drklrd Loc: Cincinnati Ohio

That 30 G for a megapixel was what made me quit photography for a while. I was dj on the side then so I stuck my money into it and kept working until that went digital and I found a Nikon 3200 pawn which put me back to work and now I run with the D7200 Nikon 24 mega pixels. I would like to own the D850 but I'll wait a bit to build up cash on a card. My event and sport shooting keeps a retired man busy doing what he likes. I want in the art category eventually but a few more pieces of gear is all I need to do that. I mount and frame a lot of my good stuff. You can see some of it at http://elmphotography.zenfolio.com/ To post here I have to go to my other computer and transfer to this one and then downsize the image... so I usually do not post just chatter away here until the jobs call me back.

Larryshuman

I'd like some valid reason why Nikons D5 is $6450.00, their 180~400mm is around $14,000 and the 600mm FL E is around $14,000. Who in the world is going to buy at these prices? I think you would have to re-finance your house or take out a mortgage or be a densest or lawyer.

drklrd Loc: Cincinnati Ohio

The D850 is new for around 3.5 grand and has a 45 megapixel sensor and is full frame model. I would buy it before I would buy a D5.

Peterff Loc: O'er The Hills and Far Away, in Themyscira.

You haven't looked at professional video camera costs or video lens costs have you? It's a small market with high demands. That costs money, but they wouldn't exist if people didn't buy them. They cost way more than still cameras and lenses.

These systems are aimed at professionals that can absorb the costs as part of their business. The same is true for high end still cameras and lenses. It's simple economics 101.

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Error 404: Website Not Found... (bad link)

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

1) limited market for the D5 and extremely long lenses — top professionals and the wealthy (and those with too much credit) — means the small production run has high per-unit costs
2) built like a brick house or a tank — for use and abuse in the harshest environments
3) it's Nikon, it's their flagship, they can ask for it and get it (Oh, my god, it's expensive, so it has to be good!)
4) big, long lenses are incredibly difficult to manufacture to high precision tolerances
5) some people covet shiny black objects...

If you can give up two stops of low light performance, and two EV of dynamic range, a Lumix GH5 or G9 with a Panasonic Leica 100-400mm f/4-f/6.3 zoom will do a lot of the same work for $3800 or less. Whether it is enough for you depends on your needs and end uses for the images.

I certainly wouldn't want a D5 or the lenses you mentioned. If they suddenly fell into my lap, I'd turn around and sell them and put the proceeds into a really nice new pair of GH5s, that Leica zoom, and a new iMac Pro! Then I'd put the rest into some more Micro 4/3 lenses and my kids' college fund.

therwol Loc: USA

These products are not for general consumption. They are highly specialized tools that are sold to professionals who need their capabilities to make a living. You can find similar Canon products in their lineup.

BebuLamar

Yeah! The typical PC the CPU is easily removable but still you can not generally upgrade to a newer processor. You only can upgrade to a higher level processor of the same vintage.

Larryshuman

I went over to Dam & lock in Iowa on the Mississippi in Jan 2018 and borrowed a D5 to use with my 600mmF:4 G VR. Since I belong to Nikon Professional System I can borrow it for 2 weeks for free and I just pay shipping. I did the best shooting there than I every did when I was in Alaska twice to shot eagles. Now I got D5 GAS.

drklrd Loc: Cincinnati Ohio

KankRat Loc: SW Chicago Suburbs

One gripe I do have with the entry level DSLRS like a Nikon D3xxx is the tiny view thru the viewfinder, where my old FM2 looked gigantic by comparison. I bought a Canon Xsi for my first DSLR, just because the viewfinder looked bigger.
They also seem to be clumsy to shoot with.
Personally I think that a serious hobbyist photographer who is going to change settings a lot would probably be happier with a higher end camera, for instance in Nikon's line a D7xxx- which I think they call "enthusiast" level.

speters Loc: Grangeville/Idaho

But the camera you put that new sensor into, would not be able to handle it!! So all the processing units, menus, etc., all of that would have to be replaced as well! It would make that even more expensive trying to cramp all that new stuff in an old body, than just simple building a new one from the ground up!!!!

burkphoto Loc: High Point, NC

Exactly, which is why cameras are now so "disposable." In seven years, the average dSLR is irrelevant and obsolete, yet it probably still works fine!

Shutterbug57

Well, works as designed. My D200 is a good case in point. It was a great camera a long as you had enough light to shoot at ISO 800 or lower. It still performs as well as it did when new, but it is nowhere near the low light performance of my D500. That was my only real complaint with the D200.

I don’t know what will appear in the future, but the D500 does everything I ask of it and does it well. I think the DSLR market is maturing and is now where the current crop are where PCs were once the Pentium chip arrived. At that point computers started lasting longer. I anticipate that new-today camera bodies will be used longer than those of the last few generations.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Maybe yes, maybe no. Focus speed depends on both body and lens. Low light capability depends on both body and lens. Sharpness, color depth / contrast. etc depend on both body and lens. Sometimes you get stunning improvement by upgrading the body, and sometimes you get it by upgrading lens.

But this is generally Off Topic, so I will not say anything else on this subject.