lone ranger Loc: Port Saint Lucie, Florida

Thanks....

Jim Bob

If you need a bunch of strangers to tell you what to buy, you have more serious issues than can be dealt with on a forum such as this.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

Learning from other people's experience is vastly more intelligent that repeating all the mistakes made to get that experience.

Regardless you didn't understand the OP's question anyway. It wasn't what to buy, it was what to be aware of when deciding what to buy. Big difference, and one that you did not address.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I have a D800e and a D5 (and a D4). The D800e is a very capable camera for some things and the D5 is a very capable camera for other things. Different things.

My shooting concentrates on events, mostly indoors. I encounter a lot of low light situations so I'm ISO driven much of the time. I can use the D800e up to about ISO 6400, but the D5 I can use up to 20K. I generally put a different lens on each body and put two cameras in a sling bag and carry the third. That way I don't have to fiddle with lens changes during an event. I would estimate that 75% of my event shots are with either the D5 or the D4 and 25% are with the D800e.

For more casual photos I probably use the D800e more. The D800e is good at low to moderate ISO levels and has a bit more resolution. Resolution goes as the square root of the megapixel ratio so the difference is around 35%. The dynamic range of the D800e is good at low ISO, while the D5 is optimized for high ISO. The dynamic range of the D800 is greater than that of the D5 for ISO below about 2000. (see http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm ). The D800 goes to 5 frames/second while the D5 will go to 12 (or 14 if you allow it to leave the mirror up during the burst).

Both cameras have dual card slots, so they're good for important shoots where you can do a backup in-camera. Personally, I prefer to have two of the same kind of card, but it's not really essential.

And I have the holy trinity also, but I added the 200-500 f/5.6. That gives me 14-500 for a range (but not all those lenses fit in my bag so I have to carry two). I found that the 200-500 has an up-to-date VR, which works much better than the VR on my old 70-200 (and my old 24-70 didn't have VR at all). So I upgraded my 24-70-200 and I find the VR allows me to use slower shutter speeds than the old lenses required. That could be pretty pricey if you do them both, but if you can use slower shutter speeds you can use lower ISO and more VR. In that case you might not need to use a D5 and can start saving your money for the D6.

The difference between the D4 and the D5 is significant, but not huge. I think the days of large gains in performance are behind us. Much of the gain in the D5 over the D4 is in the software/firmware. The sensor is probably pretty close to the theoretical limit in sensitivity so I wouldn't expect to see a lot of improvement with the D6. I'm not an optical engineer or software engineer so my opinion can be strongly devalued. I didn't expect the D5 to be much better than the D4, and it really wasn't, but it was enough to get me to shell out for the D5 and I'm glad I did.

Jeffcs Loc: Myrtle Beach South Carolina

Well stated many and not just here in all walks of life no one ever listens befor spouting information that's was not requested that said when I am interested in a purchase I do a lot of research as looking for "what should I purchase" can only be answered by oneself

I hope what ever your decision is you don't have buyers remorse

WayneT Loc: Paris, TN

Personally I would hold out for the replacement of the 810.

BebuLamar

Compare the D4 to the D5. You see how much different they are. The D5 should still be current for a couple of years and then the replacement would have improvements similar to the improvements from D4 to D5. You have to make the decision for yourself. Buy it now and a couple of years there will be another one better selling for about the same price but the it too will be replaced about 4 years from that time.

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

Then keep you D800, it has a full frame sensor and more Mgs. than the D5. You would be trading down and you do not need the D5, unless it's an ego thing.

Brasspounder001 Loc: Erewhon

Well, is it really an "upgrade"? How will the features of the D5 benefit you compared to the D800? Can you justify the outrageous cost of this camera? The D5 is a "Pro" camera, and does not have the same performance or feature set of high end "consumer" cameras. Different high end cameras are suited to different types of photography, for example high speed sports photography versus landscape and portrait. The quality of glass on the front of the camera and subtleties in technique will by far render better images. If you're travelling the world from the Sahara to the Antarctic taking pictures for Nat Geo then sure, go for the D5.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I would not call moving from a D800 to a D5 a downgrade, but it may not be an upgrade either. It all depends on what you're going to do with it. It's probably best described as a move sideways.

As I mentioned above, the D5 excels at high ISO and has good rapid response. The D800 excels at low ISO and has more resolution. They're different cameras for different purposes. I have both and use both, mostly for different purposes but the D800 can fill in at moderately high ISO.

If you are planning to sell the D800 to get the D5, I would advise renting a D5 first to see how it compares with the D800 and whether it will do a good job on the type of photography you do. If it's a case of D800 OR D5, I would think carefully. If it's a case of D800 AND D5, I'd say go for it. You will expand your capabilities.

Brasspounder001 Loc: Erewhon

There still seems to be the underlying idea that new and more expensive equates to "better" in some way, whatever that means. Compared to the old workhorse the D700, the D5 is in my opinion a hastily marketed camera put out in time for the olympics in 2016. Its low ISO performance is mediocre, however it does do 12 frames per second. The file size if you're shooting RAW will almost bring most computers to a grinding halt. You'll need the absolute cream of the crop lenses to benefit from the D5, plus drag yourself up the learning curve getting the best out of this camera. Better offerings for the amateur photographer (from Nikon anyway which is what I am familiar with) would be the fabulous D500 or even a D7100, which will burp out stunning images used with decent glass. If you must have FX lenses, the D700 or D810 will give you outstanding images.

DavidPine Loc: Fredericksburg, TX

I, too, am awaiting the upgrade to the D810. Don't overlook the D500. In my opinion, it's one of the best Nikon cameras. I have considered the D5 and I may yet buy it depending on if and when Nikon upgrades the D810.

Haydon

I'm not so sure that worries the OP if he's buying a $6,000 camera body :)



You could say the same for an 810 with 75 meg RAW files.

Enjoy you're purchase, you only live once.

DirtFarmer Loc: Escaped from the NYC area, back to MA

I did note above that the D800 has a better dynamic range than the D5 for ISO less than about 2000. The D5 target user is going to be driven by ISO and function speed.
As far as lenses are concerned, the OP did say that the holy trinity was available. Cream of the crop.
"Better offerings for the amateur photographer" does not have to be defined monetarily. While the D500 appears to be a great camera (I haven't used one) there's no real reason an amateur couldn't benefit from the D5 assuming it would not cause him to miss meals due to the expense. I am an amateur, I bought a D5, and although I probably should miss a few meals it has not been necessary. IMHO I have benefited by use of my D5. (And I upgraded my computer last year so it does not grind to a halt while using raw files from the D5 [or D800e for that matter]).
There is a learning curve for any of the high end camera bodies. Amateurs (generally) don't use the camera 8 hours a day, so the learning curve would probably be more of an impediment for them than it would for a person with more regular experience.

And I'm sure the D500 or D7100 can produce stunning images. But the D5 does things they can't.

Apaflo Loc: Anchorage, Alaska

That statement alone, though you made others just as ridiculous, marks that set of opinions as totally clueless.

Cameras that are within your budget restraints are not magically superior to the cameras you cannot afford. The D700 did not compare well to any of the D3 or D4 models, much less to the D5 which easily eclipsed all previous flagship models from Nikon.

The D800 and D810 target a different purpose than the D5, and for that specific purpose are a better choice. None of the DX models, nor any of the consumer models, can come close to the high end models.