heimbrandt

Speaking of negatives; the only thing the D850 actually does worse than the predecessors is built-in flash, as it does not have one (but that is not relevant since you are moving away from flashes).

I have not owned and used the D810 and the D810A extensively, but I am very familiar with the others in the family. (The D810A is a special version tuned for astro photography.) I would say that the D810 is on par with D800, slightly behind the D850 and D800E. I would place the D800E just slightly above the D850 in terms of high ISO performance but when downsampling the difference is academic. I have used them quite a lot for indoor show jumping. in terms of mechanical noise, the D800/E are the loudest and the D810/A the most quiet of the lot. Q modes help a lot in that respect. Regarding memory cards, they use CF+SD card, except for the D850, which uses XQD+SD cards (just like the D500).

Common redshank: Nikon D850, AF-S 600 f/4G VR, TC-14EIII

The Nikon Z7 shares the focus shift feature with the D850, so the OP does not need any additional software. Nikon allows you to stack up to 100 images and set the focus step manually. Several Nikon cameras report some extended focal lengths with TCs slightly wrong. They round it off sometimes, but I have not given much thought to at which focal lenght they start. My D850 reports my 600 f/4G VR as follows: Bare: 600mm (so the camera does not know the lens’s true focal lenght) With TC-14EIII: 850mm (which really is 840mm) With TC-17EII: 1000mm (which really is 1020mm) With TC-20EIII: 1200mm (which is correct) While I have not used the TC-17EII with the 70-200 f/2.8 VRII, 70-200 f/2.8 E FL and 300 f/2.8G VR, I know the D850 reports the right focal lenghts with the 1.4x and 2x TCs and those lenses.

The House of Menander, Pompeii, Italy. The house is said to be one of the richest in the city and its present name is after the Greek dramatist whose portrait was found on one of the walls. Even thought it is taken at ISO 320, the camera still had enough dynamic range for it to work in a single shot under the midday baking July sun. Nikon D850, AF-S 16-35/4 VR

Correct, which is why I objected to BeBu's post claiming to know exactly what the Df should be (Nikon's target group is larger than BeBu Lamar): Most, if not all, products represent a set of compromises, but I do not believe the Df is as good as it could have been. I believe Nikon could make a Df2 and given lessons learned from the Df it may be closer to the home run many hoped the Df would be in the first place. Slightly more to more people, albeit still not perfect for everyone.

I cannot help noting that it is heavier than the older F-mount AF-S version (by 95 grams). That feels counterintuitive to the general idea that mirrorless systems are smaller and lighter. Granted, it is probably a more complicated optical design and I am sure it will perform better than the F-mount version - but still.

I was thinking more of Canon's use of pellicle mirrors for high-end sports cameras in the past. Combine that with the growing demands of silent photography at press conferences, sports and music events and it makes some sense to revisit the pellicle mirror. If it is enough, who knows, I am just saying it would not surprise me.

Given today's advancements in sensor technology (high ISO) and low-light AF, I would not be surprised if the D6 has a pellicle mirror. It would allow for higher speed, less vibration and completely eliminate the blackout and reduce the number of moving parts. I know they are prone to dust and dirt, but so are the sensors and changing a fixed mirror should not be that cumbersome (alignment issues considered).

BeBu, I respectfully think you are completely wrong about the Df. The idea was spot on but the execution left many wondering. Done right, a Df2 could still outsell the Df.

Illka, I agree that it is a good thing Nikon left the TC out of the 120-300. In addition to bulk, wight and cost, including it would also cannibalise somewhat on the 180-400 as well since it would then double as a 168-420mm f/4 lens. Given that the 120-300, most likely, will accept Nikons regular TCs, that would really lessen the appeal of the 180-400 lens (for the times you would want to cover 420-588mm). I am not sure what the Sony A9 has to do with this, but surely, there must be an A9 II in Sony's future. Speaking of Sony, I have not seen that many Sony cameras when I meet other bird photographers. The Sony A7RIV and 200-600mm lens may change that. No, tell the Sony fanboys on DPreview.com and Nikon UK will never hear the end of it...

Mike, while it can be a pop-up flash, I think it may be a GPS receiver and/or a built-in radio-controlled wireless flash commander unit. The lens was a bit of a surprise. I think it had been delayed intentionally in order for it not to cannibalise too much on the 70-200 and 180-400 sales numbers. That is also why I believe it will not have a built-in teleconverter.

Shun, I am glad your camera is working properly again and thanks for sharing information about the Wimberley foot. Perhaps Nikon replaces the rubber because it covers one/several screw(s) that they need to get to in order to work on the camera? Regarding the foot, I was surprised to see that Wimberely chose not to use the dovetail in the lens collar and add the screw as a locking mechanism and added security rather than as the only thing holding the foot in place. Albeit I am sure it works (for me, even the stock foot works on my 70-200E FL)), I am not that impressed by the tiny pin and toothpick. I would use blue Loctite on that screw.

That is what I wonder as well. Looking at the photo of the house, I would say the corners to the right are sharper than the left corners. I know the distance is not the same, but f/11 should have you covered. Perhaps your lens does not center perfectly when set to zero tilt? Does it lock down ok? Perhaps locking it down creates a slight tilt? However, a lens problem would have to be quite severe since a TC only enlarges the centre of the image projected by the main lens, thus it should show up on a much larger part of the left half of the frame when used bare. Since you say the TC is fine on the 70-200, I would re-test the 24mm lens and rotate it and see if the problem remains in the same place. It might be that the depth of field at f/11 masks a problem with the lens. Try shooting at f3.5 in order to really see what is going on (zero til and shift, locked and unlocked).

The Papal Basilica of St. Peter in the Vatican: Nikon D850, AF-S 16-35/4 VR

The Amalfi Coast, Italy: Nikon D850, AF-S 16-35/4VR

Ponte Vecchio, Florence, Italy: Nikon D850, AF-S 16-35/4 VR

Vipiteno, Italian Alps: D850, AF-S 70-200/2.8E FL

I am staying with the DSLR for now, but I am open to a mirrorless camera as a backup or a future upgrade. As I shoot a lot of birds, I still prefer an OVF and the (admittedly decreasing) advantage that the DSLR AF has for fast moving subjects. Mirrorless have probably both caught up and passed DSLR AF-C performance by the time I will look for a new camera.