DPR's review of D5

[Loswr]

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-7d-mark-ii/13

Getting an optimal ETTR exposure is difficult and usually only best done via extensive bracketing. Given the difficulty of absolutely nailing an optimal exposure, the flexibility offered by a camera with greater dynamic range cannot be understated for situations such as these: they prove more tolerant of any 'mis-exposure' which, in fact, may not be a 'mis-exposure' at all when you're using the in-camera exposure indicators to judge your exposure with higher dynamic range scenes such as this one.

See how dire the situation is when you don't have enough DR?

They even go out of their way to say that ISO invariance will give improve high ISO performance.

Note that the dynamic range advantages of cameras with high base ISO dynamic range can extend to higher ISOs as well, where the 'ISO-invariance' of cameras like the D7000 allows you to purposefully underexpose the image by lowering the levels of ISO amplification. This gives you extra highlight headroom in accordance with the amount of reduction in ISO amplification. The 7D Mark II is not amenable to this type of shooting.

But of course you'll only find lengthy paragraphs about these deficiencies with the 7DMkII, with no mention of beneficial tradeoffs to be seen.

For the D5 you find multiple legthy paragraphs downplaying the exact same points used to criticise the 7DMkII.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d5-pro-dslr-review/8

Either way, in our opinion, we'd try not to over-stress the importance of the fact that the D5 has poorer base ISO dynamic range than its current peers (after all, you can buy multiple D810s for the same price, if low ISO DR is important to you). For its intended audience, the D5's high ISO imaging capabilities, advanced autofocus and durability are likely to be much more important.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d5-pro-dslr-review/13

In real world shooting, the D5's dynamic range hasn't been a huge problem. Sure, you'll need to watch your exposure in high contrast scenes more than you would on, say, a D750 or D810 - pushed low ISO Raw files out of the D5 exhibit a lot more shadow noise than those other cameras. But that's taken care of by either sacrificing some highlight detail during your exposure, or with a little bit of luminance noise reduction in post. And if you shoot JPEG and nail your exposure, or routinely in low light, there's even more to like. Nikon's JPEG processing still doesn't retain quite as much detail, particularly at high ISO, as Sony's content-aware algorithm, but it's noticeably better than the D4S, retaining more detail at higher ISOs with less noise and better color retention.

Mr. Rishi*. Paging Mr. Rishi. Where are you, please come and remind us of how DPR is unbiased. :



*Technically, it's Dr. Rishi, but only the fake kind. I can say that without rancor as I am also a doctor of the fake kind.

 

[ahsanford]

Ahsanford, we agree on most points, the 7DIII, we can agree to disagree.

7DIII needs no R&D, throw the 80D sensor in it, two DIGIC7s in it, 1DXII AF system in it (the D500 is the D5's AF in a crop, the 7DII is the 1DX AF in a crop, unless someone can give me a good reason why they can't, I say they can), CFAST and 4k via MJPEG output (doable vs x264/x265 which has a much higher thermal footprint). They spent all the R&D on the 1DXII, 80D and G7XII, just reuse existing tech. It's still too early in the 7DII life-cycle to your point, but, early 2017 isn't, my opinion. I think Photokina this year is too early though.

Right back at you -- nothing but respectful disagreement here.

Canon can make the rig you describe. I have zero doubt. There are simply more profitable / more 'share protective' things for them to be working on right now, like:

• Protecting different aspects of their ecosystem where they may actually be in jeopardy -- putting 4K in more places in the portfolio, designing an inexpensive super zoom for wildlifers, etc.
• Maintaining high prices / profit margins on the 1D line, Cinema line, 5D line, etc.
• Investing in a new tech advancements that many lines can use, like DPAF, anti-flicker, silent shutter, etc. have been in the past.
• Carving out a new market offering, like FF mirrorless, like a budget purpose-built videocam with 4k with interchangeable lenses, like a super slick cell-phone camera module, etc.

So as much as I look forward to a future 7D3 -- and we certainly will get one -- people won't bolt if Canon doesn't make one soon. Canon will continue to print money with the 7D2 on the mature production line as long as they can.

- A

 

[3kramd5]

, throw the 80D sensor in it, two DIGIC7s in it, 1DXII AF system in it (... unless someone can give me a good reason why they can't, I say they can)

Of course they can. they just have to design, proof, program, and produce at the very least all new circuit cards, assemble, write manuals for, market, package, ship, and sell a new camera, and oh, eat the loss of capital put into whatever stock of 7D2-specific parts they have produced but not yet consumed at what is likely sooner than what's called for in their strategic plan.

 

[Woody]

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-7d-mark-ii/13

They even go out of their way to say that ISO invariance will give improve high ISO performance.

But of course you'll only find lengthy paragraphs about these deficiencies with the 7DMkII, with no mention of beneficial tradeoffs to be seen.

For the D5 you find multiple legthy paragraphs downplaying the exact same points used to criticise the 7DMkII.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d5-pro-dslr-review/8

DPReview is outright PATHETIC.

 

[Woody]

I seriously doubt we'll see updates to 7D2 and D500.

Time will tell...

 

[Woody]

Mr. Rishi*. Paging Mr. Rishi. Where are you, please come and remind us of how DPR is unbiased. :

To be fair, DPReview tried to offer an olive branch to Canon by using the 80D to document Barney's boat building experience:https://youtu.be/C-640dtnRic
;D :

 

[9VIII]

Ahsanford, we agree on most points, the 7DIII, we can agree to disagree.

7DIII needs no R&D, throw the 80D sensor in it, two DIGIC7s in it, 1DXII AF system in it (the D500 is the D5's AF in a crop, the 7DII is the 1DX AF in a crop, unless someone can give me a good reason why they can't, I say they can), CFAST and 4k via MJPEG output (doable vs x264/x265 which has a much higher thermal footprint). They spent all the R&D on the 1DXII, 80D and G7XII, just reuse existing tech. It's still too early in the 7DII life-cycle to your point, but, early 2017 isn't, my opinion. I think Photokina this year is too early though.

Right back at you -- nothing but respectful disagreement here.

Canon can make the rig you describe. I have zero doubt. There are simply more profitable / more 'share protective' things for them to be working on right now, like:

• Protecting different aspects of their ecosystem where they may actually be in jeopardy -- putting 4K in more places in the portfolio, designing an inexpensive super zoom for wildlifers, etc.
• Maintaining high prices / profit margins on the 1D line, Cinema line, 5D line, etc.
• Investing in a new tech advancements that many lines can use, like DPAF, anti-flicker, silent shutter, etc. have been in the past.
• Carving out a new market offering, like FF mirrorless, like a budget purpose-built videocam with 4k with interchangeable lenses, like a super slick cell-phone camera module, etc.

So as much as I look forward to a future 7D3 -- and we certainly will get one -- people won't bolt if Canon doesn't make one soon. Canon will continue to print money with the 7D2 on the mature production line as long as they can.

- A

On the subject of the 7D3 in general, I wouldn't mind if they wait a bit. This is only the first generation of on chip ADC so it's probably not going to be their best, and at this point it's critical that the 7D3 have high quality 4K output. I expect they would move a lot of units if they could get a global shutter working, and that's definitely the kind of tech that would justify the release of a new body.
And it would let them further implement video snapshots as a photography tool, which is where the still seem to be headed.

 

[Orangutan]

*Technically, it's Dr. Rishi, but only the fake kind. I can say that without rancor as I am also a doctor of the fake kind.

No, actually you're both closer to "real" doctor than an MD: the word "doctor" derives from the Latin for "teacher." Most MD's don't teach (e.g. try to ask them to explain their assessment as they're walking out the door). Ph.D.'s are the "real" doctors; MDs are "surgeons" in the old-school sense; i.e., practitioners.

Oops, almost forgot the

 

[Bennymiata]

Mr. Rishi*. Paging Mr. Rishi. Where are you, please come and remind us of how DPR is unbiased. :

To be fair, DPReview tried to offer an olive branch to Canon by using the 80D to document Barney's boat building experience:https://youtu.be/C-640dtnRic
;D :

They had to use a camera that would actually work for the duration of the build. ;D

 

[sasaki1029]

I just read the DPR review for 1dx mark ii and D5 and believe if someone compares the DPR's review for both side by side, he will easily understand the unfair way adopted in the reviewing....

When DPR found 1dx mark ii has better low ISO DR, they said "Did Canon Catch up..." for the topic and try hard to reveal the remaining shortcoming of the Shadow pushing, but for D5, they seems change the mind and said "In fact, the D5's performance closely resembles the performance seen from the Canon 6D...", when found the low ISO DR is worse than before.

It's clearly to say DPR try to use A7Rii to criticize the low ISO DR performance improvement of 1dx mark ii, and use Canon 6d to defend the fallback of D5 in the same means. For me, This is really the "BIAS".

 

[ahsanford]

I just read the DPR review for 1dx mark ii and D5 and believe if someone compares the DPR's review for both side by side, he will easily understand the unfair way adopted in the reviewing....

When DPR found 1dx mark ii has better low ISO DR, they said "Did Canon Catch up..."

I'd like to read that 1DX2 review very much... but I'm not sure it exists.

Are you sure you weren't just referring to their image quality comparison page? They've definitely reported their IQ test shots, but I've not written up a proper review about it to my knowledge.

- A

 

[ritholtz]

I just read the DPR review for 1dx mark ii and D5 and believe if someone compares the DPR's review for both side by side, he will easily understand the unfair way adopted in the reviewing....

When DPR found 1dx mark ii has better low ISO DR, they said "Did Canon Catch up..." for the topic and try hard to reveal the remaining shortcoming of the Shadow pushing, but for D5, they seems change the mind and said "In fact, the D5's performance closely resembles the performance seen from the Canon 6D...", when found the low ISO DR is worse than before.

It's clearly to say DPR try to use A7Rii to criticize the low ISO DR performance improvement of 1dx mark ii, and use Canon 6d to defend the fallback of D5 in the same means. For me, This is really the "BIAS".

Compare 1dx2 with A7R2 for low iso DR and declare it is inferior. Compare high iso noise with D5 (conveniently ignore dxo noise measurements and pick some patch on their studio test and show superior measurements) and declare 1dx2 is inferior. Compare dual pixel AF with 80d and declare it is inferior (no live view tracking in pics). Not sure how Canon does in 3d focus compared with D5. We have to wait for idx2 full review. I think, it is very easy to predict outcome of this test. They are going to drum up superior 3d Nikon focus even though it is limited in use (check d500 review where they can not use 3d focus in their bicycle test where biker is little far from camera). We have seen this for some time. Can someone explain me what are the situations one can use 3D focusing. Based on DPR and Tony tests, looks like it is only useful for close ups. Is it true? Is it possible to track soccer ball or basketball using 3D focusing.

 

[Larsskv]

Not sure how Canon does in 3d focus compared with D5. We have to wait for idx2 full review. I think, it is very easy to predict outcome of this test. They are going to drum up superior 3d Nikon focus even though it is limited in use (check d500 review where they can not use 3d focus in their bicycle test where biker is little far from camera). We have seen this for some time. Can someone explain me what are the situations one can use 3D focusing. Based on DPR and Tony tests, looks like it is only useful for close ups. Is it true? Is it possible to track soccer ball or basketball using 3D focusing.

So, DPR failed to mention the usefulness/limitations of Nikons 3D tracking. What a surprise... Just keep in mind that it's really good. It's the best there is. It's Trump good...