Nice photos. I grew up in Mobile and saw the kinds of birds you photographed. The Mobile river delta is teeming with birds and other wildlife.

My favorite also. It's a tie with Brahms 2. This is a great performance. I judge all performances of Rachmaninoff 2 against Van Cliburn's. His performance of this in Moscow on Russian TV is also astonishing but suffers from poor sound and video.

The list of the "anythings" has been repeated over and over in this thread, "anythings" such as noise, speed, size and weight, IBIS, possibility of better lens designs, what you see is what you get and so on.

Image quality isn't the issue. The issue is features not possible with a DSLR. Does everyone need them? No, but you can't argue that no one benefits from them.

There will be a time in the near future when you won't be able to buy a brand new DSLR unless Pentax continues to be a holdout. You buy what's on the market. Many people will look back and wonder why we put up with the noisy beasts.

Same here. My photographs and video, as well as the photos my parents took of our family and vacations, are the diary of my life, my family's lives, extending to my friend's lives. I have always shared photos generously with friends and family.

Naptha was removed from that lighter fluid in around 2010. Benzene is carcinogenic. It is used in manufacturing but is not supposed to be in any consumer products at greater than 0.1% by weight. But whatever works. I just like to look things up.

Every time this topic comes up, he makes sarcastic comments like that. He doesn't believe it. He's making fun of people who do believe it.

Have you tried this on another computer? The one you're using may not be able to keep up with the video transfer. I know this because it has happened to me on one but not another computer.

Agreed. The camera is a tool that is necessary for taking pictures. If you need features that your camera doesn't have to be creative, and if another camera has those features, then you need the other camera. It's very simple. If you don't, then don't buy a new camera.

I just want to throw out one thing that has also been brought up before. Mirrorless cameras are quiet, suitable for auditoriums, press conferences, golf tournaments, wildlife photos etc. The quiet mode in DSLRs involves some compromise. You can't do it through a viewfinder if the mirror is up. Most DSLR's use contrast detection autofocus (slow) when the mirror is up, and their electronic shutters are particularly prone to rolling shutter. There ARE advantages to mirrorless cameras. People who think otherwise are delusional. There are good reasons to upgrade and good reasons not to upgrade. It depends on what you do with your cameras. It's as simple as that. This doesn't have to go on for 12 pages.

What you read is a quote from a 2020 Ken Rockwell review of the D780, written before any of the current Nikon mirrorless cameras existed. A lot has changed in 4 years. I wouldn't bash the D780 by any means. It's a fine DSLR, perhaps Nikon's most advanced. It's just that it is stuck in time where mirrorless cameras keep advancing. The person posting the quote should have indicated that it was a quote from a review up front instead of at the end. The date would have been helpful as well. All of the sample photos in the review are dated 2020.

I once exchanged some email with Ken Rockwell and asked why there were so many dated reviews on his site. He was honest and said that he just doen't have time to update all of them.

Pentax is wasting their time. Their flagship camera is still a DSLR, and although impressive for a DSLR, it is likely that they will eventually hit a brick wall with features and sales. I don't know what they're thinking. Same with their coming out with new film cameras. I'm sure they will be good cameras for what they will be able to do, but if I were going to shoot film, I think a lightly used Nikon F4, 5 or 6 would suit me better. There are many used film cameras on the market that can do a good job. Where is the market for new film cameras? Leica if you want to burn through some money.

I agree about Live View on a DSLR, and when attempting video with my D850 in bright sunlight, I could barely see the rear screen. It ended up being a disaster. The only Nikon DSLR with decent autofocus in the Live View mode is the D780. The contrast detection in the others is slow and hunts.

I'm just not at a point in my life where I want to upgrade and spend a lot of money. My D850 is good enough for anything that I do.

The IQ of sensors hasn't really improved in the past 10-12 years. Backlit sensors and hybrid sensors that use phase detection for autofocus are tweaks that were added when DSLRs still ruled the roost, but you'd be hard pressed to see a difference in IQ between a 10 year old Nikon D810 and their latest and greatest cameras. What does make a difference is features, speed, much better autofocus, weight, viable electronic shutters with limited rolling shutter effects, better lenses etc. You have to go mirrorless to appreciate those things.

But I'll say this. If your 10 year old camera meets your needs, don't waste money upgrading.

The 70-200 f/4 VR is a good alternative to the 2.8 lens, just as sharp, significantly lighter and less expensive. It has been discontinued, but there are used copies out there.

https://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/used/897230/?cnxclid=17107954762390155609214661190008005

A used D810 will cost you less than a new or used D850. If you're not trying to track fast moving subjects, you won't be able to tell any difference in the pictures those two cameras take unless you're into pixel peeping, and even then, the difference is subtle. The D810 is a VERY quiet camera for a DSLR. The D850 is not.

I went from a D810 to the D850 and consider it money wasted. If I were going to truly upgrade, I'd go mirrorless, but I'm at a stage in my life where spending a lot of money on cameras and lenses doesn't make any sense.