So … keep in mind that the S5 is a great camera all-around, but when you compare it to the Nikon D200, it comes up short in some big ways.
1. Price: The D200 was a deal when it came out, and it's come down in price since then. You can get the D200 at B&H for $1,339.95. The S5 Pro is $1,899.95, or about 42 percent more. Is the S5 Pro 42 percent better than the D200? Only for people with some very specific preferences.
2. Speed. The D200 is a fast camera. It's not a world-class sports camera, but its 5 fps and good buffer means that every time you press the shutter, you know a picture's going to be taken. In contrast, the burst mode of the S3 is about half as fast on best settings, and even slower when shooting RAW with extended dynamic range. The shutter will only lock up during the fastest situations, but if you're used to looking at the LCD right after taking a shot, you're going to get really frustrated -- it can take a few seconds for a RAW image to come up even after one shot.
3. File sizes One of the reasons those RAW files take so long? They run close to 25 megabytes if you're shooting with extended dynamic range. That means you have to buy more cards and more hard drives, and those cards should be fairly fast, too, or you're going to have to wait a long time as they load onto your computer. An 8GB Extreme IV is looking really good to me right now.
4. The menus The D200 has one of the best menu systems of any camera. They are easy to read, organized well, and have a brilliant extended "recent settings" menu that can actually change the way you shoot -- it means that any setting you change in the field is only one menu level down, and can often be changed in five seconds or less. Here's a photo of my current D200 menu:
In contrast, the S5 Pro menus are awful. There are TWO different buttons on the camera to get at menu settings, which is wasteful to the extreme, and the individual items are scattered in a disordered mess between them. The only way to be able to change these settings on the fly at all is to memorize each and every last menu, and even then you'll have to dig through four or five levels to get to your most useful settings.
Of course, the S2 "menus" were just a series of numbers that made you refer to the manual to change, so I guess this is Fuji's idea of an improvement.
5. Image review: It doesn't get close enough to check sharpness. Highly frustrating, and hopefully will be fixed in a firmware update. On the plus side, the face-detection button works decently, as long as people are more or less dead-on to the camera.
5. Wonky exposure. I don't want to lay this all at Fuji's feet yet, because there are also issues with Lightroom and other converters that are trying to calibrate the right settings for a recently-released camera, but I've gotten some rather extreme underexposure out of the box. I calibrated mine to expose at a half-stop over the metered reading for every shot, which seemed to do the trick for the actual exposure, measured in JPEG. Lightroom -- one of the few RAW converters than can handle S5 files so far -- can't read the files right sometimes, and underexposes them a few stops. This isn't *actual* underexposure, though, just a mis-read as bringing them back up a few stops doesn't cause undue noise.
6. Resolution It claims to be a 12 MP camera. Not true -- the D200 has higher resolution. Even the lowly D40x has higher resolution. This matters very little to me. 6MP cameras always had enough for me, except possibly when shooting for a magazine double-truck -- and that's just to keep the art directors happy.
Overall, the S5 is kind of a weird camera. It's extraordinary in some important ways, and frustrating in others. I'm keeping mine; I always like the oddballs.