Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: John Koerner on June 04, 2016, 08:26:57 pm
-
The DP Review on the Nikon D5 (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d5-pro-dslr-review) is out.
- "... what a benchmark it sets. Use one, and you'll be rewarded with as close to a polished, pure and responsive photographic tool as you can get.
"... The D5 is a big camera that represents a big investment. But with increased battery life, an updated metering sensor, and autofocus that's more reliable than ever, the D5's value proposition for those that truly need it is better than its price and sensor specification might suggest. The D5 may not re-imagine the high-end sports camera market segment, but it doesn't need to. It's an eminently enjoyable and reliable camera to use in the real world, and has the best autofocus system that anyone in the DPReview offices has ever used - bar none.
"... the D5 will keep up with just about any subject under just about any lighting conditions, (and) the new sensor offers class-leading low light image quality."
Looks like I am going to have to start saving ;D
I still haven't received my D500, but I hope that changes over the next few weeks. I absolutely love my D810 and have learned to customize it pretty well. From what I have read, the D500 is even more cutomizable, and (in reading this review) the D5 is eminently customizable.
Hope to pick up the latter by the end of this year, if the D900 doesn't get in the way :)
Jack
-
Most definitely a very subject focused camera. Good review.
Sad to see no built in Wifi, and the need for additional software for a USB 3.0 connection.
For sure the camera is made for high ISO work, as they clearly point out, no point in trying to push the low ISO ranges, period.
Very interesting to compare all the testing they did with the D750, which IMO scores very close in most of the ISO testing and many times surpasses the D5, especially in the Low ISO/push testing.
No doubt the AF is way beyond anything besides the D500, and glad that at least the D500 has the same AF module so other photographers can experience such a good system (per their testing and others).
For would love to see the same AF module in a D900 or ever D750 follow on, as the most of the rich features of the D5 do no apply for me.
Paul C
-
Most definitely a very subject focused camera. Good review.
Agreed.
Sad to see no built in Wifi, and the need for additional software for a USB 3.0 connection.
Meh, more of an annoyance than "sad."
WiFi is available, it just requires extra $$ to add it.
Agree with you though, at that price point, it should be included.
For sure the camera is made for high ISO work, as they clearly point out, no point in trying to push the low ISO ranges, period.
Absolutely agree. For blazing-fast action, NO ONE is using ISO 64 (or even ISO 100), so 'low ISO dynamic range' means nothing in action photography.
Add low-light conditions, on top of the need for speed, and "base ISO scores" become absolutely meaningless. Nikon knows this, as do people who take action shots.
This camera is designed to capture action, at the highest possible level, and it is here where the Nikon D5 sets THE standard to which all others can only "look up" ...
Very interesting to compare all the testing they did with the D750, which IMO scores very close in most of the ISO testing and many times surpasses the D5, especially in the Low ISO/push testing.
Again, low light in a static conditions isn't the same when "the fleeting moment of a lifetime" is upon you.
It is here where the D750 would fail and the D5 would nail the shot.
No doubt the AF is way beyond anything besides the D500, and glad that at least the D500 has the same AF module so other photographers can experience such a good system (per their testing and others).
Agreed.
For would love to see the same AF module in a D900 or ever D750 follow on, as the most of the rich features of the D5 do no apply for me.
Paul C
I would be tickled also if this AF system would migrate to the D900, but I don't think the D900 is going to be that kind of camera.
It's also the buffer rate, and the indefatigable FPS that just never lets up, that adds to the AF system which makes the D5 what it is.
The D900, I am sure, will set a new benchmark for static, low-light, take-your-time-to-compose photography ... just as surely as the D5 has set the benchmark for nailing those fleeting moments as perfectly as possible.
Jack
-
I still haven't received my D500, but I hope that changes over the next few weeks. I absolutely love my D810 and have learned to customize it pretty well. From what I have read, the D500 is even more cutomizable, and (in reading this review) the D5 is eminently customizable.
Jack
Both the D810 and D500 are very customizable. One of the things I like about the D500 is they added a setting in the Auto ISO part to have a separate max ISO when using Flash. Of course, as this is software logic, it could be added to the D810, but I doubt it will be.
I just wish they would quit moving the buttons around. I get needing to make changes when adding functionality, but the swap of the Mode and ISO buttons on the D500 mean they are opposite of the D810.
-
I no longer have any need for the super cameras like the D5 (or Canon 1's), but I am hoping some of these features trickle down to the next D810 style camera.
The automatic AF micro adjustment (assuming it works well) would be a game changer IMHO.
AF micro adjustment gives me headaches. lol
-
I no longer have any need for the super cameras like the D5 (or Canon 1's)
But some people do, and those who do have such needs have a pretty exciting option at their disposal.
We all have different needs, I reckon.
Hell, we also have different needs, as individuals, on different days.
(Maybe on one day, I don't need the D5, but maybe on another it is my best option.)
What's interesting to me is, if I have perfect lighting conditions, and no movement, Nikon offers the best base-ISO option with the D810 (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d810). (Quote: "Benchmark performance.")
On the opposite end of the spectrum, if I have unfavorable lighting conditions, and rapid movement, Nikon also offers the best low-light, fast-movement option as well, with the D5 (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d5-pro-dslr-review). (Quote: "Setting a New Standard.")
Everybody else is somewhere in the middle (or less).
With these two cameras, the D810 and the D5, you pretty much have the best of both worlds covered.
I might add, if I don't feel like lugging the weight, and would prefer a smaller camera, by all reviews the APS-C, from low-to-high ISO, as well as with its AF system, is the D500 (http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d500). (Quote: "The most well-rounded DSLR we've ever tested.")
All of these reviews took place within the last 3 weeks.
Nikon's management may have its troubles, but their technology surely doesn't.
Jack
-
I had the chance to shoot a pole dance event last night. Low ambiant light (1/250, f2.8 at ISO16,000~), crappy WB at around 2400K with intense flickering, some low intensity multi-color spots flicking all over the place, quick moving subjet in hard to predict movement patterns.
I decided to try the 3D AF and am impressed by the number of keepers I got. The stickiness of the AF is pretty remarkable. Not every frame is perfect of course, but I only got 5 completely oof frames out of 1,400 and I suspect that those are times where I was unable to follow the subject and triggered a new AF aquisition on some mirrors refkecting a white wall.
I did also a quick comparison of raw converters for the D5 files at high ISO (C1 Pro, Capture NX, Raw Developper and DxO 11) and DxO 11 comes out on top in terms of noise. Surprisingly the colors also appear to be good for the D5, very close to Capture NX and C1 Pro (I had a hard time getting pleasing colors with DxO 10). Of note is a small bug with as shot white balance of D5 files by which the real value is not taken into account. Switching back and forth btw daylight and as shot fixes the issue.
Unforetunately I can't post images yet since it was a private assignement and I need them to validate first.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
You're as much of a tease as the pole-dancer ;D
-
You're as much of a tease as the pole-dancer ;D
I kinda doubt it was that type of pole dance.
-
I kinda doubt it was that type of pole dance.
It there another kind :o
-
It there another kind :o
There is only one type of pole but very different ways to use it! :)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
A few images are now online. Most images at ISO 25,600 or 12,800. Converted with DxO 11.
(https://c3.staticflickr.com/8/7394/27651927426_0874410d63_o.jpg)
(https://c2.staticflickr.com/8/7288/27612228161_568934f68f_o.jpg)
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7298/27408289680_55699f29a6_o.jpg)
More here (https://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/).
Cheers,
Bernard
-
For those who may not have noticed, a new D5 firmware is rumoured to be released next week with several improvements including flickr reduction for still and video. This would have come handy in venues such as the one above where light flickering did result in pretty significant variation of light level (at least 2/3 stop).
http://nikonrumors.com/2016/06/19/nikon-d5-firmware-update-to-be-released-soon.aspx/
Also, another image captured this weekend. This thing tracks so well it feels like a virtual infinite DoF simulator.
(https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7199/27667438112_422651ec75_o.jpg)
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The firmware C 1.10 is now available for download at the following link:
http://downloadcenter.nikonimglib.com/en/download/fw/188.html
Improvements are as rumoured.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
The new SenScore Stats are out on these two Flagship Cameras (click SenScore (http://www.senscore.org) > Scores > Full Frame Cameras)
The D5 is the overall class leader at SenScore too, earning its #1 Action Camera badge, confirming the DP Review write-up above, with the following stats (1000 = Grade A):
- NOISE
Nikon D5: 1065
Canon 1Dx II: 1046
DYNAMIC RANGE
Nikon D5: 1438
Canon 1Dx II: 1314
COLOR RANGE
Nikon D5: 1414
Canon 1Dx II: 988
TONAL RANGE
Nikon D5: 1233
Canon 1Dx II: 1093
RESOLVING POWER
Nikon D5: 701
Canon 1Dx II: 665
** OVERALL **
Nikon D5: 1170
Canon 1Dx II: 1021
I trust SenScores reviews more than DxO Marks (read their FAQ and About pages). SenScore also breaks things down into more useful categories IMO.
Both the D5 and 1Dx II are close, with the D5 carrying a only a slight edge in most catagories, but trouncing the Canon in Color/Tonal Ranges.
Neither DxO Mark nor SenScore rate two of the key factors to both cameras:
- The D5 also has the better AF system;
- Whereas the 1Dx II has the better 4K video system.
If still shots are your thing, the D5 is better across the board in every asset.
But if 4K video is important to you, the Canon is close enough sensor-wise, while trouncing the Nikon in 4K video capability.
(Interested to see where the D500 comes in ...)
-
Jack,
At this point, really nobody cares.
Some Canon users are convinced that the 1DxII is the better camera, some Nikon users are convinced that the D5 is the better camera.
The reality being that they are both excellent and that most will rationalize that the gap, even if there is one, isn't large enough to justify a switch.
So this is a total waste of your valuable time. ;)
I will personnally continue to shoot with my D5 and it certainly is the best option ever to shoot action with the set of lenses I own.
Knowing that even its worst characteristics (DR at low ISO) is still as good as the reference landscape camera in the Canon world (5Ds) won't help me sleep better at night, but does confirm my first hand feeling that the D5 is totally usable even in harsh light.
I do get the same feeling when I realize that this awful D5 has as much DR as ISO 100 as a P45+ or an H3D39 that were said not that long ago to have 6 stops more SR than DSLRs... ;D
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D5-versus-Hasselblad-H3DII-39-versus-Phase-One-P45-Plus___1062_457_456
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Jack,
At this point, really nobody cares.
Everybody cares, Bernard.
However, I do agree most are probably sick to death of hearing about it :)
Some Canon users are convinced that the 1DxII is the better camera, some Nikon users are convinced that the D5 is the better camera.
The truth is, each is the better camera, for different reasons.
For stills only, the D5 is better. If 4K video is integral, the 1DxII is the choice.
I will personnally continue to shoot with my D5 and it certainly is the best option ever to shoot action with the set of lenses I own.
Knowing that even its worst characteristics (DR at low ISO) is still as good as the reference landscape camera in the Canon world (5Ds) won't help me sleep better at night, but does confirm my first hand feeling that the D5 is totally usable even in harsh light.
Congrats.
I do get the same feeling when I realize that this awful D5 has as much DR as ISO 100 as a P45+ or an H3D39 that were said not that long ago to have 6 stops more SR than DSLRs... ;D
http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D5-versus-Hasselblad-H3DII-39-versus-Phase-One-P45-Plus___1062_457_456
Cheers,
Bernard
See, Bernard, you do care ;D
What is interesting to me is, if you check the Specs on SenScore, the D5 and D4 are both Nikon-made sensors.
Only the D750-D800 series are Sony-made.
What is also interesting is that sensor-performance seems to be plateauing. The D5 didn't have much advancement over the D4s, same as the Sony A7r II didn't surpass the D810 by much either.
Although the 1Dx II is a significant improvement over the 1Dx, it's still floating around the 1000 mark, long after the D800 got there in 2012.
Soon, all these cameras are going to be similar in specs, so the real advancements are going to be ergonomics, AF, lens selection, and other laterals.
Jack
-
See, Bernard, you do care ;D
The only thing I really care about is the ability of the equipment I own relative to the applications at stake. DxO is an interesting input because it helps validate my informal impressions and can also help identify the sweet spot for a piece of equipment.
The performance of the 1DxII or other Canon bodies is the least of my concerns as long as they are not significantly superior. I would pay real close attention if the successor of the 5Ds offered 2 stop more DR than the hypothetical D900 because that would help my photography. I wouldn't hesitate long to dump all my Nikon equipment on my usual auction site if such a breakthrough were to happen. And that may partially happen in the coming months, but probably not in favor of Canon equipment for now.
I like to think that, as a photographer, I am defined by the photographs I take, not by the gear I own.
So even if Nikon were miles ahead, and they have been in terms of DR for many years, I do fully understand that there are many good and bad potential reasons why many Canon photographers do not care, or do not care enough to switch brand. Perhaps they don't have the time/cash to manage a switch, perhaps they don't know (few people join such forum in fact), perhaps they like their lenses better (or really need a unique lens such as the 17mm T/S), perhaps they work with equipment provided by their company, perhaps they hate the ergonomics of Nikon/Sony bodies, perhaps their applications don't involve contrasty scenes or perhaps the DR they have today is overall good enough in a majority of cases, perhaps they have personnal connections with Canon marketing, perhaps they are unable to deal with change, perhaps they are conspiracy theorists and think that Nikon is funding DxO, perhaps they are so influenced by marketing that they cannot imagine that a recognized and leading brand such as Canon could fall so far behind on such a key metrics for so long ("that cannot be true", "too big to fail",...), perhaps they are fanboys who identify themselves with their camera brand,... good and bad reasons.
I don't care, their reasons not to pay attention to what other brands do are what they are and trying to change them has zero value for me. I tried to spread the good word about the value of better DR (and stitching, and....) for too long here and there, and the main outcome has probably been to end up being categorized as a Nikon fanboy (at least I never claimed a 6 stops advantage...). The truth is that I was promoting DR, not Nikon, but that doesn't matter... believe me, it's just a waste of time.
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Senscore reliable? Yeah, right...
For one, they don't publish their actual measurements. They merely set the D800's values as a baseline of 1000, then publish their other results around that. No information on distribution and deviation.
Secondly, their results make no sense.
Noise - specifically, this is about sensor/read noise, not shot noise (it says so on their own website). In other words, inversely related to SNR at base ISO. They rated the D5 slightly higher than the 1Dx2. Actual data says otherwise. (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/DXOPDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%201D%20X%20Mark%20II,Nikon%20D5)
DR - We know for a fact (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/DXOPDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%201D%20X%20Mark%20II,Nikon%20D5), that the D5 sensor has more than a stop less DR at base ISO than the 1Dx2. It's also basically equal from ISO 1600 and up - D5 ahead slightly from 6400-51200, 1Dx2 ahead slightly after that. Senscore says the opposite. It also scores the D5 much higher on DR than the D810, D800, A7r2 and other sensors renowned for their DR. It even scores Canon's 1Dx higher than the D810. So much for credibility.
Colour range/tonal range - more-or-less correlates.
Resolving power - this is basically megapixel count, minus the impact of the AA filter. Even then, the discrepancies make no sense. Two sensors, with the same pixel count, have the same resolving power by definition. They're not lenses - they don't focus light. They merely sample what's put in front of them, and the sampling resolution is defined by the number of photosites on each sensor. So two AA-filter-free sensors with the same pixel count must have the same resolving power, irrespective of sensor size (a 24MP MF sensor still has the same resolution as a 24MP APS-C sensor; the APS-C sensor's relative unsharpness is because the lens sitting in front of it needs to be much sharper than the MF lens to actually take advantage of all the pixels). If they don't, the problem's with your focusing or your lens, not the sensor.
The only way these discrepancies - particularly in DR and noise - can be reconciled is if they measured performance at every ISO on the camera (even ISO 3.2 million on the D5) and weighted them the same (including scores of 0 where a camera doesn't have that native ISO), rather than measuring actual underlying performance. This, naturally, skews the results towards cameras with extremely high nominal ISO limit . Technically, there is no difference between ISO 3.2 million and an ISO 102400 pushed 5 stops. If you put the same sensor into two different cameras and allow the first to go to ISO 3.2M while limiting the second to 102K, actual measured performance will still be the same. But, if your scoring system gives points to ISO 204k-3.2M for the first camera, while giving 0 points to the second for the same ISOs, then, naturally, the first camera is going to score better on your 'test', despite the sensor being the same, the raw data coming out of the sensor being the same and a 102k image from the second camera, pushed 5 stops, being technically th same as a 3.2M shot from the first camera.
What is interesting to me is, if you check the Specs on SenScore, the D5 and D4 are both Nikon-made sensors.
Only the D750-D800 series are Sony-made.
Nikon doesn't make the D5 and D4 either. They are made by Renesas to Nikon's specification.
-
The only thing I really care about is the ability of the equipment I own relative to the applications at stake. DxO is an interesting input because it helps validate my informal impressions and can also help identify the sweet spot for a piece of equipment.
Exactly as I do.
I value DxO to a degree, but I like SenScore and LenScore better than the rest of the rating systems.
The performance of the 1DxII or other Canon bodies is the least of my concerns as long as they are not significantly superior. I would pay real close attention if the successor of the 5Ds offered 2 stop more DR than the hypothetical D900 because that would help my photography. I wouldn't hesitate long to dump all my Nikon equipment on my usual auction site if such a breakthrough were to happen. And that may partially happen in the coming months, but probably not in favor of Canon equipment for now.
I dumped my Canon equipment when it became clear they were stuck in the middle, quality-wise, and that they weren't coming out anytime soon.
I would hesitate to dump what I have at this point, because I don't think anything is going to be radical enough to make me do so.
There were options radically-better than my old EOS 7D ... but I doubt very seriously that there is going to be anything "radically-better" than my D500 or D810 for quite awhile.
I like the Nikon system better, especially their old school manual lenses being reversible for my macro, inexpensive, fast, and tough for field conditions.
I like to think that, as a photographer, I am defined by the photographs I take, not by the gear I own.
The gear you own affects the images you take.
So even if Nikon were miles ahead, and they have been in terms of DR for many years, I do fully understand that there are many good and bad potential reasons why many Canon photographers do not care, or do not care enough to switch brand. Perhaps they don't have the time/cash to manage a switch, perhaps they don't know (few people join such forum in fact), perhaps they like their lenses better (or really need a unique lens such as the 17mm T/S), perhaps they work with equipment provided by their company, perhaps they hate the ergonomics of Nikon/Sony bodies, perhaps their applications don't involve contrasty scenes or perhaps the DR they have today is overall good enough in a majority of cases, perhaps they have personnal connections with Canon marketing, perhaps they are unable to deal with change, perhaps they are conspiracy theorists and think that Nikon is funding DxO, perhaps they are so influenced by marketing that they cannot imagine that a recognized and leading brand such as Canon could fall so far behind on such a key metrics for so long ("that cannot be true", "too big to fail",...), perhaps they are fanboys who identify themselves with their camera brand,... good and bad reasons.
I go with most quality for least money as my yardstick.
When I started, Canon had the 7D and Nikon had the D300, and the 7D was the better camera for the least money. That is why I went with them in the first place.
I stayed with Canon for awhile because of a similar reason: the MP-E 65mm lens. It was peerless. I was also enamored by the 200-400 and 11-22mm zooms.
But I had outgrown my "starter camera," and I needed to get rid of my 7D ... and Canon continue(d) to lag for so long that I wasn't willing to buy one of their cameras again, and so made a decision to go a different route to take my photography to the next level.
Though I was labeled a "Canon fanboy," I was ultimately a quality product at the best price fanboy.
And the tide turned: Canon began to be the company that made inferior products and charged more for them.
Why should I buy a $3500 5DSr when I could buy a $2800 D810, that was a better camera?
Why should I buy an $11,000 200-400mm f/4 when I could buy a $6000 300mm f/2.8 + 2x extender, and have a better lens and more reach?
I don't care, their reasons not to pay attention to what other brands do are what they are and trying to change them has zero value for me. I tried to spread the good word about the value of better DR (and stitching, and....) for too long here and there, and the main outcome has probably been to end up being categorized as a Nikon fanboy (at least I never claimed a 6 stops advantage...). The truth is that I was promoting DR, not Nikon, but that doesn't matter... believe me, it's just a waste of time.
Cheers,
Bernard
I agree with you.
People may not see this, but I have always followed "best quality for best price," not any particular brand.
When I started that happened to be Canon; right now it is Nikon.
Check the rating of the 7D and it is better than the D300 (and it was cheaper, too, when these products were first released).
Now, the quality has been reversed: the 7D II is floundering in mediocrity, while 6 out of the Top 10 FF cameras are Nikons, and 5 out of 10 APS-Cs are too (soon it will be 6 as well, as soon as the D500 stats come out ;)).
There is no intelligent person who can say the 7D II + 200-400mm (at $12,800) is a "better deal" than getting a D500 + D810 + 300mm + 2x TC + Tripod, etc. (for $12,780).
I have two cameras that are by far better and more capable than the 7D II, a marginally-better (and more consistent) top-tier lens, and more supplemental equipment for that same money. Canon simply doesn't offer the same value to me that it did when I started.
People can poo-poo LenScore and SenScore, but they really are better rating system than anything out there (they just don't like where their gear ratings are placed ;))
Getting new gear feels good, and I am thrilled with the quality of gear I have now. I almost don't even use my Voightlander macro lens anymore, because of how good the 300mm lens is (even with a 2x converter), and how accurate the AF is, that I can get the same nature macro shots, from 12-20' back, in a split-second, with nearly the same quality results. I can raise it up and get a bird on a tree. Slap the 2x TC on and get a deer (or bear) in the woods ... and I am looking forward to doing just that in the forthcoming weeks/months ahead 8)
But you're right, it is a waste of time to tell some people ... but there are some who are listening too, like I was.
Jack
-
There is no intelligent person who can say the 7D II + 200-400mm (at $12,800) is a "better deal" than getting a D500 + D810 + 300mm + 2x TC + Tripod, etc. (for $12,780).
No, but what about the 5Ds and 200-400? Higher pixel density and the option of full-frame when you're not constrained by focal length. Capable AF system. The versatility of a zoom. Lower fps, but I'd take the higher resolution and freedom of composition over a few more fps any day.
People can poo-poo LenScore and SenScore, but they really are better rating system than anything out there (they just don't like where their gear ratings are placed ;))
They don't even publish their raw data, test images or methodology from which they derive their scores. All they give you is arbitrary numbers, with no indication of where they came from, which correlate neither with real-world usage nor with every other test site out there (Digital Picture's test images, Photozone's tests or DxO's sensor data). For all the data they release, it could just as well be some guy in his basement making up numbers for his favourite gear, and you'd never know.
And the fanboyism is mostly coming from one person alone. Many of us here shoot multiple systems, depending on what we're shooting - I use Canon for action, but haven't used it for landscapes or nonmoving subjects since the 5D2.
-
No, but what about the 5Ds and 200-400? Higher pixel density and the option of full-frame when you're not constrained by focal length. Capable AF system. The versatility of a zoom. Lower fps, but I'd take the higher resolution and freedom of composition over a few more fps any day.
I think you'd better do a little math, and read some stats, before you proffer "solutions," Shadow.
The 5Ds + 200-400 would raise my cost to $14,500, and it still would give me inferior results (1x4 on or off) to a D810 + 300mm (http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EF-200-400mm-F4L-IS-USM-Extender-14x-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R-versus-Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-300mm-F28G-ED-VR-II-on-Nikon-D810-versus-Canon-EF-200-400mm-F4L-IS-USM-Extender-14x-ON__1161_1009_478_963_1162_0). (And that is rated at the 200-400's best focal length, 300mm, not at its worst.)
Your "solution" would have me spend another $1700 just to get inferior results at its best, vastly inferior results at its worst, have no tripod, no D500 AF capability, etc.
No thanks.
They don't even publish their raw data, test images or methodology from which they derive their scores. All they give you is arbitrary numbers, with no indication of where they came from, which correlate neither with real-world usage nor with every other test site out there (Digital Picture's test images, Photozone's tests or DxO's sensor data). For all the data they release, it could just as well be some guy in his basement making up numbers for his favourite gear, and you'd never know.
No, SenScore does give their methodology. Try reading the links (I'd recommend you start with the FAQ and About).
And BTW, I just gave you a link above to a DxO verification of the 300mm's superiority to the 200-400, since you don't like SenScore.
You're in denial of both mathematics and performance on your recommendation.
I am looking to spend less money for something better, not more money for something not as good.
A 300mm has better stats than the 200-400 at its best, far better at the 200-400's worst, and is half the price ($5,600 compared to $11,000). For an extra $500, I get better reach with a 2x TC.
The D810 has far better stats than the 5DSr on DxO also (http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-5DS-R-versus-Nikon-D810___1009_963).
The D500 has far better stats than the Canon 7D II on DxO as well (http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D500-versus-Canon-EOS-7D-Mark-II___1061_977).
The D810 is less expensive than the 5DSr.
Only the D500 is more expensive than the 7D II, by a mere $200, and it is vastly superior and therefore worth it.
It would cost me $16,200 to get a 5DsR + 7D II + 200-400 for the field (no tripod) ... compared to costing only $12,800 to get the D810 + D500 + 300mm f/2 II + extender + tripod + carrying system ... and blow your "Canon solution" away from every angle, keeping $3400 in my pocket in the process.
Denial isn't rebuttal, Shadow, it is only denial.
And the fanboyism is mostly coming from one person alone. Many of us here shoot multiple systems, depending on what we're shooting - I use Canon for action, but haven't used it for landscapes or nonmoving subjects since the 5D2.
This thread isn't about what you use; I created a thread about what I use--and why.
You admit you haven't used Canon for landscapes, because there are better options, so you halfway agree.
(In fact, on another thread, you said if you could only have 1 camera it would be the D810.)
What hasn't seemed to dawn on you is that, for action, Nikon also provides a better solution across the board also (better AF, better stats, across the board).
DxO and SenScore both place the Nikon cameras higher than their Canon equivalents, pretty much across the board.
The new 1Dx II is the only Canon camera to get an equal placement with its Nikon equivalent on DxO ... though it does not on SenScore.
The 5DSr is lower than the D810 on both, the 7D II is lower than the D500 on both (it will be on SenScore when it comes out, watch).
The 200-400 is is a great zoom, but it is not as great as the best super-tele primes, and it is rated lower on both DxO and SenScore also. At its best setting, let alone at its worst.
As I mentioned in my previous post, I am a big fan of getting top quality at the best price, and I have done so.
Thanks for replying.
-
I think you'd better do a little math, and read some stats, before you proffer "solutions," Shadow.
The 5Ds + 200-400 would raise my cost to $14,500, and it still would give me inferior results (1x4 on or off) to a D810 + 300mm (http://www.dxomark.com/Lenses/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EF-200-400mm-F4L-IS-USM-Extender-14x-on-Canon-EOS-5DS-R-versus-Nikon-AF-S-NIKKOR-300mm-F28G-ED-VR-II-on-Nikon-D810-versus-Canon-EF-200-400mm-F4L-IS-USM-Extender-14x-ON__1161_1009_478_963_1162_0). (And that is rated at the 200-400's best focal length, 300mm, not at its worst.)
So now your argument basically comes down to, 'It's cheaper.'
The 5Ds gives you more pixels on target than the D810, with similar AF performance. You're shooting wildlife and macro, so that's what you want, isn't it? After all, isn't that why you chose the D500 over the D5 - more pixels on target?
No, SenScore does give their methodology. Try reading the links (I'd recommend you start with the FAQ and About).
I've read the whole website. They haven't given their method at all. All they've said is what's on their test bench and that (for sensors) all the numbers are relative to the performance of the D800.
No information whatsoever about how they actually measured it, what values they measured, what the raw measurements were and how the raw measurements were used to calculate a final score for each aspect of performance measured. It's the same reason DxOMark's overall score is also useless - there's no information as to how it's derived. Unlike Senscore/Lenscore, however, DxOMark publish the actual measured data, which is what anyone with any technical knowledge actually argues on. Ever noticed how no-one ever argues 'Sensor A scored 96 on DxOmark and Sensor B only scored 87, so Sensor A is better', but rather 'Sensor A had 14.3 stops of DR at ISO 100 and decreases linearly with increasing ISO, while Sensor B is equal at ISO 800 and above, but plateaus below that, suggesting a greater degree of read noise'? That's because they're using actual measured values and simple derivations thereof (e.g. log conversions and reciprocals), not silly 'benchmark scores' derived via hidden, arbitrary weighting scales based on the tester's preferences.
It's as irrelevant an answer as if you asked a scientist how they got their results and arrived at their conclusion in an experiment, and they told you, 'I used this brand of test-tubes and this thermometer, and my lab bench is made from stainless steel', without actually telling you what they did to get their data, and how the data led to their analysis.
And BTW, I just gave you a link above to a DxO verification of the 300mm's superiority to the 200-400, since you don't like SenScore.
You're the first person I've ever seen give any credence whatsoever to DxO's lens scores. Unlike their sensor measurements, where the raw data is published, their lens scores are just derived values.
Just like Lenscore's ratings, DxO doesn't actually say what 'perceptual Mpix' actually is, let alone how it's derived. They're just expecting you to believe a derived value (not a simple measurement like lp/mm) at face value without saying how it was derived from the raw measurement, or, indeed, what they actually measured.
Try a site like Photozone - which actually gives you the raw, measured values at each focal length and aperture combination, at middle, edge and corner - or a site like Digital Picture, which lays out the test chart in front of you so you can see for yourself how the sharpness and CA look.
A 300mm has better stats than the 200-400 at its best, far better at the 200-400's worst, and is half the price.
See for yourself (http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/ISO-12233-Sample-Crops.aspx?Lens=764&Camera=453&Sample=0&FLI=5&API=1&LensComp=650&CameraComp=614&SampleComp=0&FLIComp=3&APIComp=0). 200-400 at 560mm/5.6, 300 with 2x TC at 600/5.6. The Canon on 21MP, Nikon on 24MP, so similar magnification.
The D810 has far better stats than the 5DSr on DxO also (http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Canon-EOS-5DS-R-versus-Nikon-D810___1009_963).
Obviously. What it doesn't have is pixel density.
You said it yourself - you chose the D500 over a full-frame option because it gives you extra reach with the same focal length. Reach is defined by pixel density - the denser your sensor, the more pixels you land on target. A 50MP full-frame sensor gives you 39% more pixels on target than a 36MP full-frame sensor, and 11% more pixels on target than a 1.5x crop 20MP sensor.
Also, the sensor is only better at base ISO. At ISO 800 and higher, DR/SNR is more or less identical (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/DXOPDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%205DS%20R,Nikon%20D810) between the D810 and 5Ds. Besides, if you're using it as a dedicated wildlife/macro camera (as opposed to shooting landscapes), shooting insects at base ISO, either in good light or with flash, how much DR do you need anyway? If the scene only has 8 stops of DR anyway, it makes no difference whether the camera is capable of 11 stops or 14 stops - you'll still capture all the information. And, at ISO 800 and up for moving wildlife or at dawn/dusk, there's no difference in noise/DR performance between the two sensors.
The D500 has far better stats than the Canon 7D II on DxO as well (http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D500-versus-Canon-EOS-7D-Mark-II___1061_977).
It also gets you fewer pixels on target.
Not suggesting that the D500 and 7D2 are remotely equal cameras - one's a brand-new, pro-level camera with an APS-C sensor, the other's a two-year-old prosumer body.
This thread isn't about what you use; I created a thread about what I use--and why.
You use neither the D5 nor the 1Dx2.
You admit you haven't used Canon for landscapes, because there are better options, so you halfway agree.
(In fact, on another thread, you said if you could only have 1 camera it would be the D810.)
Point is, I don't have to have one camera. So I use the best one for landscapes and other things that don't move - the A7r2, producing stitched panoramas whenever subject movement and lighting let me get away with it (which is often) - and the best ones for wildlife (big animals, I don't tend to notice little critters) - 1Dx or 5Ds with 200-400L.
What hasn't seemed to dawn on you is that, for action, Nikon also provides a better solution across the board also (better AF, better stats, across the board).
Where does this 'better AF' thing come from? The 1Dx and D4 performed more-or-less identically. There have been no formal head-to-head AF tests between production models of the 1Dx2 and D5. Both of them did fine in tracking a manoeuvring drone flying erratically while weaving in and out of trees and power lines. I have no doubt neither will have any trouble tracking a lion running through long grass and pouncing on an impala.
And Nikon's 200-400 is woeful compared to Canon's. If you're talking action, things move. Unless you're permanently constrained by maximum focal length, you're zooming in and out constantly for the best composition. An animal could be at the 560mm end at the start of a run, but have you at the 200mm end and reaching for the backup camera with 70-200 attached by the other end of the run. Relying on long primes alone is hardly a solution if you're shooting large animals coming up close.
DxO and SenScore both place the Nikon cameras higher than their Canon equivalents, pretty much across the board.
The new 1Dx II is the only Canon camera to get an equal placement with its Nikon equivalent on DxO ... though it does not on SenScore.
The 5DSr is lower than the D810 on both, the 7D II is lower than the D500 on both (it will be on SenScore when it comes out, watch).
I don't care about across-the-board or derived scores - only scores in the areas that are relevant to a particular application, and only raw measurements or simple transformations of raw measurements.
For nonmoving subjects, I use the A7r2 because it has the second-highest DR and second-highest resolution at base ISO, while having the best lens selection of any full-frame camera out there (also, it fits easily on a drone). I don't care how it performs at high ISO or that its AF is mediocre with non-Sony lenses, since I'm not using it for that.
For wildlife shooting, I use the 1Dx because, unlike the D4 and D4s, it can hold a Canon 200-400L. The two extra megapixels are also nice, but hardly game-changing. I don't care that it underperforms at base ISO, because I'd rarely be shooting it at ISO 100 and, at typical dawn/dusk wildlife ISOs, sensor performance is the same. As a second body on a game shoot, I like the 5Ds because it gets me heaps of pixels on target for those long-distance, focal-length-limited shots. Again, I don't care that it underperforms at base ISO, because I'm not shooting it at base ISO.
Overall scores are basically useless because they don't tell you anything about a camera's performance at any particular role. A camera that's above-average in everything, but not exceptional at anything, would probably top the overall scores, but you wouldn't select it for any given role (other than maybe giving it to a beginner who doesn't really have a shooting preference), since it's not the best (or even top three) for that role. It just happens to be reasonable at everything.
-
So now your argument basically comes down to, 'It's cheaper.'
No, it's cheaper and better, and I am not going to repeat myself as to why.
As for the rest of your incredible efforts "to be right," you've swapped products and talk about the D4 instead of the D5; you talk about the Nikon 200-400 instead of the 300mm f/2.8 + extender etc. ... just to keep rambling on and on. (If you stuck to the subject, you'd have to be silent.)
Anyway, I do agree this thread should be about the D5, which I don't have (unfortunately, the D500 thread got locked), so I won't post any more about the D500 here.
If you like what you have, that's great. Unfortunately, it's apparently not enough for you to be posting images ;)
I am glad with what I have, and you will see the images as time progresses. Hopefully, you will post some of yours as well.
I am afraid that, if I respond any more freely, and really pick apart what you've written, you would just go crying "boo-hoo" to the moderators again, like you did last time (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/images/smilies/embarrassed.gif)
So instead I will just say, "You're the winner!", which is all you really want to hear, anyway (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/images/smilies/sarasticlaugh.gif)
Congrats!