Upload & Sell: On
@Kent You have some very good points about thinking of all of this as a system. Luckily I work as a Web Developer so I do already have a very powerful computer system with the full Adobe Master Collection and even have Lightroom so that part of the system is taken care of. I have looked into the D5200 and I believe I would out grow that camera very quickly.
I've been taking photos for a quarter of a century now, for the past 12 years I do it almost daily. I've been shooting weddings over the past year, and in the past I've done stock photography, odd jobs as a commercial photographer, and was a photo columnist/commentator for a specialty magazine. I still regularly shoot LF (4x5), medium format (film,) and a Leica IIIc along with Nikon digitals. That said, I have never understood what "growing out of a camera" means. The camera just isn't that important in the big scheme of things. Some of my most compelling images I made last year I did with a $5 Kodak Brownie made in 1959. I will never "outgrow" the Brownie. A camera is just a camera--a machine. The art comes from an artist.
I live in South Dakota and am an avid outdoorsman. We as a family take "adventure" vacations every year to places like Scotland, Hawaii, Arctic Canada, Iceland, and etc. We have the money to do this so you can assume I have the $$ to buy camera gear. If I were putting together a camera ::system:: for backpacking (something I've done plenty of) it would be: Nikon D5200, Nikon 16-85mm, Nikon 70-200mm f4 VR, Nikon SB-700, polarizer, 3 spare batteries , Gitzo Traveler CF tripod, and a small RRS ballhead. That would be about it. I would not buy the bulkier and more expensive D800 because no one I show or potentially sell my images too are going to tell the difference between that and a D5200. If I were a full time wedding photographer it would be a different story, but then I wouldn't be concerned with the weight & bulk either. I'll never shoot a wedding after hiking at 14,000 ft. The day is coming when instead of a DSLR, my choice for a backpacking camera will be a Micro 4/3 type camera that's even smaller and has even smaller lenses, meaning I could get by with an even lighter tripod. Unless you are regularly blowing your photos up to something like 20x30 and actually selling prints, you are wasting money with a very expensive camera. Over the years, I've learned to concentrate more on the image than the gear. You will take better photos with a small lightweight camera than a big heavy one while backpacking, mostly because you will tend to keep the small one someplace easier to get to. If you have to stop everything and dig a $3,000 camera out of all the protective pouches before taking a shot, odds are you are going to take fewer shots. You may also be less willing to take risky shots with an expensive camera that you might do with a far less expensive one. This is all human nature, and I've often seen exactly this while hiking Yosemite/Yellowstone/Jasper/Grand Canyon/Banff/Iceland/Scottish Highlands et c. et c.
Kent in SD