped all pictures at 100% and 200%. I looked in the center and in corners. I was looking at Raw files only. I compared the NEF's, both with and without lens/body corrections. No detectable differences when comparing corrected NEF' to corrected NEF's, and ditto for the uncorrected NEF's compared to uncorrected NEF's.
Comparing D850 to D7100: D7100 sharpness was way not as good. The color depth and contrast were noticeably degraded compared to the D850 shots. The color rendition was so "bad" on the D7100 that I almost fell out of my chair. The differences were stark and unmistakable. I double-checked to be sure both cameras were set for 14-bit large files.
The differences were so blatant that I tried to discover some flaw in my shooting and comparison methods, but I could not find any mistakes. My conclusions were: (1) I'm very happy I made the move to the D850, (2) the D7100 is going on eBay very soon, (3) I will not be getting another DX camera. The D850 spoils you for any other camera. They should warn you about that.
In fairness, the D7100 is an older technology camera. I knew that the D850 would make better pictures before I plopped down my $3000, but the results I got were so ridiculously better that I could not believe my eyes. My feeling is that FX cameras make better pictures than DX cameras. The results of this comparison cannot be ALL due to the age difference between the D7100 and D850. Some of the differences must be due to FX vs DX.
This is of course, my opinion, and not a proven fact. To "prove" that FX is better than DX, would require more resources than I have. To start, you would a pair of "current technology" cameras to test with, and you'd need some expensive lab equipment, and so on. But, I am satisfied that FX makes better pictures, and my future $$$$ are going into FX equipment.

Boris Ekner Loc: From Sweden, living in Guatemala

As a hobby photographer I see no reason for an amateur to get an FX camera.

I upgraded from the D5300 & got the D500 for all the reasons already mentioned in the replies you’ve got (I shoot hummingbirds in flight).

From day one with the D5300 I began buying used FX lenses (some from Japan) for maximum picture quality. This picture quality clearly appears when cropping hard.

All said, I probably failed answering your question...

ronpier Loc: Poland Ohio

I use two at times so that I don’t need to change lenses in the field. Also I get slightly different images with the different sensors and processors especially when I use one with an older CCD sensor.