I've just learned the phrase "ethical optimization." Apparently it means "lying with photography."
A friend is selling her house. Unhappy with the realtor's pictures (too dark), she asked me to try. I gave her three dozen beautiful images and thought I'd done a good job, making the images looks like reality. That was a mistake. Real estate photographers employ the concept of "ethical optimization." Super wide lenses. House looks huge. A normal fridge appears six feet wide. Everything looks bigger than life.
Next time I can match the effect, I think. But what do you think of the idea? If everyone else is making the houses look better than they are, I'm putting someone at a disadvantage by aiming for realism..
Thoughts?

Well Jim, we are limited by our knowledge, but our imagination can take up places our knowledge couldn't Dream of.
After 11 years of heavy Wedding and Portrait photography (about 1200 of the first and a thousand of the 2nd), I was
getting anxious to do something new. A GF I was living with had seen a few random Nudes I had done and suggested
I do that, exclusively , for a while, and NOT for money- that way I could maintain full control of both subject AND
subject matter. Well, that was 45 years ago and times were much different then, so I had hundreds of willing and eager
models. My GF was correct; it was the avenue I was needing to exercise that 'pent up' Creativity I had looked for.
The overall result: while I have, to date, photographed over 5,000 very happy clients, I have never received 'Public
Recognition' for my commercial work. However, in 1977, a representative from the city of Carson City, CA, called me
and asked that I submit a dozen of my "Figure Studies" (apparently, she could not pronounce the word 'Nude') for a
Public Showing of a new-to-be-opened government building. There were several other photographers showing their
'wares', but I was the only one asked to show THAT genre. That was kinda a 'High-Point' I my career.
So, bearing out my thought about Creativity, 'When in doubt . . . let it out'!

The 810 and 850 will require good lenses to get what you paid for. While any decent lens WILL work, if you want to see what 36 Megapixels can do, the Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 70-200mm f/2.8E FL ED VR Lens at a mere $2800 is your best. Finding a previous version of that lens will also get great images at lower cost.

The Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8G ED Lens at $1800 is another great choice for a shorter zoom. The newer version: Nikon AF-S NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8E ED VR Lens is even better as it has VR. "Only" $2400. IMO, putting low-end lenses on that body is like putting retread tires on a Ferrari—Those "work" but at the expense of lower quality.

Now, if you don't print larger than 8x10 or 11x14 then cheaper lenses will be fine.

One of the best things you can do to ensure sharp images on that camera is to use a tripod as the fine pitch of those pixels will expose less-than-perfect hand-holding.

I am taking my daughter to the zoo next week. I own a Canon 100MM - 400MM prime lens and a 100MM - 200MM Canon prime lens. The 100 - 200 lens has internal zoom where the 100 - 400 has an external zoom. I also have the Canon 1.4X old style extender and the 2X III newer model extender. My question is what lens outfit would you guys recommend? I am leaning towards the 100 - 200 with either converter since the zoom is internal. Both lenses weigh about the same so this does not matter. Any advice would be great.