D5 Has CRAPPY Low ISO DR!!!

[KeithBreazeal]

A screen shot from page 2 comparisons: D5 versus 5DS R at 6400 ISO. Interesting to say the least.

Nikon D5 vs Canon 5DS R at 6400 ISO by Keith Breazeal, on Flickr

 

[Bennymiata]

Maybe Nikon is using an old Canon sensor in the D5? ;D

 

[Don Haines]

I have to now go and read those Mikael Risdal comments ........ ;D

They are truly glorious.

He actually tried to say that it would be technically too difficult for Nikon to have this fast a readout for 14FPS with on-chip ADC.

yet somehow they can read the sensor 60 times per second when it does video.....

 

[jdavis37]

Using the Imaging resource Comparometer, the D5 images at 51.6K ISO and D4S images look very similar though it appears there may be more built in NR going on for the D5. Hard to say. But point is I did not see substantial gains in high ISO between 2 Nikon models (the current and the new replacement). The 1D-X at 51.6K ISO is very close to the D5 (maybe half stop worse).

This confuses me somewhat. If Nikon gave up low ISO DR to focus more on higher ISO, I am not seeing the gains (but via DPR can easily see the losses of DR at low ISO). I may be having a dense moment so forgive if I am.I also recognize camera does not equal sensor, so the D5 may have other things going for it that will prove to be attractive for those wanting a Nikon body. But I am curious why they had to give up the low ISO DR so many touted in the D4S while seemingly gaining little on the high ISO side. Just curious and not trashing the camera or sensor. I will not be buying any Nikon bodies in near future and at some point will very likely buy a 1D-X II (2017) to go with my 5D3. I am sure the D5 images will be very nice and the body as well but find it interesting their low ISO DR has gone away.

New camera models are now being aimed more directly at specific markets. The D5 is aimed at PJ's who value the ability to capture a image in difficult lighting. Low light sensitivity is probably a trade for low ISO DR that is of limited value to the target market.

Reviewers tend to review products for features they want, rather than for the features the target users need.

Someone using the extreme high ISO is not likely a person planning to blow up the image to 20 X 30, it will be used for a news report and be a photo that others could not get. I'd happily trade low ISO DR for low light sensitivity. The D5 low light DR is not bad, its merely less than cameras intended for amateurs who underexpose by 5 stops

 

[3kramd5]

Doesn't look crappy to me.

Odd how everything short of the very best in the world is relegated as crap.


[quote author=jdavis37]
If Nikon gave up low ISO DR to focus more on higher ISO...
[/quote]

I don't believe that is an accurate trade. Rather, I suspect they opted for powerful, high frequency processing to facilitate framerate, at the cost of noise.

 

[JohanCruyff]

With such a unusable Low ISO DR, Nikon D5 can't be used for landscape (like all Canon models before 2016), but it might turn out to be an excellent paperweight (like all Canon models before 2016)!

 

[Stu_bert]

I got this link from one of the threads here - another perspective on D5 and indicative of what Nikon are responding to from requests of their target market

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3981547

One assumes their target market doesn't care too much about the drop in ISO dr at low ISO.

We've always said that Canon does a lot of research and knows their target audiences' needs better than people on these forums. It's reasonable to suggest Nikon does also.

For me I think it shows that perhaps like Canon, they are exploiting current sensor tech for as long as they can before changing to whatever comes next. Economics

 

[Stu_bert]

Better still, the author's site

http://www.photonstophotos.net/index.htm

Where he has measurements for the 80D

 

[GMCPhotographics]

According to DPReview lab tests, it seems that Nikon decided to bring out a $6,500 "pro monster" with a low ISO dynamic range that's much worse than that of $1,996 D750 and even worse; $747 (!!!) D5500 sensor, kills the one of the new "king" of Nikon FF!!!

I think that 1Dx Mk2, not only is going to blow the Nikon crap out of the water, it's going to eat it alive!

Don't worry, DPR promises to test AF performance next, and you can bet their bottom dollar they will find that the D5 is better than everything on the market, especially if they don't bother reviewing the 1D X II just like they didn't bother reviewing the 1D X.

It was also astonishing that DPR never noticed or reported the regular lockups that the early copies / firmware D4 cameras suffered from...or at least that's what most of the Nikon pro Wildlife guys informed me of...which is why most of them have quietly ditched Nikon again and reverted back to Canon 1DX's.

 

[IglooEater]

I don't get too caught up in forum battles or hype but I do have an eye for bias when it exists. In the DPR article they have already shown the bias clearly:

"For its intended audience, the D5's high ISO imaging capabilities, advanced autofocus and durability are likely to be much more important."

So now the Exmo gets a pass because of the same logic Canon shooters had for years.

Are you saying that anyone that bought Canon previously did so because of high ISO imaging capability?

I think there are lots of people that would disagree with you on that...

I'm sure you're right, and that there are more people to disagree with me than agree. However this is one of the reason's I'd like to stick with canon. I show my high-iso pics to people with nikons (such as the D7100 or D5300) that outscore the 60D on spec sites, and they're visibly impressed. Maybe I just have a good copy of the 60d, dunno. No, of course I'm not talking about large prints at iso 12000, just small prints and on the web.

 

[IglooEater]

The ISO comparison thingy is also up: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=nikon_d5&attr13_1=nikon_d4s&attr13_2=canon_eos1dx&attr13_3=sony_a7sii&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=51200&attr16_1=51200&attr16_2=51200&attr16_3=51200&attr171_2=off&attr171_3=off&normalization=compare&widget=1&x=0.03136310295843366&y=0.030521571152607882

Looks a bit better than the 1dx, though not stunningly.

 

[IglooEater]

I don't get too caught up in forum battles or hype but I do have an eye for bias when it exists. In the DPR article they have already shown the bias clearly:

"For its intended audience, the D5's high ISO imaging capabilities, advanced autofocus and durability are likely to be much more important."

So now the Exmo gets a pass because of the same logic Canon shooters had for years.

Are you saying that anyone that bought Canon previously did so because of high ISO imaging capability?

I think there are lots of people that would disagree with you on that...

I'm sure you're right, and that there are more people to disagree with me than agree. However this is one of the reason's I'd like to stick with canon. I show my high-iso pics to people with nikons (such as the D7100 or D5300) that outscore the 60D on spec sites, and they're visibly impressed. Maybe I just have a good copy of the 60d, dunno. No, of course I'm not talking about large prints at iso 12000, just small prints and on the web.

What are you trying to say with "visibly impressed"? It could mean any number of things...

Go here:
http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/RN_ADU.htm

and select 60D, D5300 and D7100.

YES! Thank you for making my point! (sorry I was too lazy myself to go and find this kind of test chart myself) The 60d is NOT great at noise. It isn't. Yet, people tell me they couldn't get the results I get on the 60d on cameras classified as "better" by the test charts. Someone has got to explain this to me.

 

[Loswr]

The ISO comparison thingy is also up:
Looks a bit better than the 1dx, though not stunningly.

That makes sense. Of course, the D5 competitor is the 1D X II, so we'll have to wait and see what that comparison looks like.

 

[ritholtz]

With such a unusable Low ISO DR, Nikon D5 can't be used for landscape (like all Canon models before 2016), but it might turn out to be an excellent paperweight (like all Canon models before 2016)!

Why would you want to use a D5 for landscape when you've got a D810 that's far superior in every way for that job?

DPR mentioned this in their quick note. Please send your D5 purchase receipt to DPR/dilbert to get your free d810. Most of the current cameras (including much maligned canon rebels, 70d and 7d2 on dpr) are pretty good until +3v push. That is the maximum any one going to push most of the times according to even Nikon users now. D5 is a absolutely fine even with landscapes. Even with d7200 when you push +5ev all the colors are turned into something else. Sony did something with d6300. It has consistently higher DR until very high ISO.

 

[IglooEater]

The ISO comparison thingy is also up:
Looks a bit better than the 1dx, though not stunningly.

That makes sense. Of course, the D5 competitor is the 1D X II, so we'll have to wait and see what that comparison looks like.

Yup. Eager to see the 1dx II results. If I were a 1dx owner (which I'm not, I get all google-eyed when I see one) I think I'd want more of a noise improvement than I see with the D5. I'm really speaking through my hat here.
How much noise improvement in the 1dx II would tempt you Neuro? ;P

 

[ritholtz]

Better still, the author's site

http://www.photonstophotos.net/index.htm

Where he has measurements for the 80D

This is a really awesome website.

Agree. Bill does all the hard work of measuring PDR. DPR uses either Bill data or dxo data and writes some text around it. They add push tests to add more to these numbers. DPR actually claims that they are technical site rather than photography related website.

 

[Loswr]

How much noise improvement in the 1dx II would tempt you Neuro? ;P

No doubt more than we'll see. The only tempting thing about the MkII for me is the full AF point coverage at f/8, for my 600 II + 2xIII. But I don't find that tempting enough.

 

[9VIII]

So now the Exmo gets a pass because of the same logic Canon shooters had for years.

This isn't Exmor:
http://nikonrumors.com/2015/12/16/list-of-all-nikon-dslr-cameras-and-their-sensor-manufacturerdesigner.aspx/

Nikon usually uses in house designs for their flagship cameras and they've always been a bit worse than Sony sensors in this area.
The big deal here is that it's worse than the last generation of the same body.

 

[IglooEater]

So now the Exmo gets a pass because of the same logic Canon shooters had for years.

This isn't Exmor:
http://nikonrumors.com/2015/12/16/list-of-all-nikon-dslr-cameras-and-their-sensor-manufacturerdesigner.aspx/

Nikon usually uses in house designs for their flagship cameras and they've always been a bit worse than Sony sensors in this area.
The big deal here is that it's worse than the last generation of the same body.

Thanks for sharing the link- what I Found most interesting was that the D7200 sensor, which I've heard is excellent, was not made by Sony, but by Toshiba.

 

[Skatol]

How much noise improvement in the 1dx II would tempt you Neuro? ;P

No doubt more than we'll see. The only tempting thing about the MkII for me is the full AF point coverage at f/8, for my 600 II + 2xIII. But I don't find that tempting enough.

but, but , but......it has 4k video capability!