if you subtract the VAT, it comes down to some $3700. If I were to purchase a D850 locally, I'd pay 7.75% sales tax for a total of about $3550 - so the main culprit in the price differential is the sales tax (and I would assume that the remainder is due to currency exchange rate differences). If I take Germany as an example, with 19%VAT, the D850 price sans sales tax is about $3650. Of course, neither in the UK or Germany can I do what is possible here in the US - order from B&H or adorama and pay no sales tax whatsoever (even though in my state I should pay the "use tax" when I do the annual tax return). Naturally, this sort of calculation can't hide the fact that people in the UK and Germany pay 20%+ more for a D850 than the lowest possible price in the US (with most of that extra going to the government and not to Nikon). Seems I cannot deny that this describes me too. I got drawn into the Sony mirrorless system that had nothing to do at all with any dissatisfaction with Nikon but was prompted by the desire to use some inherited Leica M-mount lenses on something digital that didn't have a red dot and associated price tag. That experiment ended with me abandoning the M-mount lenses altogether and acquiring some native Sony FE lenses to complement my Nikon DSLR system. While I am not ready yet to let go of Nikon completely, if I had to purchase a camera body right now (no intention at this time), I would most likely opt for the Sony A7R III over the Nikon D850, in particular if the new Sony FE 24-105 indeed turns out to be as good as initial report claim it is. That would give me a chance to assemble a three-lens travel/hiking kit that's substantially smaller and lighter than my current Nikon equipment without being in any way limiting or inferior; the decision would almost entirely be driven by lens choices rather than camera specs: Nikon's 14-24/2.8 or Sigma's 12-24/4 are substantially larger and heavier than the Sony 12-24/4. Unless the initial reports on the Sony 24-105 turn out to be overly optimistic, it will surpass Nikon's 24-120 or Sigma's 24-105. The Sony FE 70-200/4 is at par with Nikon's offering but I would very likely trade it and the Nikon AF-S 80-400 for the new Sony FE 100-400 (which from all I've read is better optically). I would retain NIkon D810 for use with prime lenses and Nikon D500 for reach with the 200-500. Evolutionary, but nothing revolutionary (OK, 7/9 fps for a 46MP camera is a huge step forward).