Apaflo wrote:
If, and only if, your budget an tolerate the hit, a D810 is a better choice for landscape work, especially with a wide angle lens. It is probably better for macro, but that depends on what kind of macro work you do. Wildlife is similar, as that depends on how much you can spend on long focal length lenses.
The D500 is targeted at those who would do well with a D5 and don't have deep enough pockets. It shoots fast, which is great at a baseball game and for bird photography and that sort of wildlife. Nothing about the D500 is better than a D810 for landscape or portraits, except of course the lower price.
On a more general basis, all those pixels available with a D810 are a double edged sword. They take up a lot of space, and processing large images is slower. But... if you tend to crop or tend to print large, those pixels are absolutely wonderful.
Which is best for you is a decision only you can make.
If, and only if, your budget an tolerate the hit, ... (
show quote)
I get a bonus each year from work so I can definitely afford either option. I currently have a Tamron 150-600mm lens and a Sigma 150mm Macro lens. Both those will work on a FF camera although the Tamron will get the equivalent reach of 900mm on the crop frame so photographing wildlife (including birds) would probably be better with that and the D500. The D500 and a 10-24mm wide angle would definitely be much cheaper than the 810 and a 14-24mm wide angle. But I'm trying to keep the future in mind. I don't make money right now with my pictures but would like to in the future if I ever get good enough.
I guess I'm mostly wondering if the IQ with the 810 would be significantly better than that of the D500 to justify the extra $2k I would likely end up spending for it and the lens.