The Z8 / Z9 cameras have sensor screens. Turn the camera off and screen comes down to protect the sensor during lens changes. The only risk is the time it takes to effect the lens change may mean a lost opportunity, but the sensor won’t be exposed to environmental risk during the change out…

Government agencies are the biggest market for these extreme super-telephotos.

I own and use both the D500 and D850. I am not seeking to go mirrorless at the moment, but in direct answer to the OP’s question I would buy the mirrorless FF rather the D850.

My reasoning is simple, the D500 is a superb DSLR camera and Nikon Z FF (since you specifically want a FF) gives you a pathway into mirrorless that respects your current lens inventory etc.

The D500 will handle sports / birding etc and the FF for everything else (at least, that’s how I use my gear). And I know purists will disagree, “but” apart from being FF the D850 doesn’t give you much more than the D500, it feels the same as the D500 and operates the same as a D500. The mirrorless option gives you pretty much identical quality imagery to the D850 but a different user experience (EVF ect).

I bought my D500 before D850’s were released, and my D850 before the Z series were released. If I were deciding today about what two cameras I would want, it would be the D500 and a FF mirrorless.

So what was the issue?

FAT 16 - 2Gb file size limit
FAT 32 - 4Gb file size limit
NTFS - No practical limit, something like 8 Petabytes. Maybe an issue for the NSA or someone, but really...
NFS+ - No practical limit, massive files, a number so big I can't even comprehend it.

Not hard at all for TIFF Files to grow 4Gb+. I once managed a Print Shop (including printing maps, huge files!). But even for photographers, especially those new to TIFF, overlays etc.

I just suggest the OP look at file size since his 1.) using an external disk (likely a FAT file system) and 2.) their desire to work in TIFF, probably the fattest file format one can choose.

It’s not beyond reason to look at non obvious explanations when the obvious has already been explored 😎 Photoshop does, after all, provide for a Large Document Format for a reason...

Kind Regards

Yeah, so many useful shortcuts not listed in the menus. One must almost become an OSX Ninja (same for LR, so many functions without any obvious menu access).

I miss the ease and completely intuitive use of apps (is that the right word for an executable file these days) like GNU and vi 🙄

Yeah, that’s what happens occasionally when you answer questions on an iPhone waiting the Mrs to finish shopping.

Still, the OP’s core problem is most likely the file size exceeds the current format system used on his/her external drive. Since the OP is using a Mac, and if file size is actually the problem, then either store the file elsewhere or reformat the disk in Mac OS Extended or other format system capable of handling 4Gb + file sizes.

I’m reasonably sure but not positive; but Camera Raw was migrated from a stand-alone application to a Plug-In sometime ago.

That video you saw maybe predates the move to a Plug-in.

Every chance your TIFF file busts the file size limit on your external drive.

If it is formatted to FAT16 or FAT32 or some variation thereof, and your a regular TIFF file (or PSD) user, you probably should reformat the disk to NTFS or even better, if you use Mac exclusively, HFS (Journaled) to put large files such as TIFF and PSD onto that drive.

As a matter of course, it’s generally better to reformat an external drive upon purchase to your computers native file system anyway.

Edit: simplified my answer.

Copy the file(s), then hold CMD key (or is it Opt?, sorry, I now do it from muscle memory) when pasting and OSX offers the option to Move instead of copying the file.

My experience is that if I'm shooting say, my 400mm f2.8FL on a tripod I turn the VR off.

But, FWIW, I would be just as happy with that lens if it didn't have VR, happier still if the lens was cheaper because it didn't have a feature I use infrequently. It's usually either on a tripod or the shutter speed gets cranked up.

I have a friend though who uses a 600mm f4FL, he handholds even when fitted up with 1.4TC, and he loves VR. I can't handhold a 600mm f4 anymore, I'm not 21 anymore so maybe the question is moot?

I use a 85mm f1.4 or 105mm f2 for portraiture, but usually at something like f8. I like fast glass, a lot! But not just because of the razor thin DoF (in fact, sometimes despite the razor thin DoF), but because my AF gets more light to play with and I can see the target in less than ideal light.

I also prefer the rendering of fast glass, it tends to please my eye moreso than slower lenses.

I have and currently use a D500 and a D850. I owned a D810. All three are excellent cameras. The only reason to buy a D810 over a D850 IMHO is a lower purchase price and if you make a decision that the D850's superior AF and video are of no purpose for your needs, for example if you don't usually photograph wildlife/birds, sports or low light subjects. The remaining feature set of the D850 are largely incremental, nice, but not game changing. The megapixel count is not as big a deal as I originally thought either, I can't tell by looking on my 27" 5K Retina iMac if a photo I took is off the D810 or D850 no matter how hard I pixel peep.

My most used camera though is the D500, probably because I enjoy trying my hand at bird photography, and even if birds aren't in the frame I tend to shoot long. The D850 gets used mainly for portraiture or "set" shots like astro.

But the D850 is a superior camera to the D810, no question. It's much more flexible than the D810, there is nothing the D810 can do that the D850 cannot also do, but the D810 doesn't hold a candle to the D850 AF or video feature set. That's why I sold the D810.

Right click the image | Select Edit in Photoshop | Select Edit Original