Nikon D5 Sensor Score from DXOMark

[J.R.]

A worthy successor...with less low ISO DR than the APS-C sensor in Canon's 80D.

By whose measurement? Yours? Canon's? Where is the 80D review in DxO? Oh yeah, they don't have one.

Bill Claff.

DxO is scheduled to support the 80D RAW format next month, so they'll have the data in DxOMark sometime after that. I doubt their 80D review will compare it to the D5, but time will tell.

Per DxO, the D5 DR smokes the 1DX DR. I guess the 80D is better than the 1DX? Is that what we should conclude?

DxO doesn't say that the D5 DR smokes the 1DX DR. The landscape DR is measured at 12.3EV for D5 as opposed to 11.8EV for 1DX. A difference of 0.5EV.

DXO on its own website states that

A value of 12 EV is excellent with differences below 0.5 EV usually not noticeable.

Hardly smokes the 1DX DR ... talk about an overstatement.

And yeah, the 80D does have more DR than the 1DX at low ISO. See below ... Happy?

 

[J.R.]

A worthy successor...with less low ISO DR than the APS-C sensor in Canon's 80D.

By whose measurement? Yours? Canon's? Where is the 80D review in DxO? Oh yeah, they don't have one.

Bill Claff has measured so. Check out the chart generated from his website.

Perhaps- but I'd rather the D5's performance from these charts. I don't need more dr at ISO100 (sure it could be nice, but I don't need it). I want more DR at ISO 6400-that's where I'm limited.

Eh? Not from the low ISO DR brigade, are you?

You need to understand what you are comparing - the Nikon flagship FF D5 vs. the lowly Canon APS-C 80D. Apples Vs. Oranges. The two cameras are hardly competition to each other. A more meaningful analysis would be between D5 and 1DX II.

 

[Loswr]

A worthy successor...with less low ISO DR than the APS-C sensor in Canon's 80D.

By whose measurement? Yours? Canon's? Where is the 80D review in DxO? Oh yeah, they don't have one.

Bill Claff.

DxO is scheduled to support the 80D RAW format next month, so they'll have the data in DxOMark sometime after that. I doubt their 80D review will compare it to the D5, but time will tell.

Per DxO, the D5 DR smokes the 1DX DR. I guess the 80D is better than the 1DX? Is that what we should conclude?

You can conclude whatever you want. DxO measures sensors, the D5 sensor scores lower than two generations of its predecessors, and they conclude the D5 is 'a worthy successor'. Sounds like you both enjoy exaggerated claims.

 

[Don Haines]

Now here's a radical thought....

What if design constraints means that you can't design something that is the best at everything? What If Canon (and Nikon) have to choose to optimize their sensor design for either high ISO or low ISO but it can't be both? What if both companies decided to design their flagship cameras for the challenging conditions that people are buying them for, and that's why they are both fantastic at high ISO and mediocre at low?

Imagine! Designing a camera for what it is to be used for instead of designing it to score well on DXO tests under unrealistic conditions! Who would have thought!

 

[J.R.]

Now here's a radical thought....

What if design constraints means that you can't design something that is the best at everything? What If Canon (and Nikon) have to choose to optimize their sensor design for either high ISO or low ISO but it can't be both? What if both companies decided to design their flagship cameras for the challenging conditions that people are buying them for, and that's why they are both fantastic at high ISO and mediocre at low?

Imagine! Designing a camera for what it is to be used for instead of designing it to score well on DXO tests under unrealistic conditions! Who would have thought!

I guess that is exactly what is happening with a large number of options available within a single brand for buyers.

 

[Mikehit]

I guess that is exactly what is happening with a large number of options available within a single brand for buyers.

There is a marketing strategy that one company creating two competing products will generate more than the sales of the two individual items added together. So even though the company may be able to produce a 'landscape camera' and a 'sports camera' the reason for having these 2 bodies is less about technology or specialisation and more about marketing strategy.

 

[J.R.]

I guess that is exactly what is happening with a large number of options available within a single brand for buyers.

There is a marketing strategy that one company creating two competing products will generate more than the sales of the two individual items added together. So even though the company may be able to produce a 'landscape camera' and a 'sports camera' the reason for having these 2 bodies is less about technology or specialisation and more about marketing strategy.

Maybe true ... but then do you think that Canon is holding back a 14fps, 50mp body?

 

[Mikehit]

I guess that is exactly what is happening with a large number of options available within a single brand for buyers.

There is a marketing strategy that one company creating two competing products will generate more than the sales of the two individual items added together. So even though the company may be able to produce a 'landscape camera' and a 'sports camera' the reason for having these 2 bodies is less about technology or specialisation and more about marketing strategy.

Maybe true ... but then do you think that Canon is holding back a 14fps, 50mp body?

At 50MP, it probably could shoot at 14fps......for under 3 seconds, assuming all MP are created equal. Or half a second if the greater MP affects autofocus calculations or other functionality.

 

[J.R.]

I guess that is exactly what is happening with a large number of options available within a single brand for buyers.

There is a marketing strategy that one company creating two competing products will generate more than the sales of the two individual items added together. So even though the company may be able to produce a 'landscape camera' and a 'sports camera' the reason for having these 2 bodies is less about technology or specialisation and more about marketing strategy.

Maybe true ... but then do you think that Canon is holding back a 14fps, 50mp body?

At 50MP, it probably could shoot at 14fps......for under 3 seconds, assuming all MP are created equal. Or half a second if the greater MP affects autofocus calculations or other functionality.

;D

 

[3kramd5]

Well if you happily own a Canon camera then you wouldn't care about that extra half stop of DR, would you?

??

Care to share your reasoning?

You must be reading a different canonrumors website than I am.

Is that a no, you won't share it?

In that case, I can only read between the lines: you are suggesting that happily owning something means the owner doesn't care about how it could possibly be improved. That's utter silliness.

I'm a happy canon owner.
I'm a happy sony owner.
I'm an unhappy nikon owner.

I care more about how the first two can improve than the third.

 

[bdunbar79]

A worthy successor...with less low ISO DR than the APS-C sensor in Canon's 80D.

By whose measurement? Yours? Canon's? Where is the 80D review in DxO? Oh yeah, they don't have one.

Bill Claff.

DxO is scheduled to support the 80D RAW format next month, so they'll have the data in DxOMark sometime after that. I doubt their 80D review will compare it to the D5, but time will tell.

Per DxO, the D5 DR smokes the 1DX DR. I guess the 80D is better than the 1DX? Is that what we should conclude?

The 80D has more low ISO DR than the D5. Oh no! Now what?

 

[Jack Douglas]

Reading here is better than the funnies.

Jack

 

[zim]

A worthy successor...with less low ISO DR than the APS-C sensor in Canon's 80D.

By whose measurement? Yours? Canon's? Where is the 80D review in DxO? Oh yeah, they don't have one.

Bill Claff.

DxO is scheduled to support the 80D RAW format next month, so they'll have the data in DxOMark sometime after that. I doubt their 80D review will compare it to the D5, but time will tell.

Per DxO, the D5 DR smokes the 1DX DR. I guess the 80D is better than the 1DX? Is that what we should conclude?

The 80D has more low ISO DR than the D5. Oh no! Now what?

Aye, except clearly the D5 has better DR than the 80D at ISO 50 :

 

[ritholtz]

A worthy successor...with less low ISO DR than the APS-C sensor in Canon's 80D.

By whose measurement? Yours? Canon's? Where is the 80D review in DxO? Oh yeah, they don't have one.

Bill Claff.

DxO is scheduled to support the 80D RAW format next month, so they'll have the data in DxOMark sometime after that. I doubt their 80D review will compare it to the D5, but time will tell.

Per DxO, the D5 DR smokes the 1DX DR. I guess the 80D is better than the 1DX? Is that what we should conclude?

The 80D has more low ISO DR than the D5. Oh no! Now what?

Aye, except clearly the D5 has better DR than the 80D at ISO 50 :

Based on Bill chart, you can shoot 80d at iso 100 and still end up more DR than D5 at ISO 50.

 

[zim]

A worthy successor...with less low ISO DR than the APS-C sensor in Canon's 80D.

By whose measurement? Yours? Canon's? Where is the 80D review in DxO? Oh yeah, they don't have one.

Bill Claff.

DxO is scheduled to support the 80D RAW format next month, so they'll have the data in DxOMark sometime after that. I doubt their 80D review will compare it to the D5, but time will tell.

Per DxO, the D5 DR smokes the 1DX DR. I guess the 80D is better than the 1DX? Is that what we should conclude?

The 80D has more low ISO DR than the D5. Oh no! Now what?

Aye, except clearly the D5 has better DR than the 80D at ISO 50 :

Based on Bill chart, you can shoot 80d at iso 100 and still end up more DR than D5 at ISO 50.

I think I used the wrong emoticon, I was making a joke about how dxo will justify their results. I seem to recall them doing a similar thing with lens fstop range to bias results.

 

[ritholtz]

A worthy successor...with less low ISO DR than the APS-C sensor in Canon's 80D.

By whose measurement? Yours? Canon's? Where is the 80D review in DxO? Oh yeah, they don't have one.

Bill Claff.

DxO is scheduled to support the 80D RAW format next month, so they'll have the data in DxOMark sometime after that. I doubt their 80D review will compare it to the D5, but time will tell.

Per DxO, the D5 DR smokes the 1DX DR. I guess the 80D is better than the 1DX? Is that what we should conclude?

The 80D has more low ISO DR than the D5. Oh no! Now what?

Aye, except clearly the D5 has better DR than the 80D at ISO 50 :

Based on Bill chart, you can shoot 80d at iso 100 and still end up more DR than D5 at ISO 50.

I think I used the wrong emoticon, I was making a joke about how dxo will justify their results. I seem to recall them doing a similar thing with lens fstop range to bias results.

It is my mistake. I did not check emoticon. I wonder, why D5 has same DR at ISO 50 and ISO 100. Isn't it suppose to have more DR at ISO 50 like d810 compared to ISO 100.

 

[scyrene]

I wonder, why D5 has same DR at ISO 50 and ISO 100. Isn't it suppose to have more DR at ISO 50 like d810 compared to ISO 100.

It's an expanded ISO, isn't it? Like ISO 50 on Canon cameras - so it's simulated, rather than real. 64 on the D810 is the real base ISO; but it also has an extended low setting, ISO 32. Extended low ISO settings never have more DR than the base setting (in fact I've seen it stated for e.g. the 5D3 says ISO 50 has *less* DR than ISO 100).

 

[Neutral]

What we see in general is that most of the new sensors used in the latest (last 3-4 years) FF cameras are not much different in performance (when normalized to some common resolution), even a BSI a7r2 42mpx sensor is not too much ahead though still possibly the best sensor. I also do not expect that 1DXmII sensor would be significantly better than 1Dx sensor for high ISO, only slight improvements in some areas (except for low ISO DR where improvement is significant).
This most possibly means that current sensors technology has reached saturation point limited by current sensors design limitation (Bayer sensor limitation) and it would be very difficult to get more out of that.
So I would not expect much more advances in this area unless something drastically different comes in the mass production
Making sCMOS technology more cheap for mass production could add some advantages but not really too much – it just would allow to get closer to the theoretical performance limits for Bayer sensor design.
So do not expect much from the new product based on the old design and technology – they will be slightly noticeable.

If we look at all that from wider angle then it is clear that we are now at the turning point for implementation of something drastically different, which could allow utilizing all the light hitting the sensor.
So let us wait until someone get out with the mature sensors technology using full RGB pixels (3-layers design – something like Foveon type sensor). Whoever will be the first might be able to get significant advantage.
I suspect/feel (based on different rumors) that first camera using such kind of sensor might be new Sony a9 pro level camera. If rumors telling about 70-80mpx sensor for a9 are correct, I tend to think that this will not be 80mpx Bayer sensor. 80mpx Bayer sensor does not make much sense for FF sensor due to number of different reasons, but rather 3-layes RGB sensor on the chip, with each pixel being full RGB pixel able to capture all amount of light hitting the pixel area. Then this would translate to about 24-28 mpx spatial sensor resolution providing at least 1-1.5 stops better high ISO performance compared with any other competitors on the market , let alone other sensor metrics.
Might be I am too optimistic but I feel that it is just right time for something revolutionary in sensor technology/production
Interesting to see if anyone from sensors manufactures feel the same and could try to get advantage of that.

 

[GMCPhotographics]

I guess that is exactly what is happening with a large number of options available within a single brand for buyers.

There is a marketing strategy that one company creating two competing products will generate more than the sales of the two individual items added together. So even though the company may be able to produce a 'landscape camera' and a 'sports camera' the reason for having these 2 bodies is less about technology or specialisation and more about marketing strategy.

Maybe true ... but then do you think that Canon is holding back a 14fps, 50mp body?

It's a through put of data problem, not a sensor or shutter problem. It's certainly not a marketing problem either. The biggest restriction in a camera is the internal processor. 50mp @ 14fps will generate a lot of data and that will need a very very fast processor to handle that kind of data throughput. You would need a processor capable of handling 700mbits/sec and the current dual Digic 6 is good for 252mb/s (5DS = 50.5mp x 5fps). The 1DXII seems to use an over clocked pair of Digic 6 chips called a Digic 6+, which seems to be good for 325mb/s (16fps x 20.2mp). If the usual and historical increase in performance between the generations of Digic holds to be true, then we can expect a single Digic 7 chip to be good for the same as a dual Digic 6 pair (circa 252mb/s) and a dual Digic 7 should be good for about 1.5x that number to yield around 380mb/s. A dual Digic 7+ should be good for 487mb/s, a future Dual Digic 8 could yield around 570mp/s and a Dual Digic 8+...around 730mp/s.
This means that we a still a long way off a 14fps 50mp camera. We are looking at 2 generations of Digic development before we hit the 730mb/s required to get a 14fps 50mp camera.
The dual Digic + processors are usually released in the 1Dx series cameras. So we are looking at something like 4 years between 1Dx releases....so by my maths, that's 8 years away. I suspect that the next 1Dx will get a massive bump in resolution.
The next round of cameras using a single Digic 6+ chip should yield a 5D4 with a through put of around 225mp/s. We can cut that pie a number of ways. 37.5mp @ 6 fps or 28mp @ 8fps (which I think has been rumored).

 

[bwud]

I guess that is exactly what is happening with a large number of options available within a single brand for buyers.

There is a marketing strategy that one company creating two competing products will generate more than the sales of the two individual items added together. So even though the company may be able to produce a 'landscape camera' and a 'sports camera' the reason for having these 2 bodies is less about technology or specialisation and more about marketing strategy.

Maybe true ... but then do you think that Canon is holding back a 14fps, 50mp body?

It's a through put of data problem, not a sensor or shutter problem. It's certainly not a marketing problem either. The biggest restriction in a camera is the internal processor. 50mp @ 14fps will generate a lot of data and that will need a very very fast processor to handle that kind of data throughput. You would need a processor capable of handling 700mbits/sec and the current dual Digic 6 is good for 252mb/s (5DS = 50.5mp x 5fps). The 1DXII seems to use an over clocked pair of Digic 6 chips called a Digic 6+, which seems to be good for 325mb/s (16fps x 20.2mp). If the usual and historical increase in performance between the generations of Digic holds to be true, then we can expect a single Digic 7 chip to be good for the same as a dual Digic 6 pair (circa 252mb/s) and a dual Digic 7 should be good for about 1.5x that number to yield around 380mb/s. A dual Digic 7+ should be good for 487mb/s, a future Dual Digic 8 could yield around 570mp/s and a Dual Digic 8+...around 730mp/s.
This means that we a still a long way off a 14fps 50mp camera. We are looking at 2 generations of Digic development before we hit the 730mb/s required to get a 14fps 50mp camera.
The dual Digic + processors are usually released in the 1Dx series cameras. So we are looking at something like 4 years between 1Dx releases....so by my maths, that's 8 years away. I suspect that the next 1Dx will get a massive bump in resolution.
The next round of cameras using a single Digic 6+ chip should yield a 5D4 with a through put of around 225mp/s. We can cut that pie a number of ways. 37.5mp @ 6 fps or 28mp @ 8fps (which I think has been rumored).

But aren't there architectural changes which could alleviate some of the load on the digic unit, for example digitizing the signal before it even reaches the processor?