Nikon Announces Development of the Nikon D5 DSLR Camera

[hjulenissen]

EVFs and AF aren't quite there because of the small bodies.

It is probably possible to make a better EVF and better AF if you can increase body size by 2x (and/or increase battery size accordingly). That is not to say that mirrorless would be strictly better than SLR in every concievable way had their body been larger.

Big SLRs have dedicated AF chips and more battery power to drive bigger lenses faster. The PDAf works exactly the same way.

The PDAF of a Sony A7rII does not work in exactly the same way as the PDAF of a Nikon D810, nor does its actual performance match it as far as I know. A hypothetical Sony A9 would probably not either.

Give an SLR a weak battery and take away the processing power (to match a size-conscious mirrorless camera) and it would underperform just as much in the AF department. It's not the mirror or second AF sensor that makes for an SLR's fast AF...

You are of course allowed to say this, but I think that you are wrong.

-h

[shadowblade]

It is probably possible to make a better EVF and better AF if you can increase body size by 2x (and/or increase battery size accordingly). That is not to say that mirrorless would be strictly better than SLR in every concievable way had their body been larger.The PDAF of a Sony A7rII does not work in exactly the same way as the PDAF of a Nikon D810, nor does its actual performance match it as far as I know.

Then tell me exactly how they differ. Both rely on information collected from a sensor - in the case of the SLR, a separate sensor using light reflected from the mirror, and, in the case of the mirrorless body, the actual imaging sensor. Both use two lines of pixels pointed at opposite sides of the lens to detemine whether the target is in focus. In both cases, it's determined by a processor, which then sends a signal to the lens telling it to move in one direction or the other, as well as how far. The only differences are the location of the sensor (on the imaging sensor vs a separate AF array), the processor (multifunction or dedicated AF processor) and the power delivered to the lens to make it move - all of which are quantitative differences, not qualitative onesm. They work in exactly the same way - just that the SLR has more of everything, so it can work faster.

[BernardLanguillier]

They work in exactly the same way - just that the SLR has more of everything, so it can work faster.

And everything may include better lens AF technology and, your guess is as good as mine, engineers with more experience serving the most demanding action shooters?

Cheers,
Bernard

[hjulenissen]

Then tell me exactly how they differ. Both rely on information collected from a sensor - in the case of the SLR, a separate sensor using light reflected from the mirror, and, in the case of the mirrorless body, the actual imaging sensor. Both use two lines of pixels pointed at opposite sides of the lens to detemine whether the target is in focus. In both cases, it's determined by a processor, which then sends a signal to the lens telling it to move in one direction or the other, as well as how far. The only differences are the location of the sensor (on the imaging sensor vs a separate AF array), the processor (multifunction or dedicated AF processor) and the power delivered to the lens to make it move - all of which are quantitative differences, not qualitative onesm. They work in exactly the same way - just that the SLR has more of everything, so it can work faster.

A quick look at examples of the two suggests that the differences in constraints/solution is significant. While this does not preclude on-sensor PDAF from offering equal (or even better) performance that off-sensor PDAF, it makes it dodgy to assume anything like "they are built on the same principles, thus mirrorless will have the same AF performance as a D4 when only the camera house is made big enough."




Marianne has a great theoretical/practical explanation of traditional PDAF systems in the link below, unfortunately I have only read a part of it, and my comprehension is probably a subset of that again:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3713509#forum-post-54211961

[dwswager]

Yes the difference between 400,000 and 500,000 is not great,but Nikon like Canon over the last few years have both a perception and reality problem with certain pro and enthusiast photographers. The sort that read various magazines,trade journals and do try to keep up on the internet. Nikon D600 anyone ?

I agree that both have real problems and perception problems.  With respect to the D600, that kinda baffles me.  Nikon tended in the past to be very good with the mechanicals.  They are not so great with software.  Hence, I think that they are less suited than Canon to do proper regression testing as functionality moves from hardware to software/firmware.

I did not own a D600, but I do know that a lot of the kerfuffle is internet driven. There were people that had the issue and then the loud group that didn't even own the camera writing and reviewing the camera on the issue that they didn't have.

[Torbjörn Tapani]

SLR af sensors can be much bigger than a pixel and work in a feedback loop without any heavy processing or slow readout from a sensor array. So if mirrorless can even come close in speed and low light I'll be impressed.

[shadowblade]

A quick look at examples of the two suggests that the differences in constraints/solution is significant. While this does not preclude on-sensor PDAF from offering equal (or even better) performance that off-sensor PDAF, it makes it dodgy to assume anything like "they are built on the same principles, thus mirrorless will have the same AF performance as a D4 when only the camera house is made big enough."




Marianne has a great theoretical/practical explanation of traditional PDAF systems in the link below, unfortunately I have only read a part of it, and my comprehension is probably a subset of that again:
http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3713509#forum-post-54211961

Right - that's how a PDAF system works. Any PDAF system. It's the same principle in an SLR as in a mirrorless camera. It's the same sensor data going to the processor for AF, and, once it reaches the processor, the pathway is identical in both types of camera. The only difference is that the source of data in an SLR is pixels on a separate sensor recording light reflected from the mirror, whereas the source of data on a mirrorless camera is pixels on the imaging sensor itself. The data itself is the same, the pathway from raw sensor data to lens movement is the same, the only difference is the size and power of the components that make up that pathway (and you can even equalise for lenses by using the same lens on both systems).

[Chuck Fan]

Using the CMOS imaging sensor for PDAF suggests there would be a lot more overhead within the AF loop.  So it would probably be slower.

Also, using imaging sensor pixels brings up the issue of pixel color sensitivity, which may not be present with dedicated panchromatic pixels in dedicated AF sensor. 

[hjulenissen]

Right - that's how a PDAF system works. Any PDAF system. It's the same principle in an SLR as in a mirrorless camera. It's the same sensor data going to the processor for AF, and, once it reaches the processor, the pathway is identical in both types of camera. The only difference is that the source of data in an SLR is pixels on a separate sensor recording light reflected from the mirror, whereas the source of data on a mirrorless camera is pixels on the imaging sensor itself. The data itself is the same, the pathway from raw sensor data to lens movement is the same, the only difference is the size and power of the components that make up that pathway (and you can even equalise for lenses by using the same lens on both systems).

The off-sensor AF module in the image contains elements in the optical path that cannot (to my understanding) be placed in the path between lens and image sensor. If you still want to use the camera for taking pictures, that is.

If you want to discuss semantics about what "working in exactly in the same way" means, then by all pick any definition you want. If you are suggesting that mirrorless will be superior in any possible way to DSLR once larger cameras available "because PDAF", then my point still stands: the PDAF module of my 7D cannot possibly be integrated onto the image sensor of a mirrorless camera. Another PDAF module can (and allready is) integrated, though, and for all that I know it can offer excellent performance.

-h

[BernardLanguillier]

I guess that this leak, probably resulting from the theft of a D5 prototype...

http://nikonrumors.com/2015/12/17/more-nikon-d5-pictures-leaked-online.aspx/

... may explain the announcement made by Nikon.

Cheers,
Bernard

[BernardLanguillier]

It seems that the D5 should be announced tomorrow:

http://nikonrumors.com/2016/01/05/nikon-d5-detailed-specifications-cf-and-xqd-versions-coinfirmed.aspx/#more-100830

Cheers,
Bernard

[Robert Roaldi]

The AF speed in the Nikon 1 series seems to suggest that sensor PDAF can be extremely rapid.

[Colorado David]

It seems that the D5 should be announced tomorrow:

http://nikonrumors.com/2016/01/05/nikon-d5-detailed-specifications-cf-and-xqd-versions-coinfirmed.aspx/#more-100830

Cheers,
Bernard

Hoping for 4K video.  It would be nice if they announced a successor to the D810 with 4K video that wasn't $6,000.  I'm really pleased with the D810, but I must have 4K video this year.

[AreBee]

Bernard,

It seems that the D5 should be announced tomorrow...

Touchscreen comes to the (35mm format) DSLR.

[BernardLanguillier]

It's been officially announced together with a pro DX body called D500.

The spec sheets of both cameras sounds near perfect to me.

I find the contrast btwn LL (where these 2 cameras simply got zero comments) and Fred Miranda (with hundreds of forum comments) pretty interesting.

Cheers,
Bernard

[John Koerner]

Yep, it's more than a rumor, it's available for pre-order: http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/product/1214153-REG/nikon_1558_d5_dslr_camera_body.html

[Sean H]

It's been officially announced together with a pro DX body called D500.

The spec sheets of both cameras sounds near perfect to me.

I find the contrast btwn LL (where these 2 cameras simply got zero comments) and Fred Miranda (with hundreds of forum comments) pretty interesting.

Cheers,
Bernard

Hi Bernard - any idea(s) why there is an apparent difference between the two forums? I do not have time to visit the other forum. Perhaps one reason may be that people here are in awe of the latest back from Phase 1?

Sean

[BernardLanguillier]

Hi Bernard - any idea(s) why there is an apparent difference between the two forums? I do not have time to visit the other forum. Perhaps one reason may be that people here are in awe of the latest back from Phase 1?

That could be, although I am personally interested in both cameras for different applications.

Realistically, if the AF of the D5 is as good as Nikon claims, it probably is more of a breakthrough than the P1 100mp back in terms of pushing the enveloppe of what images can be captured.

I guess that the crowd at LL is very much into compact cameras these days, typically mirrorless. There seems to be a widespread belief that full size DSLRs have no more value. For some of my applications they remain by far the best solution though.

Cheers,
Bernard

[Bo Dez]

I hope these small designs are a temporary phase. I have a Leica M which I love for some things but in general the dSLR to Medium Format sort of form is more to my liking. That said, it needs to be hand holdable for what I do.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Comparing P1's IQ 3 100MP back to Nikon D5, I cannot see what relevance AF has. You will never get 100 MP without careful and deliberate focusing, mirror lock up and things like that. With a good workflow, a Phase One camera may reach 100 MP. They have both leaf shutters and and electronic first shutter curtain, two ways of reducing vibrations from shutter.

Do you really think, as a landscape photographer, that you will get better images out of a 20 MP "pro oriented DSLR" than out of your "landscape photographer oriented" D810?

Sorry, being enthusiastic is OK, but being a realist is also OK! Still friends?

Best regards
Erik

That could be, although I am personally interested in both cameras for different applications.

Realistically, if the AF of the D5 is as good as Nikon claims, it probably is more of a breakthrough than the P1 100mp back in terms of pushing the enveloppe of what images can be captured.

I guess that the crowd at LL is very much into compact cameras these days, typically mirrorless. There seems to be a widespread belief that full size DSLRs have no more value. For some of my applications they remain by far the best solution though.

Cheers,
Bernard