Have both a D850 and D500. They are twinsies with virtually identical controls. I use the D500 for wildlife / birding and sports, the D850 for everything else. The D850 is an amazing camera. The low light performance is exceptional for those twilight landscapes and astrophotography. I am amazed at how well AF works in low light situations. The color depth and SNR are exceptional at ISO 64. The reason I use the D500 for wildlife is that the D500 has a higher pixel density than the D850. The D500 is 21mp and the D850 in DX mode is about 19mp.

It has been several years since I left the Nikon universe, after ~40 years there, beginning with an F and then a lot of film bodies through the F100 before switching to digital with the D100 and ending up with a D7000 (DX) and D600 (FX). I kept my many FX lenses when I switched to digital, and only "upgraded" to FX during the last few of my Nikon years to get the wide angle benefit of my 17-35/2.8. (My only DX lens was the 18-70/3.5-4.5 - with the better low light performance of the D7000 compared to film it turned out I didn't really need the 2.8 apertures I paid so dearly for in the film days.)

Except for the wider coverage from wide angle lenses, I don't think I saw any real improvement in my images from the FX body. That is, in the couple of years when I used both, I never had the experience going through things in Lightroom to select, process and print the best, of thinking "WOW, that must be an FX image." I paid the money and carried the extra weight for FX in order to get the wider coverage from my widest lens, but I did NOT end up getting "better" quality in the image file, at least not that I noticed.

So I would ask, at the outset, what real-world "improvement" in IQ are you looking for from an FX body that will make the extra expense and the larger size and weight of the FX equipment worth it? And is it possible that you can get that improvement with better DX lenses on your current body? In retrospect I probably could have kept going indefinitely with Nikon DX bodies and lightened my load a bit if I had invested in the (usually) smaller and lighter DX lenses. Instead of dumping it all and moving to Micro Four Thirds, where I am DELIGHTED with the image quality from MUCH smaller and lighter kits of bodies and lenses.

Full disclosure: Roberts is my local b&m store so they know me there, but they would do this for anyone.

I posted a while back about a Nikkor 70-300 AF-P VR lens. The lens mount broke and I sent it to Nikon (actually, Roberts did that as well) and got back the right lens as far as anyone could tell because it was the correct serial number. However, it was not a VR lens! I paid for VR and thought I had gotten a VR lens, but maybe not as the lens mount broke early on. Long story short, the folks at Roberts took care of everything for me with Nikon (yes, I did buy the lens from Roberts in the first place) and I now have back a lens with the same serial number AND VR! This will be a well used lens until I reach the Nirvana of a 70-200 f/2.8.

The moral of the story is you can buy from Roberts Camera with total confidence.

Ben

I have been using a Nikon 10-20mm for over a year.

It is a great little lens.


All this nonsense about “plastic” drives me bonkers.

“Plastic” gives the impression it’s made of recycled drink cup lids.

It’s fiberglass and will last for years.

Unless you use your camera for a hammer and the lens for a handle, you will never know the difference between fiberglass and brass.

Stop worrying about what how a quality lens is constructed and shoot the durned thing!

Infinitesimal differences in IQ between a prime lens and a zoom lens are irrelevant these days.

Zoom lenses are that good.

You have to quibble over minutiae to even fuss about it.


Don’t get wrapped up in lab tests.

Get wrapped up in results.

8)

Yes I am a big fan of his - although I don't agree with everything he says - at the very least some of his videos are very entertaining...truth be told he is one of the few if only really blunt honest photography YouTube channels out there - many of the others have highly polished videos, professionally posted and edited, nice expensive sets and props, but they are nothing more than expensive excuses for affiliate links and self promotion and sometimes disinformation and highly biased opinion...you know the big hair guy, the DxO guy, and others. Ken is very knowledgeable and is also into esoteric subjects such as metaphysics and philosophy....fun to watch! His lens recommendations are silk, sex and sugar! The epic tits! The cat's ass!

Other than Ken W I also like to watch Steve Perry's videos and real world tests...very honest too with better vernacular (rated G). There are a few others that are good but can't remember their names offhand....

Regarding Sigma right now I really only trust 2 lens makers on my Nikon - Nikon and Tamron....although certain Sigma lenses I am sure are very good, the problem may be in the mechanical design (aperture blades) rather than the optics which in most cases are very good. But it also is very dependent on personal experience with the brand...so I can't really speak to that since the last Sigma lens I used was in the film days in the 80s and 90s on Olympus bodies.

Regarding Canon I know he poopoos on certain models and in his opinion Canon is 40 good /60 bad. He believes Nikon is the reverse 60/40....but it's his experience and opinion - your mileage may vary!