I’m thinking it’s an underexposure problem for the OP. In your case, I believe if your shot was perfectly exposed at ISO 800, then LR accomplished for you at ISO 100 what your camera accomplished at 800: Amplification.

As with OP—pics please. I’d like to see.

Great camera! I still have my original OM-1 md given to me my senior year in college by a rep making a business call at the photo store near campus. 1982. I pulled it out recently, inserted a roll of previously frozen TMax, locked-in my trusty 180/2.8, and took a journey backwards as I shot golden hour scenes at a local lake. Didn’t finish the roll, so I haven’t nothing to show—yet.

Having owned it, along with an Om-2, OM-30, OM-4t, E-1, and E-540—none of the bodies give me the special, magical feeling I get when I pull the OM-1 up to my eye. Ironically it’s the only one of the bunch without any AE features. Heck—it hasn’t had a battery in years. Not necessary, really.

You have a very special camera. The 50mm is good, but don’t be afraid to take a flyer on a Zuiko 100, or 28–depending on what you shoot.
Great glass. The 180/2.8 was my “normal” lens during my days as a photojournalist.

Enjoy it!

Before ziplock bags we froze water in various sized balloons. I haven’t looked for one in ages, but I’m sure Google can help you find a “chiller” that connects to the faucet (at floor level; below the sink.) It’s been almost 30-year’s since I bought, and installed one.

Funny! And, I’m a Nikon owner. I will mention my D750 has “2” card slots. The D7500 has only one.

Hey—no doubt their comments left an impression on you, but on most “community sites” such as UHH, all caps denotes shouting.
Not being critical...just trying to help.

I had the same thought as I kept reading the reactions. About a year ago I thought how convenient it would be to pair my iPhone with the camera while I shot—i.e., using the phone as a storage device. Not sure if we’ll see this on these bodies since one would think that bit of technology would have been a prominent feature in yesterday’s blitz.

LOL!!! ROTFL!!!

I didn’t realize pro’s were Nikon’s only target for these new bodies. I can remember the old guys at the coffee shop complaining about the auto manufacturers replacing the old trusty 3-foot jack with a “beer can and a rod.” Opined the crusty guy who owned the local welding shop: “I’d never buy one of those cars, and chance my wife changing a ‘tar’ with that cheap piece of junk.”

Yippee! Going to set my sites on long/fast Nikon primes.

I just spent a week in Lake Havasu. Pretty, but I’m watching this thread for some real gems.

One last thing...should you get credentials, or shoot the pro-am: You mention only one body, so I’d keep my footprint small. You’re around a lot of people, and space is at a premium. Of everything you listed I’d limit myself to to the 70-300, and if you have a lens case the 18-55. If the 170?-500 has an independent case that straps to your belt, maybe it. I’m not sure the monopod would be allowed. It’s obviously your first tournament to shoot, so work on getting close—personally I think I could accomplish a great day only with the 70-300...it will be bright sunlight for most of the day, so perfect conditions for sharpness with that lens. (I have the same lens and use it on my wife’s D7200 with excellent results.)

You’ll also want to get the iconic shots—golfer finishing his swing/backswing on drive/putting—out of the way in the first hour. After that, let your creative instincts kick-in, and get the shots we won’t see in the next day’s newspaper, or online.

That said, please share your best with us!

On the surface it seems to “bite,” but consider the abuse were these rules not in place. Hmmmm...possibly 1/3 to 1/2 of a gallery with all variety of cameras, and long lenses trying to get the perfect shot. No doubt, since you’re a hogger you possess more than a modicum of photographers ethics, but you would be in the minority. Pro golfers generally demand total quiet as they deliberate, and eventually execute their shots—regardless of where they are on the course.

I know firsthand the pro-am days are generally the best days to shoot, anyway. First, there’s a looseness among the golfers that makes for more intimate shots—especially around the greens, and after they have putted-out. Also, if you happen to have a favorite, there’s always the chance he won’t make the cut...so shooting on Wednesday will guarantee you shots of him.

Oh yeah, the course stewards are a little more relaxed on Wednesdays, which makes for fewer butt-chewings when the overreaching, uncredentialed photographer steps over the line.

One last suggestion: In college I couldn’t get credentialed to shoot the Byron Nelson (then in it’s first year at Los Colinas, and I was trying to include a variety of sports shots in my string book), so I decided to go on Wednesday. Once there I found several of my fraternity buddies standing in a particular area. They were in line to hire-out as caddies for the “Am” members of the pro-am. What the heck, I got in line, and got to caddy in Andy Bean’s group. Both Bean’s caddy, and my golfer agreed to let me bring one body, and one lens. I was shooting Pentax back then, so I brought my 45-125. Truly the most fun day I ever had shooting a golf tournament. I only wish I could find those negatives!

Maybe this will be an option for you.

Have fun—and if you end up going on a day when you’re relagated to only your smartphone, consider it a challenge. I’m still a bit sheepish to admit my best shot from a two-week event last year was shot with my iPhone 7. But...not too sheepish to not include it in my slideshow!

Ok, I’ve re-read the OP several times—only the first time without laughter, or head-scratching. With all sincerity, and no intent to impugn your actual abilities, I can only wonder if deep-down you’re not satisfied with your images. There will always be the “next best thing about to be introduced” with volumes of in-house marketing designed to make us drool. Myself, I wish the D850 had been available in 2015 when I bought my D750. Even then the D810 was available, but for my purposes there were not enough differences between the two to justify the expense versus an additional lens (I was also changing systems.) But, without question, I would have bought the D850.

The whole DSLR/Mirrorless conversation has become boring. Obviously those who have moved to mirrorless have their reasons, and enjoy the system. I applaud the manufacturers for developing new technology. If it has a place, the market will bear it. That said, photography has always been a diverse art form. In the 70’s (as a teen getting started in the field) I initially couldn’t understand why some guys on football sidelines still shot with Speed Graphics...especially after I got my first 35mm, and got to shelve my Rollei TLR. I remember in college the big debates among the pro’s I got to learn from were zoom lenses. (How many times did I hear, “I’ll never use one!” in reference to zooms.) Then, there was always the debate between the Leica rangefinder shooters, and those that had moved to SLR’s. No need to bore you with the AF versus MF fights.

Hey, the beat goes on (OK, I was born in the early ‘60s). Just because newer technologies will always be around the corner, and eventually upon us doesn’t mean they will immediately serve everyone’s needs. Eventually some give way to newer, and often better—anybody still using floppy disks?

Who knows, perhaps mirrorless will eventually turn DSLR’s into leaded-gas vehicles. But, even then, as with a certain ‘65 Mustang parked down the street from me, I’m sure there will be at least a 3rd party adapter kit for the connoisseurs among us.

That said, to the OP, rather than pine over a system yet to be brought to market, why not shoot the heck out of your D850 since you are at least blessed to have one, and then consider selling it when the new system is introduced?

You can pick up a good used 80-200/2.8 without breaking the bank. This, and begging your way onto the sideline will be better than the slower 5.6 on 200-500. At this point I’d be more concerned with timing, lighting, and composition. Please post some of your efforts as the season progresses.

Flair can be creatively used to set mood, or as effective transitions in cinematography. As with many special effects, it can be a matter of taste, and should be used sparingly. Just IMHO.

Proof flair is rarely acceptable is offered by the lens manufacturers who have spent a century in developing glass that limits flair.