Luminous Landscape Forum

Equipment & Techniques => Cameras, Lenses and Shooting gear => Topic started by: dwswager on April 14, 2016, 08:16:43 am

Title: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: dwswager on April 14, 2016, 08:16:43 am
Based on pre-release models and now some general release models, it appears that Nikon has implemented a strategy that sacrifices some low ISO DR to gain high ISO DR.   It seems to me, based on test curves this might be manipulated in software rather being a function of the hardware.  If so:

1. Why do it for the D5 which is a general purpose camera?

2. Why not make it user selectable?

I think this might make sense on the D500 which is targeted more to sports/wildlife where higher ISO are the norm.   But for the D5, I question the strategy.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: shadowblade on April 14, 2016, 08:27:04 am
Based on pre-release models and now some general release models, it appears that Nikon has implemented a strategy that sacrifices some low ISO DR to gain high ISO DR.   It seems to me, based on test curves this might be manipulated in software rather being a function of the hardware.  If so:

1. Why do it for the D5 which is a general purpose camera?

2. Why not make it user selectable?

I think this might make sense on the D500 which is targeted more to sports/wildlife where higher ISO are the norm.   But for the D5, I question the strategy.

The D5 isn't a general-purpose camera. It's a specialist photojournalism and high-speed action camera. These categories practically live at higher-than-base ISO.

Comparing the D4s (the D5's predecessor) and D810, if you don't need the frame rate or the super-high ISO of the D4s, the D810 is better for just about everything else.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: dwswager on April 14, 2016, 08:39:55 am
The D5 isn't a general-purpose camera. It's a specialist photojournalism and high-speed action camera. These categories practically live at higher-than-base ISO.

Comparing the D4s (the D5's predecessor) and D810, if you don't need the frame rate or the super-high ISO of the D4s, the D810 is better for just about everything else.

You are trying to bring common sense and intelligent thought to Nikon's strategy.  In Nikon's view of the world, for professionals, they would only make the D5.  That is, if you said you were a professional (fill in any type of photographer), Nikon would tell you the D5 is the camera for you!  But yeah, I forgot Nikon's bent for photojournalism.

I still think if it is a software based capability (I analyze military weapons systems and almost all the good stuff is now implemented in software w/ some hardware innovations too) why not make that curve user selectable?
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: shadowblade on April 14, 2016, 08:46:06 am
You are trying to bring common sense and intelligent thought to Nikon's strategy.  In Nikon's view of the world, for professionals, they would only make the D5.  That is, if you said you were a professional (fill in any type of photographer), Nikon would tell you the D5 is the camera for you!  But yeah, I forgot Nikon's bent for photojournalism.

I still think if it is a software based capability (I analyze military weapons systems and almost all the good stuff is now implemented in software w/ some hardware innovations too) why not make that curve user selectable?

They also include other bodies in their professional service program (D810 among them), so clearly don't see the D3/4/5 as the only professional option.

If I weren't shooting fast action, I would never take a D5...
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: dwswager on April 14, 2016, 09:25:26 am
They also include other bodies in their professional service program (D810 among them), so clearly don't see the D3/4/5 as the only professional option.

If I weren't shooting fast action, I would never take a D5...

We are arguing different sides of the same coin.  You're arguing what they do and I'm arguing what they would do if the pesky users would just do what they are told.   There would be nothing but the D5, D4, D4s in the professional service program if Nikon corporate had their way.  Since introduction, I would hazard to guess that the D750 is the best selling camera in the Nikon line for wedding photographers, but I guarantee, Nikon Corp would never release a statement advising professionals to buy the D750 for wedding photography.  There is a reason it took 9 years from D300 to D500...Nikon did not want to make that camera.    I think that is why the D800 was a total shock. 
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: shadowblade on April 14, 2016, 09:52:58 am
We are arguing different sides of the same coin.  You're arguing what they do and I'm arguing what they would do if the pesky users would just do what they are told.   There would be nothing but the D5, D4, D4s in the professional service program if Nikon corporate had their way.  Since introduction, I would hazard to guess that the D750 is the best selling camera in the Nikon line for wedding photographers, but I guarantee, Nikon Corp would never release a statement advising professionals to buy the D750 for wedding photography.  There is a reason it took 9 years from D300 to D500...Nikon did not want to make that camera.    I think that is why the D800 was a total shock.

The thing about electronics and tech companies operating in a non-monopoly is that, if you don't do it, then someone else will. Better to cannibalise your own model than for someone else to do it to you and steal market share. Nikon suffered it badly in the early years of digital, with their lack of a CMOS sensor, then their lack of full frame. Then Canon suffered it when they failed to release a high-resolution follow-up to the 5D2/1Ds3, losing (the 5D3 was essentially a different kind of camera with a different audience), losing a huge group of non-action photographers to the D810 and A7r. If you want to compete for a subset of photographers, you need to produce tools which fit the needs of that subset, not just a general-purpose body - if you don't, then someone else will produce the tool and you'll lose those shooters.

Actually, I doubt Nikon's executives would want all pros to go for the D5. What they'd most likely prefer is to be able to sell the D810 for the same price as the D4/D5.  Unfortunately, competition exists, so they can't.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: dwswager on April 14, 2016, 12:59:04 pm
The thing about electronics and tech companies operating in a non-monopoly is that, if you don't do it, then someone else will. Better to cannibalise your own model than for someone else to do it to you and steal market share. Nikon suffered it badly in the early years of digital, with their lack of a CMOS sensor, then their lack of full frame. Then Canon suffered it when they failed to release a high-resolution follow-up to the 5D2/1Ds3, losing (the 5D3 was essentially a different kind of camera with a different audience), losing a huge group of non-action photographers to the D810 and A7r. If you want to compete for a subset of photographers, you need to produce tools which fit the needs of that subset, not just a general-purpose body - if you don't, then someone else will produce the tool and you'll lose those shooters.

Actually, I doubt Nikon's executives would want all pros to go for the D5. What they'd most likely prefer is to be able to sell the D810 for the same price as the D4/D5.  Unfortunately, competition exists, so they can't.

Back in the film days, the F5 was for pros and everything else was just a toy. 

It was not a bad assumption that once FX sized sensors became commercially viable, that they would supplant DX sized sensors for professional use.  At the time they had real world benefits that far outweighed any benefits the smallers sensors brought.  The issue was DR and SNR.   But as the technology evolved and DX sized sensors boasted somewhat comparable quality, those benfefits like reach, DOF and smaller body and lens sizes came to the fore.  But Nikon has been slow to break their mindset.

I almost switched back to Canon during the D2 to D3 cycle.  I always understood that Nikon had a much smaller pool of resources on which to draw.  Hence, they must be more judicious in the avenues they pursue.  But things like a replacement to the D300 were a no brainer.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: shadowblade on April 14, 2016, 01:30:29 pm
Back in the film days, the F5 was for pros and everything else was just a toy. 

It was not a bad assumption that once FX sized sensors became commercially viable, that they would supplant DX sized sensors for professional use.  At the time they had real world benefits that far outweighed any benefits the smallers sensors brought.  The issue was DR and SNR.   But as the technology evolved and DX sized sensors boasted somewhat comparable quality, those benfefits like reach, DOF and smaller body and lens sizes came to the fore.  But Nikon has been slow to break their mindset.

I almost switched back to Canon during the D2 to D3 cycle.  I always understood that Nikon had a much smaller pool of resources on which to draw.  Hence, they must be more judicious in the avenues they pursue.  But things like a replacement to the D300 were a no brainer.

The film days are very different for a number of major reasons:

1) In a film camera, you can change the sensor by changing the film. The most expensive cameras used exactly the same sensor as the cheapest. In other words, sensor characteristics were not a distinction between different cameras, and there was no tradeoff between resolution and frame rate. The F5 (and EOS-1/1N/1V) were the top cameras because they had all the other features for easier and faster shooting; the actual image quality was no better or no worse than the cheapest camera on the market. In other words, AF and frame rate - features for action photography - were the only real way to draw a distinction between a pro body and an entry-level body. Not so with digital - you're stuck with the sensor you've got, there is a real tradeoff between speed and resolution and there are many features (some of which are mutually exclusive and are unable to coexist within the same body) to optimise a camera either for non-action detail or high-speed action.

2) 35mm film wasn't much good for landscapers, studio photographers and anyone else who wanted real detail. It was a format for action photographers and amateurs. So, a professional-level 35mm film camera was an action camera - non-action photographers generally wouldn't bother with the format. Not so with digital - the best digital full-frame sensors significantly exceed the resolution of medium-format colour film, and there's also the option of stitching. With digital, 35mm sensors are viable options for both action and non-action professionals, with medium format reduced to a small niche.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: dwswager on April 14, 2016, 01:39:09 pm
The film days are very different for a number of major reasons:


Yes, I'm very aware.  Please have this discussion with Nikon corporate leadership.  While out of camera quality is a big issue, it is no longer the ONLY issue.  Having the best image for post processing is now also a big consideration.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: Rob C on April 14, 2016, 02:26:00 pm
The film days are very different for a number of major reasons:

1) In a film camera, you can change the sensor by changing the film. The most expensive cameras used exactly the same sensor as the cheapest. In other words, sensor characteristics were not a distinction between different cameras, and there was no tradeoff between resolution and frame rate. The F5 (and EOS-1/1N/1V) were the top cameras because they had all the other features for easier and faster shooting; the actual image quality was no better or no worse than the cheapest camera on the market. In other words, AF and frame rate - features for action photography - were the only real way to draw a distinction between a pro body and an entry-level body. Not so with digital - you're stuck with the sensor you've got, there is a real tradeoff between speed and resolution and there are many features (some of which are mutually exclusive and are unable to coexist within the same body) to optimise a camera either for non-action detail or high-speed action.

2) 35mm film wasn't much good for landscapers, studio photographers and anyone else who wanted real detail. It was a format for action photographers and amateurs. So, a professional-level 35mm film camera was an action camera - non-action photographers generally wouldn't bother with the format. Not so with digital - the best digital full-frame sensors significantly exceed the resolution of medium-format colour film, and there's also the option of stitching. With digital, 35mm sensors are viable options for both action and non-action professionals, with medium format reduced to a small niche.



Tell that to most fashion photographers! We used a variety of formats, mostly 135 and 120, from at least the 60s onwards, until digital came knocking.

I won't bore you with a list, but amongst the many 135ers: Bailey, Donovan, Duffy, Klein, Horvat, Parkinson, Sieff, Moon, Peccinotti etc, etc. It was used also in studios, as well as locations. The reason? Some shoots work off a build-up of emotional expression and you can't afford to break the progression every twelve clicks. Size sure ain't everything, even in fairly static situations.

Also, the top-flight Nikons with horizontal shutters didn't always synch. as highly as did the far inferior, vertical shuttered FM and FM2 which brought it up a stop or two of speed.

For travel/calendar work, Kodachrome was kind of king; it withstood lack of refrigeration and didn't need rapid processing turnaround cf. Ektachrome; had wonderful sharpness and it was only rarely available in 120 format, so 135 was a default position.

MF, usually in the shape of 6x6 and 6x7 had other obvious advantages in some situations which made it a better bet. But by no means was 135 an also-ran.

;-)

Rob C
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: Theodoros on April 14, 2016, 02:53:16 pm
IMO, Nikon's choice is a good one... There are situations where the D5 will shine, the others that it won't shine, surely the pro has kept a D4 (not D4s) in the bag for those cases as pros always work with more than one camera... In fact, I think that Nikon saves money from pros in a way, as they will usually buy only one D5 body keeping their older camera along it...

But think of it....

Football games with long telephoto, F1 racing in bad whether, moto cross in the mad and exhibitions too, Night races, natural disasters, night concerts... Then is Nikon's traditional "specialism" from the 60's... the war reporters! There is no point in doing some things as good as the previous model would achieve, as then, there would be no point for the reporter to add the new camera... OTOH, dual interface won't improve things because a sensor that has been mechanically designed to achieve what the D5 is designed to do, won't perform like a D4 at 400 ISO no matter what the interface is. Now, as it is, the reporter can have a D4 & a D5 in the bag and do any reporting better than anybody else  or any other camera combination can...
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: gss on April 14, 2016, 03:42:57 pm
I would be OK with this if Nikon were to offer a high resolution camera (D820?) with the exact same focus capability as the Nikon D5.  I have a D4 and a D800E, and can't tell you how many times I wished for better focus for the D800E, while with the D4 focus was never an issue.  Since the D4 for me is simply an event camera, I am happy with the camera's performance at ISO 400-3200 and don't need it to be superlative at ISO 100.
But this is just me.  I can see why someone would want a camera that does everything well; I just don't think we're ever going to get it.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: BernardLanguillier on April 14, 2016, 06:58:57 pm
At low ISO the D5 probably has about the same DR as a 5DIII that millions of Canon photographers have been telling us for years is absolutely not an issue. ;)

So yes, it is clearly poor compared to a D810, but it is still perfectly fine for general photography and many would argue that fine landscape photographs can be captured with 12 stops DR.

Besides, the D5 has the most consistent metering I have seen so far in a DSLR and I have no concerns trusting it fully. This will reduce the occurences when large corrections must be applied.

All in all it is clearly best in class for what it was designed for (AF and low light) - the 1DxII may get close, although matching the AF of the D5 will be tough - while being perfectly adequate for general shooting.

I am not sure why so many people apparently keep living in a world of fantasy where they expect to find THE tool perfect for every application?

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: shadowblade on April 14, 2016, 10:59:10 pm
At low ISO the D5 probably has about the same DR as a 5DIII that millions of Canon photographers have been telling us for years is absolutely not an issue. ;)

So yes, it is clearly poor compared to a D810, but it is still perfectly fine for general photography and many would argue that fine landscape photographs can be captured with 12 stops DR.

Besides, the D5 has the most consistent metering I have seen so far in a DSLR and I have no concerns trusting it fully. This will reduce the occurences when large corrections must be applied.

All in all it is clearly best in class for what it was designed for (AF and low light) - the 1DxII may get close, although matching the AF of the D5 will be tough - while being perfectly adequate for general shooting.

I am not sure why so many people apparently keep living in a world of fantasy where they expect to find THE tool perfect for every application?

Cheers,
Bernard

The problem is more the resolution than the DR.

Regardless, a two-camera combination of D5 and D810 will cover almost everything, as well as provide a fair bit of redundancy in the areas in which they overlap.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: BernardLanguillier on April 14, 2016, 11:12:23 pm
The problem is more the resolution than the DR.

The reality is that, on moving subjects, the slightest AF innacuracy robs the image of a lot more than 16mp, so in real world applications, 21 well focused pixels resolve more than 36 slightly blurred.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: shadowblade on April 14, 2016, 11:23:04 pm
The reality is that, on moving subjects, the slightest AF innacuracy robs the image of a lot more than 16mp, so in real world applications, 21 well focused pixels resolve more than 36 slightly blurred.

Cheers,
Bernard

I was talking about the landscape/architecture/macro/nonmoving applications of the camera. In that case, it's 36 million well-focused pixels (or whatever number the D810 successor has) vs 20 million well-focused pixels.

Clearly, the D4/D5 is optimised for action. But the D810 is no slouch either. After all, it performs superbly for weddings and other events, and also does well for wildlife photography, where cropping is a big issue. It's major failure for action isn't AF (in which it's a lot better than the D800e) but frame rate while shooting full-frame RAWs.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: shadowblade on April 14, 2016, 11:43:30 pm
I am not sure why you keep commenting in various threads about cameras designed for action in terms of their abilities for landscape photograhy? Yes, I will keep using my D810 for landscape, no doubt whatsoever.

Because comments were made to the effect that, 'the D4/D5 is the only Nikon pro body and is the best body for all professionals; anything else is amateur'. Which is quite clearly not the case, as any ex-medium-format or other non-action photographer would know.

Quote
As far as actions goes, I have used pretty extensively the D810 and the D750 for action and now starting with the D5. The D810 isn't bad (in absolute terms it is pretty good), but it is still pretty significantly behind the D750 in success rate and I will soon have the opportunity to confirm my initial suspicion that the D5 will far out perform both.

Cheers,
Bernard

It seems to match the 5D3, so, if you're shooting anything other than small, fast targets moving close to you (where bigger lens movements are required - birds in flight or cheetahs running in the distance really aren't that challenging) it does better than OK.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: BernardLanguillier on April 14, 2016, 11:51:18 pm
Because comments were made to the effect that, 'the D4/D5 is the only Nikon pro body and is the best body for all professionals; anything else is amateur'. Which is quite clearly not the case, as any ex-medium-format or other non-action photographer would know.

It seems to match the 5D3, so, if you're shooting anything other than small, fast targets moving close to you (where bigger lens movements are required - birds in flight or cheetahs running in the distance really aren't that challenging) it does better than OK.

I am not sure who said that, but I will most certainly continue to use my D810 for landscape, the D5 is clearly an inferior camera for such applications.

As far as AF goes, I am sure the D810 does match the 5DIII but I don't find that particularly impressive compared to the performance of the pro bodies, at least not with the super teles.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: shadowblade on April 15, 2016, 12:06:50 am
I am not sure who said that, but I will most certainly continue to use my D810 for landscape, the D5 is clearly an inferior camera for such applications.

As far as AF goes, I am sure the D810 does match the 5DIII but I don't find that particularly impressive compared to the performance of the pro bodies, at least not with the super teles.

Cheers,
Bernard

Not sure why people continue to refer to them as the pro bodies, when the majority of wedding photographers prefer to use the D750/D810/5D3 even when D4s/1Dx are available, and you'll hardly ever find a still-subject or studio pro using them... Just that people tend to equate 'pro' with sports/fast action/photojournalism/live music, since they're the really visible people (apart from wedding photographers) - when does a member of the general public really get to see a studio, architectural, product or landscape photographer at work? Really, they're as specialised as the 5Ds, only with the emphasis in the other direction. I'd call the D750/D4s/D810 and 5D3/1Dx/5Ds all pro bodies, since they're the bodies generally used by paid shooters, with the exact choice of body dependent on what you need to shoot. Evidently, so do NPS and CPS.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: John Koerner on April 15, 2016, 12:19:53 am
The thing about electronics and tech companies operating in a non-monopoly is that, if you don't do it, then someone else will. Better to cannibalise your own model than for someone else to do it to you and steal market share. Nikon suffered it badly in the early years of digital, with their lack of a CMOS sensor, then their lack of full frame. Then Canon suffered it when they failed to release a high-resolution follow-up to the 5D2/1Ds3, losing (the 5D3 was essentially a different kind of camera with a different audience), losing a huge group of non-action photographers to the D810 and A7r. If you want to compete for a subset of photographers, you need to produce tools which fit the needs of that subset, not just a general-purpose body - if you don't, then someone else will produce the tool and you'll lose those shooters.

Actually, I doubt Nikon's executives would want all pros to go for the D5. What they'd most likely prefer is to be able to sell the D810 for the same price as the D4/D5.  Unfortunately, competition exists, so they can't.

You took the words out of my mouth.

The D5 is a specialist's camera, an action camera.

The D810 is a single-image, "absolute quality" camera.

High ISO with very good image quality, under a vast array of conditions, is (exactly) what sports photographers, photojournalists, and hardcore nature photographers need.

Only landscape shooters want/need absolute ISO 64 image quality for massive prints.

The Nikon D5 is a better camera, in every possible way you can define the word "better," except in absolute 1-shot quality, and even then only taken under ideal conditions.

Jack
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: shadowblade on April 15, 2016, 12:40:41 am
You took the words out of my mouth.

The D5 is a specialist's camera, an action camera.

The D810 is a single-image, "absolute quality" camera.

High ISO with very good image quality, under a vast array of conditions, is (exactly) what sports photographers, photojournalists, and hardcore nature photographers need.

Only landscape shooters want/need absolute ISO 64 image quality for massive prints.

The Nikon D5 is a better camera, in every possible way you can define the word "better," except in absolute 1-shot quality, and even then only taken under ideal conditions.

Jack

Not just landscape photographers. Studio photographers. Fashion photographers. Architectural photographers. Product/advertising photographers. Anyone who used to shoot medium-format film, rather than moving directly from 35mm film to 35mm digital.

The only people for whom the D4/1Dx are better is for those who primarily shoot action and high ISO - i.e. journalist-type photographers (be they covering sports, live music or anything else that's fast-moving or takes place in the dark). Even wedding photographers tend to go the the 5D3/D750/D810, and these are high-end photographers for whom the price difference isn't significant. For many people and many purposes, the size and weight are a hindrance rather than a help, the high frame rate doesn't add anything useful and the ISO button never goes above 1600 anyway.

High ISO with very good image quality, under a vast array of conditions, is (exactly) what sports photographers, photojournalists, and hardcore nature photographers need.

Add to that high frame rate and low resolution. For every other class of photographer, it's almost completely useless. Even nature/wildlife photographers tend to prefer higher resolution (hence the popularity of the 7D2, D810 and 5Ds among wildlife shooters), so long as the AF is good and the frame rate is decent.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: John Koerner on April 15, 2016, 01:17:51 am
Not just landscape photographers. Studio photographers. Fashion photographers. Architectural photographers. Product/advertising photographers. Anyone who used to shoot medium-format film, rather than moving directly from 35mm film to 35mm digital.

True.



The only people for whom the D4/1Dx are better is for those who primarily shoot action and high ISO - i.e. journalist-type photographers (be they covering sports, live music or anything else that's fast-moving or takes place in the dark). Even wedding photographers tend to go the the 5D3/D750/D810, and these are high-end photographers for whom the price difference isn't significant. For many people and many purposes, the size and weight are a hindrance rather than a help, the high frame rate doesn't add anything useful and the ISO button never goes above 1600 anyway.

That's pretty much what I said.

Wedding photographers aren't shooting blazing frame rates; they're wanting posed, essentially single-image, nice-quality shots in fairly controlled conditions.

The D5 is overkill for these modest needs.



dd to that high frame rate and low resolution. For every other class of photographer, it's almost completely useless. Even nature/wildlife photographers tend to prefer higher resolution (hence the popularity of the 7D2, D810 and 5Ds among wildlife shooters), so long as the AF is good and the frame rate is decent.

That is not true. The nature photographers you're talking about are part-timers.

Most nature photographers who use the 7D aren't at the top of the food chain ... they're enthusiasts.

The true, 100% nature photographers at the top of the food chain (who live in the woods for months, or for life) are using the 1Dx or Nikon D series.

Jack
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: shadowblade on April 15, 2016, 01:54:12 am
That's pretty much what I said.

Wedding photographers aren't shooting blazing frame rates; they're wanting posed, essentially single-image, nice-quality shots in fairly controlled conditions.

The D5 is overkill for these modest needs.

The capabilities are certainly not overkill. Apart from outdoor bridal shoots and daytime, outdoor weddings (very common here), a lot of their shooting takes place in dark conditions without flash, and the focus needs to be spot-on. On the other hand, their emphasis tends to be on AF accuracy rather than pure speed and tracking - I believe the 6D's centre point does this even better than the 1Dx - and they are more demanding on dynamic range than most action photographers, the juxtaposition of black and white and high-contrast lighting being an every day occurrence in wedding photography. Also, they have to hold the camera all day, ready to shoot, without the benefit of a monopod or tripod for support - there's a reason many of them are turned off by inbuilt grips, with an increasing number even turning to the A7r2/A7s2 (they also tell me eye-detection autofocus is a godsend).

The reason I object to using the 'pro' descriptor to refer to the 1Dx and D4 lines (and only those lines) is that it fails to acknowledge the deficiencies of those bodies for many professional applications and denigrates those professionals using other bodies because the action-specialist bodies simply don't have the features and capabilities that benefit them most. Is the top-end wedding photographer, the landscape photographer who sells $5000 prints to collectors, hotels and galleries or the fashion photographer shooting models for advertising campaigns any less professional than the sports photographer or photojournalist wielding an action body and big lens, simply because the 5Ds or D810 meets their needs far better than the D5? By extension, if the wedding or studio photographer is just as much a photographic professional as the sports photographer, isn't the primary tool of their trade just as much a piece of professional equipment as the action shooter's camera. Although, from experience, many action photographers seem to have an attitude of 'shoot action or get out' and like to denigrate anyone who doesn't shoot action as an amateur... (my usual response being to give them a long-focal-length tilt-shift lens and ask them to take a photo with the entire scene being in sharp focus)

Quote
That is not true. The nature photographers you're talking about are part-timers.

Most nature photographers who use the 7D aren't at the top of the food chain ... they're enthusiasts.

The true, 100% nature photographers at the top of the food chain (who live in the woods for months, or for life) are using the 1Dx or Nikon D series.

Tell that to the photographer travelling with me in Tibet last year, who was using an 800mm lens and 7D2 body (in addition to 200-400 and 1Dx) to shoot wildlife and birds for the BBC. Sure, you'd never use it as a primary body, unless shooting nothing but small birds. But, sometimes, focal length is a major limitation, and snow leopards only come so close. A high-resolution, 1Ds3/D810/5Ds-style full-frame body would be the best of both worlds, but then you pay in terms of frame rate.

Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: John Koerner on April 15, 2016, 10:10:35 am
The capabilities are certainly not overkill. Apart from outdoor bridal shoots and daytime, outdoor weddings (very common here), a lot of their shooting takes place in dark conditions without flash, and the focus needs to be spot-on. On the other hand, their emphasis tends to be on AF accuracy rather than pure speed and tracking - I believe the 6D's centre point does this even better than the 1Dx - and they are more demanding on dynamic range than most action photographers, the juxtaposition of black and white and high-contrast lighting being an every day occurrence in wedding photography. Also, they have to hold the camera all day, ready to shoot, without the benefit of a monopod or tripod for support - there's a reason many of them are turned off by inbuilt grips, with an increasing number even turning to the A7r2/A7s2 (they also tell me eye-detection autofocus is a godsend).

I think the D5 is supposed to have the finest AF system, ever.

Why can't you use a monopod with it for weddings?



The reason I object to using the 'pro' descriptor to refer to the 1Dx and D4 lines (and only those lines) is that it fails to acknowledge the deficiencies of those bodies for many professional applications and denigrates those professionals using other bodies because the action-specialist bodies simply don't have the features and capabilities that benefit them most. Is the top-end wedding photographer, the landscape photographer who sells $5000 prints to collectors, hotels and galleries or the fashion photographer shooting models for advertising campaigns any less professional than the sports photographer or photojournalist wielding an action body and big lens, simply because the 5Ds or D810 meets their needs far better than the D5?

Good point, but here again you're talking about shots taken in ideal, selected conditions.



By extension, if the wedding or studio photographer is just as much a photographic professional as the sports photographer, isn't the primary tool of their trade just as much a piece of professional equipment as the action shooter's camera. Although, from experience, many action photographers seem to have an attitude of 'shoot action or get out' and like to denigrate anyone who doesn't shoot action as an amateur... (my usual response being to give them a long-focal-length tilt-shift lens and ask them to take a photo with the entire scene being in sharp focus)

But none of this is the point.

The point was the D5/1Dx is the preferred tool of professional action-sports/nature photographers, not photographers taking photos of people sitting still or moving slowly.



Tell that to the photographer travelling with me in Tibet last year, who was using an 800mm lens and 7D2 body (in addition to 200-400 and 1Dx) to shoot wildlife and birds for the BBC. Sure, you'd never use it as a primary body, unless shooting nothing but small birds. But, sometimes, focal length is a major limitation, and snow leopards only come so close. A high-resolution, 1Ds3/D810/5Ds-style full-frame body would be the best of both worlds, but then you pay in terms of frame rate.

I know a guy who travels with a 1Dx and a 7D2. He is a Canon Explorer of Light.

The truth is the 7D2 is just a "me too" camera he pretty much uses to promote for Canon, given his position, but even Ray Charles can see that all of his serious, high-action, low-light shots are taken with the 1Dx.

And while this person extols the virtues of the 7D II (compared to the 7D), even he is quick to point out that the files "aren't the same quality" as the 1Dx.

Never seen this fellow even mention a 5D series, on any of his arctic, wilderness-type excursions, and that is because the 5D'' is just not an action camera.

I am sure the Nikon D5 and Canon 1Dx2 will broaden the gap between (what are essentially) "static" cameras and action (+ low light) cameras.

Jack
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: shadowblade on April 15, 2016, 10:40:29 am
I think the D5 is supposed to have the finest AF system, ever.

Why can't you use a monopod with it for weddings?

I don't know what the D5 has - it's not out yet. Certainly, the 1Dx has the fastest AF in Canon's lineup (both in terms of acquisition and tracking), but not the most precise.

They don't usually use monopods beccause they're shooting at all sorts of angles - low angles, high angles, crouching, standing over people, etc. in quick succession, so constantly changing the height of the monopod is impractical.

Quote
Good point, but here again you're talking about shots taken in ideal, selected conditions.

As are you.

When you're not shooting 14fps or tracking fast action in the dark (the minority of shots, unless you shoot nothing but sports) the D4/1Dx's features are completely useless. You could get exactly the same shot with any other camera.

On the other hand, the resolution deficiency shows up in every single shot - stitching aside, no matter what you do, you can never get a 36MP image out of a 20MP sensor.

Quote
But none of this is the point.

The point was the D5/1Dx is the preferred tool of professional action-sports/nature photographers, not photographers taking photos of people sitting still or moving slowly.

The point is that someone mentioned that the D5/1Dx is the professional camera, and that, by extension, any other camera is not a professional tool, and that pros shooting using other cameras are not as worthy as those shooting fast action using the D5/1Dx.



Quote
I know a guy who travels with a 1Dx and a 7D2. He is a Canon Explorer of Light.

The truth is the 7D2 is just a "me too" camera he pretty much uses to promote for Canon, given his position, but even Ray Charles can see that all of his serious, high-action, low-light shots are taken with the 1Dx.

And while this person extols the virtues of the 7D II (compared to the 7D), even he is quick to point out that the files "aren't the same quality" as the 1Dx.

Never seen this fellow even mention a 5D series, on any of his arctic, wilderness-type excursions, and that is because the 5D'' is just not an action camera.

That's one photographer, shooting in one style, out of how many thousands?

You'd never go without a full-frame body as your primary (whether D4 or D810, depending on whether you need fps or resolution more). But, if you use the D4/1Dx, when you need the reach, you need the reach. That's where the high-pixel-density backup comes in.

Quote
I am sure the Nikon D5 and Canon 1Dx2 will broaden the gap between (what are essentially) "static" cameras and action (+ low light) cameras.

Low light capability isn't the unique purview of the action bodies. Probably the best low-light sensor out there - the A7s2 - isn't even an action camera at all. The 6D can focus in darker light than the 1Dx.

The 5D3 and D810 are hardly static cameras - the only current cameras they lose out to in terms of fast-moving subjects are the 1Dx and D4s. And they beat the dedicated action bodies in other areas. Sure, they're slightly (only slightly) worse at tracking fast action than the 1Dx and D4s. But to say they're 'static' cameras is like saying that the D4s is completely incapable of shooting a landscape or still portrait.

I'm sure 8k video will render action stills bodies obsolete anyway. When you can shoot 33MP at 25fps and pull a frame from that, what's the point of a body shooting 20-24MP at 14-16fps? At that point, it's essentially just a 6K video camera that can't quite make the frame rate needed for video.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: Colorado David on April 15, 2016, 11:13:49 am
Video is usually shot with a shutter speed twice the frame rate. So if your video is 30 frames per second (29.97 really) then you'll set your shutter speed to a 60th. That's not adequate to freeze action. While video and stills have been on a converging tradjectory for some time, there will probably always be the need for a dedicated still camera more than the other way around. From an ergonomic consideration, still cameras are not ideal for shooting video, but it's easier to make them work than for a video camera to take the place of a still camera.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: Theodoros on April 15, 2016, 12:43:00 pm
Not sure why people continue to refer to them as the pro bodies, when the majority of wedding photographers prefer to use the D750/D810/5D3 even when D4s/1Dx are available, and you'll hardly ever find a still-subject or studio pro using them... Just that people tend to equate 'pro' with sports/fast action/photojournalism/live music, since they're the really visible people (apart from wedding photographers) - when does a member of the general public really get to see a studio, architectural, product or landscape photographer at work? Really, they're as specialised as the 5Ds, only with the emphasis in the other direction. I'd call the D750/D4s/D810 and 5D3/1Dx/5Ds all pro bodies, since they're the bodies generally used by paid shooters, with the exact choice of body dependent on what you need to shoot. Evidently, so do NPS and CPS.


1. The majority of "wedding photographers" are not pros... they are crooks! .
2. The few pros that exist among wedding photographers work with MF cameras (especially Contax 645 - Pentax is rising, Leica S007 with Contax lenses, but Hassies and Mamiya too) and then use some DSLRs for back up... The better back-up DSLRs are considered to be the Nikon D4 and Canon DX (by far) and then the ...D700 & the EOS 5DIII!  D800 & EOS 5ds users are simply NOT "wedding photographers" or about to become that....
3. The D5 (like the D3 & D4 before) is not promoted by Nikon to be a "pro" camera.... It is promoted by the maker as the PRO REPORTER's camera....
4. If you want a "pro camera" that can do all pro jobs, then I sincerely suggest to go and shoot some action with an ...MF camera & MFDB combination, or use a tethered Multishot back on a view camera and shoot... a wedding!

By the way, what is your profession? ...by the continuous posts you make frequently and the strong "opinion" you have on things, I would presume that you call yourself a "wedding" pro or similar? I would also suggest to have a look at the DP review forums... You'll find plenty there to agree with... ;)
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: shadowblade on April 15, 2016, 12:50:02 pm
Video is usually shot with a shutter speed twice the frame rate. So if your video is 30 frames per second (29.97 really) then you'll set your shutter speed to a 60th. That's not adequate to freeze action. While video and stills have been on a converging tradjectory for some time, there will probably always be the need for a dedicated still camera more than the other way around. From an ergonomic consideration, still cameras are not ideal for shooting video, but it's easier to make them work than for a video camera to take the place of a still camera.

That's if you're trying to shoot video.

But there's no technical reason you can't set them to shoot stills. Set the shutter speed to 1/1000 (and increase the ISO accordingly) and you're shooting motion-stopping bursts at 25fps or faster. Just don't expect to use the same footage for video.

The sensor, lens, shutter, subject and everything else are the same. The only things that have changed are the settings. 1/50-1/60 for video, 1/500-1/1000 for stills. You can't use stills footage for video, or video footage for stills, but you can use the same camera for both.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: shadowblade on April 15, 2016, 01:16:33 pm
1. The majority of "wedding photographers" are not pros... they are crooks! .
2. The few pros that exist among wedding photographers work with MF cameras (especially Contax 645 - Pentax is rising, Leica S007 with Contax lenses, but Hassies and Mamiya too) and then use some DSLRs for back up... The better back-up DSLRs are considered to be the Nikon D4 and Canon DX (by far) and then the ...D700 & the EOS 5DIII!  D800 & EOS 5ds users are simply NOT "wedding photographers" or about to become that....

Maybe ten years ago, shooting MF film. Not any more. Even top-tier portrait photographers rarely use MF (film or digital) any more, and they're not dealing with a moving subject, low lighting, etc. You just can't capture a ceremony in dim lighting, without flash, with a camera that has a base ISO of 25 and performs poorly at 100, poor AF, and with a lens that needs to be stopped down to f/5.6-f/8 for any kind of depth of field. MF is only useful for the wedding formals, bridal shots, etc. - and wedding photographers have largely ditched MF even for that, ever since the 5D2 came out, due to the ability to use the same system, lenses, etc. for the ceremony/reception and the formal shots.

I don't know where you shoot. Around here, if you spoke of using MF to shoot weddings, you'd be laughed at.

Quote
3. The D5 (like the D3 & D4 before) is not promoted by Nikon to be a "pro" camera.... It is promoted by the maker as the PRO REPORTER's camera....

Which makes sense. What doesn't make sense is people conflating that to mean 'the pro camera' (for all applications, not just photojournalism). For non-action shooting in reasonable lighting, it's no better than any other camera - a typical pro uses the cheapest thing that does the job well, so would not use the D4/D5 unless there was a specific need for 14fps or better-than-D750/D810-level AF. For applications requiring high resolution, it's decidedly sub-par.

Quote
4. If you want a "pro camera" that can do all pro jobs, then I sincerely suggest to go and shoot some action with an ...MF camera & MFDB combination, or use a tethered Multishot back on a view camera and shoot... a wedding!

I never suggested that a pro camera could do everything well - I was suggesting the complete opposite. The 1Dx and D4s are poor for anything that requires resolution rather than speed. No camera can do all jobs well. That's why the D4s, D810, 5Ds, 5D3 and 1Dx are all equally pro bodies. All of them are the strongest in their brand for certain applications, but weak at something else.

Medium format is close to dead. Even advertising companies have started ditching their Mamiyas and Hasselblads in favour of more-versatile 35mm-format cameras, particularly since the D810 and 5Ds were released. The owners and managers say that the D810 and 5Ds output is more than good enough and can't justify the 10x greater cost of medium-format bodies. Instead, they're using 35mm bodies in all sorts of different ways they wouldn't have dreamed of putting their MF gear through. There are a small number of holdouts who continue to extol the virtues of MF, but their output isn't demonstrably better than those of non-MF users (although 'shot on MF' can be a cachet for sales).

Quote
By the way, what is your profession? ...by the continuous posts you make frequently and the strong "opinion" you have on things, I would presume that you call yourself a "wedding" pro or similar? I would also suggest to have a look at the DP review forums... You'll find plenty there to agree with... ;)

I don't shoot weddings and would have no idea which direction to point the camera if I ever had to shoot one. I sell large landscape prints. I do, however, associate very closely with a number of mid- and high-end wedding photographers.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: Theodoros on April 15, 2016, 01:35:50 pm
Maybe ten years ago, shooting MF film. Not any more. Even top-tier portrait photographers rarely use MF (film or digital) any more, and they're not dealing with a moving subject, low lighting, etc. You just can't capture a ceremony in dim lighting, without flash, with a camera that has a base ISO of 25 and performs poorly at 100, poor AF, and with a lens that needs to be stopped down to f/5.6-f/8 for any kind of depth of field. MF is only useful for the wedding formals, bridal shots, etc. - and wedding photographers have largely ditched MF even for that, ever since the 5D2 came out, due to the ability to use the same system, lenses, etc. for the ceremony/reception and the formal shots.

I don't know where you shoot. Around here, if you spoke of using MF to shoot weddings, you'd be laughed at.

Which makes sense. What doesn't make sense is people conflating that to mean 'the pro camera' (for all applications, not just photojournalism). For non-action shooting in reasonable lighting, it's no better than any other camera - a typical pro uses the cheapest thing that does the job well, so would not use the D4/D5 unless there was a specific need for 14fps or better-than-D750/D810-level AF. For applications requiring high resolution, it's decidedly sub-par.

I never suggested that a pro camera could do everything well - I was suggesting the complete opposite. The 1Dx and D4s are poor for anything that requires resolution rather than speed. No camera can do all jobs well. That's why the D4s, D810, 5Ds, 5D3 and 1Dx are all equally pro bodies. All of them are the strongest in their brand for certain applications, but weak at something else.

I don't shoot weddings and would have no idea which direction to point the camera if I ever had to shoot one. I sell large landscape prints. I do, however, associate very closely with a number of mid- and high-end wedding photographers.

Just an advise... try not to "advise" photographers (since you admitted you are not one) what to use and for what job... I insist DP Review is a good place for you... Ask the "lots of photographers" you know... I bet you they are members of DPReview for years...  ;)

Last thing... There aren't "lots of photo-graphers" that exist either... and the small percentage that there is, is spread all over the world. Especially the one who would laugh at a wedding pro that uses a Contax 645 with film, is a man that would laugh with anything... even when he looks at his mirror... but he would certainly cry if he looks at the wedding pro's bank account and compare it with his...
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: shadowblade on April 15, 2016, 01:52:13 pm
Just an advise... try not to "advise" photographers (since you admitted you are not one) what to use and for what job... I insist DP Review is a good place for you... Ask the "lots of photographers" you know... I bet you they are members of DPReview for years...  ;)

Just some advice - don't assume anything about me. I don't shoot weddings. I also happen to have a 40x120" landscape print displayed in a very prominent location at a venue of a wedding I attended last weekend. Which I had sold to the venue for more than what the wedding photographer was charging to shoot the entire wedding. If that makes me 'not a photographer' in your book, then so be it.

I wouldn't go anywhere near DPReview.


Quote
Last thing... There aren't "lots of photo-graphers" that exist either... and the small percentage that there is, is spread all over the world. Especially the one who would laugh at a wedding pro that uses a Contax 645 with film, is a man that would laugh with anything... even when he looks at his mirror... but he would certainly cry if he looks at the wedding pro's bank account and compare it with his...

You have a very narrow definition of what constitutes a pro photographer. And absolutely no knowledge of my investment portfolio either (my bank account being used for nothing more than day-to-day expenses).

Barack Obama's presidential portrait was taken with a 5D2, not a medium-format camera. I take it the photographer was an amateur?
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: Theodoros on April 15, 2016, 02:06:41 pm
Now let me tell you why the world's better wedding pros use Contax 645 with film... Because nothing can beat the Planar 80/2 for bokeh... that's why! ...and additionally comes the secondary... 4:3 is perfect for weddings, the detail of digital sensors is too much for "wedding (dreamy) look"...  The Hasselblad H they use because of the 100/2.2 lens, for Pentax 645 they are CUTTING the rear part of the Contax 80/2 lens and then use the lens wide open only and MF only... on the Mamiyas they use adapters and then the same Contax lens...
Why not MFDB? Because the resolution is too much on FF sensors and because with smaller sensors the 80/2 lens looks longer than it should.... The Pentax is becoming popular, but none is (totally) satisfied out of it... (too much resolution and small image area - but it's got good high ISO and allows to get rid of DSLRs altogether) D800 and Eos 5ds are for ignorants on what is required on a wedding... A wedding is 95% of shots with the fastest possible lenses and fully wide open... A zoom user in wedding photography is the guy that the knowledgable should laugh with and then, if he is using a digital DSLR that would expose the make-up on the bride's skin you now he is not a weeding "pro" (but a crook)....  ;) Understand?

EDIT: What Barak Obama's portrait has to do with shooting weddings? Barak Obama's portrait could have been done the same if it was a Nikon D700 or a Hasselblad H6D 100... Please don't talk irrelevant and insist on to advise photographers... You have absolutely no idea on the work that has been put into making a president's portrait... The camera (or sensor) used is the last thing in the world that matters in making  the president's (official) portrait...

Thanks for the "conversation"... I'm sorry but I've said all that I can, so from now on you can continue posting (as I'm sure you will) as to "convince" people with your "expert" opinion on how things are done... War reporter's photography is what people don't know how it's done... So, it's a good chance for you to tell them...
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: shadowblade on April 15, 2016, 02:20:34 pm
Now let me tell you why the world's better wedding pros use Contax 645 with film... Because nothing can beat the Planar 80/2 for bokeh... that's why! ...and additionally comes the secondary... 4:3 is perfect for weddings, the detail of digital sensors is too much for "wedding look"...  The Hasselblad H they use because of the 100/2.2 lens, for Pentax 645 they are CUTTING the rear part of the Contax 80/2 lens and then use the lens wide open only and MF only... on the Mamiyas they use adapters and then the same Contax lens...
Why not MFDB? Because the resolution is too much on FF sensors and because with smaller sensors the 80/2 lens looks longer than it should.... The Pentax is becoming popular, but none is (totally) satisfied out of it... (too much resolution and small image area - but it's got good high ISO and allows to get rid of DSLRs altogether) D800 and Eos 5ds are for ignorants on what is required on a wedding... A wedding is 95% of shots with the fastest possible lenses and fully wide open... A zoom user in wedding photography is the guy that the knowledgable should laugh with and then, if he is using a digital DSLR that would expose the make-up on the bride's skin you now he is not a weeding "pro" (but a crook)....  ;) Understand?

Not at all.

I've never heard anyone complain about 'too much resolution'. Removing it is a quick action in Photoshop or Lightroom. As for bokeh, there's a reason the Canon 200mm f/2 is so popular for bridal shots. Last to last, there are soft-focus filters, or even pantyhose.

The wedding photographers you deal with must have a very conservative style, with a very narrow repertoire of stock-standard shots, at weddings which are all the same, all shooting the same style. Ever been to one at a palace in Rajasthan, with the groom riding in on an elephant? Your photographer with a 645 and 80mm lens would get trampled trying to get a close-up.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: shadowblade on April 15, 2016, 02:27:51 pm
EDIT: What Barak Obama's portrait has to do with shooting weddings? Barak Obama's portrait could have been done the same if it was a Nikon D700 or a Hasselblad H6D 100... Please don't talk irrelevant and insist on to advise photographers... You have absolutely no idea on the work that has been put into making a president's portrait... The camera (or sensor) used is the last thing in the world that matters in making  the president's (official) portrait...

Because I'm not talking about weddings specifically. I'm talking about photographers in general. You never mentioned you were talking about wedding photographers specifically - you only mentioned 'photographers', with a wedding photographer used as an example.

Don't talk down to me, or anyone else. Many of us have been in the photography game for a long time, and/or are accomplished shooters with numerous sales and publications, and know as much, or a lot more, than you do. Our styles and methods vary drastically, and the fact that your way of shooting works for you doesn't make it any better than methods that work for other photographers whose work is every bit as good as yours, despite being made on what you insist are 'inferior' or 'amateur' cameras.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: Rob C on April 15, 2016, 02:54:55 pm
Personally, I would rather use a format shape of 6x6 for portraits than any 6x9 shape. The latter's too damned thin for verticals, and makes it difficult to get an image that looks in balance unless you crop the long end... But if you want horizontals, then I think the oblong camera allows you to create a better use of the available space than trying to do that within a square. All things are not equal, even when you think that they should be.

I'd hate to have to shoot weddings to earn my living; I'd hate to shoot weddings ever again: worst couple of jobs I ever had to do.

Bring back the LP!

Rob C
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: Rob C on April 15, 2016, 03:53:23 pm
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DinQcvbnZRU

Might settle something for the less cynical...

;-)

Rob C
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: dwswager on April 15, 2016, 09:36:31 pm
Not at all.

I've never heard anyone complain about 'too much resolution'. Removing it is a quick action in Photoshop or Lightroom. As for bokeh, there's a reason the Canon 200mm f/2 is so popular for bridal shots. Last to last, there are soft-focus filters, or even pantyhose.


There is a reason both the Canon 1Dx (and 1Dx MK II) and Nikon D4s (and D5) have resolutions lower than a D810 or 5Ds and even the D750.  Beyond the fact that the vast majority of images don't require high resolution, the trades of resolution for lower noise tends to be a beneficial one.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: shadowblade on April 15, 2016, 10:41:04 pm
There is a reason both the Canon 1Dx (and 1Dx MK II) and Nikon D4s (and D5) have resolutions lower than a D810 or 5Ds and even the D750.  Beyond the fact that the vast majority of images don't require high resolution, the trades of resolution for lower noise tends to be a beneficial one.

Yep - and it's not because the D810 or 5Ds have too much resolution and show too much detail, reveal too many skin defects, etc. Wildlife photographers would love to show every hair on the leopard if they could. No doubt they'd put in a 36-50MP sensor if they could do so without compromising frame rate - it's why they increase the resolution with each iteration, rather than sticking around the 10-12MP mark.

It's been demonstrated on numerous occasions that higher resolution does not come at a cost in low-light ability, once you consider the whole image and not pixel-level noise, and results in less aberrations (e.g. moire). So that's not a reason to not use a higher-resolution sensor.

But higher resolution requires more bandwidth and more processing power. With the bandwidth required to shoot 18MP at 14fps, you could only shoot a 50MP sensor at 5fps, or a 36MP sensor at 7fps - too slow for a dedicated action camera. There's a reason there are no 8k video cameras around, apart from a few recording directly to solid-state hard drives - 33MP at 25fps (or 50MP at 15fps) is just too fast to handle. So they go for the highest-resolution sensor that will still allow them to reach the desired frame rate.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: Ann JS on April 16, 2016, 01:35:40 am
Do any of you actually own a D5 or have you even had a chance to shoot with one for yourself?

I happen to be the very lucky owner of a D5 and I am finding it to be THE most fabulous camera I have ever owned.

The reports of poor quality DR at low ISO are total rubbish: I have been out shooting the most contrasty back-lit landscape and wildlife subjects that I can find and the D5 holds detail from deep shadows to the brightest HLs and its fast-focusing is astounding.

The trick is to set the matrix meter to +0.6 EV and not to under-expose; and also to build your own Camera Profiles for use with ACR.

The results that I have got when testing the "Surveillance Hi-Five" are also entirely different from those commonly being banded about on the Internet: I have even got clearly readable detail out of the 3.25 Million ISO setting.

I have been posting some of my results on this thread:
http://www.fotozones.com/live/index.php/topic/60836-discovering-the-nikon-d5/page-2

My experience with the D5 has been so diametrically opposite to what the Chartists and Measurebators are reporting that I can only assume that Nikon must have sent me an entirely different version of the D5 from the ones which those people received?

Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: shadowblade on April 16, 2016, 01:54:16 am
Do any of you actually own a D5 or have you even had a chance to shoot with one for yourself?

I happen to be the very lucky owner of a D5 and I am finding it to be THE most fabulous camera I have ever owned.

The reports of poor quality DR at low ISO are total rubbish: I have been out shooting the most contrasty back-lit landscape and wildlife subjects that I can find and the D5 holds detail from deep shadows to the brightest HLs and its fast-focusing is astounding.

The trick is to set the matrix meter to +0.6 EV and not to under-expose; and also to build your own Camera Profiles for use with ACR.

The results that I have got when testing the "Surveillance Hi-Five" are also entirely different from those commonly being banded about on the Internet: I have even got clearly readable detail out of the 3.25 Million ISO setting.

I have been posting some of my results on this thread:
http://www.fotozones.com/live/index.php/topic/60836-discovering-the-nikon-d5/page-2

My experience with the D5 has been so diametrically opposite to what the Chartists and Measurebators are reporting that I can only assume that Nikon must have sent me an entirely different version of the D5 from the ones which those people received?

I doubt the D5 has poor DR at low ISO because Nikon uses on-chip A/D conversion and has minimal read noise, meaning a more-or-less linear ISO-vs-DR curve - these sensors are essentially ISO-less. You can't get a good DR at high ISO without a good ISO at low ISO. It would be possible to make a chip with low well capacity and a base ISO of 400 or higher (Nikon used to use a base ISO of 200), but the DR would still have to be good at ISO 400 in order to retain good DR at ISO 51200. It's a more-or-less linear mathematical relationship.

What do you shoot anyway? More importantly, how big do you print? You can get a fantastic shot from even a 4MP camera. You just can't print it at huge sizes without it breaking down under close scrutiny. No doubt the D5 will have great handling characteristics - that's what it's designed for. But it's not the best tool for everything - just the best tool for action/photojournalism.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: Ann JS on April 16, 2016, 02:21:56 am
I don't need to print larger than for a double-truck spread (about 22" across at 300 dpi) and I could do that perfectly well with my D3S cameras.

I actually shoot a rather wide range of subject matter from industrial advertising and products for clients to wildlife and travel in far-flung corners of the globe for my own pleasure.

For the past six years I have shot twin D3Ss and I am so thrilled with the D5 that now I desperately yearn for twin D5s!

I have no desire nor need for any more pixels than 20 MP because I have big glass and seldom need to crop but I do welcome very high ISOs because I frequently need fast shutter-speeds before dawn and after dusk.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: BernardLanguillier on April 16, 2016, 02:35:08 am
Do any of you actually own a D5 or have you even had a chance to shoot with one for yourself?

I happen to be the very lucky owner of a D5 and I am finding it to be THE most fabulous camera I have ever owned.

My experience with the D5 has been so diametrically opposite to what the Chartists and Measurebators are reporting that I can only assume that Nikon must have sent me an entirely different version of the D5 from the ones which those people received?

I own a D5 too and my experience echoes yours. In particular AF is indeed pretty amazing.

So far I am yet to read a report from an owner that isn't very positive.

In case you aren't visiting this forum often there are very few regular posters here who shoot the kind of subjects for which the D5/1DX were designed and some tend to mind the very existence of cameas falling outside their own area of interest.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: shadowblade on April 16, 2016, 03:42:22 am
I don't need to print larger than for a double-truck spread (about 22" across at 300 dpi) and I could do that perfectly well with my D3S cameras.

I actually shoot a rather wide range of subject matter from industrial advertising and products for clients to wildlife and travel in far-flung corners of the globe for my own pleasure.

For the past six years I have shot twin D3Ss and I am so thrilled with the D5 that now I desperately yearn for twin D5s!

Which particular capabilities

Obviously yours is a very journalistic style of photography - all sorts of subject matter, in all sorts of environments, without having to make huge prints (i.e. less demand on the sensor and more demand on the rest of the camera).

Quote
I have no desire nor need for any more pixels than 20 MP because I have big glass and seldom need to crop but I do welcome very high ISOs because I frequently need fast shutter-speeds before dawn and after dusk.

I also have big lenses, but still end up cropping a lot when shooting wildlife and making huge prints when shooting landscapes and other things that don't move much. High ISO capability has nothing to do with the resolution, and overall low-light capability tends to be a function of the AF system rather than the sensor. Do you need the 10-14fps burst capability?

The Canon 1D3 came in both a high-speed, low-resolution (1D3) and a low-speed, high-resolution (1Ds3) version. Every other aspect of the bodies was equal - which one you chose depended on whether you needed burst speed or resolution more. If they released a D5 and D5x, for example, with the former being 20MP/14fps and the latter being 50MP/5fps or 40MP/7fps, and every other feature being equal between the two cameras, would you find the D5 or the hypothetical D5x more useful?

Although I don't see a D5x ever being released - essentially, any market for a D4x/D5x has been completely cannibalised by the D810, and many people (myself included) will have both a high-resolution body and an action body anyway, for shooting different things.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: shadowblade on April 16, 2016, 03:57:44 am
I own a D5 too and my experience echoes yours. In particular AF is indeed pretty amazing.

So far I am yet to read a report from an owner that isn't very positive.

No doubt you won't find many negative reports. People who buy the D5 tend to know what they need in a camera, know what the camera is capable of delivering and won't expect it to deliver something it wasn't designed for. They go into it knowing what to expect - you won't find any buyers complaining about the lack of resolution, because they knew what they were getting, and, if they had needed more resolution (or had valued resolution more than frame rate), would have bought a different camera.

Same goes for the D810 and MFDBs - you won't find anyone complaining about their low frame rate or large file size, because people gravitating towards those cameras need resolution far more than frame rate, and knew what they were getting before buying it. If you needed fast tracking and 10fps, you wouldn't have bought a MFDB.

It's only at the lower end, and in the case of major bugs or design errors (e.g. shooting mode buttons that are too easily knocked every time you use the camera) that you get complaints from buyers. Those at the higher end know what they need, know what the gear delivers and buy accordingly.

Quote
In case you aren't visiting this forum often there are very few regular posters here who shoot the kind of subjects for which the D5/1DX were designed and some tend to mind the very existence of cameas falling outside their own area of interest.

No-one minds the existence of other types of cameras. I use several different kinds myself.

What we do mind is the endless insistence from action photographers - both online and on the street/in the venue - that theirs is the only true type of 'professional' photography, and that anyone who shoots anything else is an amateur, since it 'takes no skill to shoot things that don't move'.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: BernardLanguillier on April 16, 2016, 04:22:50 am
No-one minds the existence of other types of cameras. I use several different kinds myself.

What we do mind is the endless insistence from action photographers - both online and on the street/in the venue - that theirs is the only true type of 'professional' photography, and that anyone who shoots anything else is an amateur, since it 'takes no skill to shoot things that don't move'.

I have never witnessed this kind of behavior.

As far as I am concerned I do both as well as shooting the studio and am fully aware of the respective challenges.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: shadowblade on April 16, 2016, 04:29:09 am
I have never witnessed this kind of behavior.

As far as I am concerned I do both and am fully aware of the respective challenges.

Cheers,
Bernard

See it every time I go on a long trip with mixed shooting, and pull out a 1Dx with 200-400L attached, as well as an A7r with TS-E or Zeiss Otus lens attached. Usual comments are along the lines of, 'why do you bother with that dinky little thing?' Then I pull out a C1 Cube head, and many people can't comprehend why I'm not using a ball head, since they're 'superior' to pan/tilt heads and the 'pro' option (since every cheap tripod comes with an equally-cheap pan-tilt head)...
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: Ann JS on April 16, 2016, 11:54:33 am
Because I am not very tall and use a big camera, often with a 200-400mm on its snout, what I get all the time from complete strangers is "That thing is bigger than you!!"

Carrying a big camera seems to be a wonderful ice-breaker and I have met so many lovely people, and had all sorts of wonderful adventures all over the globe, as a result of my cameras.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: douglevy on April 16, 2016, 08:20:33 pm
I've had my D5 for about 2 weeks now. It's a fantastic camera, the AF system is significantly better than any camera I've used, and my D4 has 385,000 frames on it. For someone whose business is 50% weddings and 50% commercial/editorial, I'm liking that I'm now in a great spot to match the camera to the job. My D4/5's are for wedding use where, despite what some have said earlier in this thread, lighting conditions are completely unpredictable and it's not rare for me to shoot zero frames below 400 ISO, sometimes below 800 in winter weddings. The high ISO from the D5 - well I can already see it will open up new opportunities to make photos in dark churches and at night that I haven't previously been able to. Additionally if my focus % goes up even 10% for low light dancing images (where I'm typically shooting 1600-2000 ISO), that's a noticeable difference to me and my clients (I'll have more options in the edit).

My H5X and D810 will now be exclusively limited to my non-wedding work, where I rarely need to exceed 800 ISO and almost always use supplemental lighting. I shot half of last wedding season with the 810, and was continually frustrated by situations where the D4 would focus and the 810 would hunt, plus 16mp is perfect for wedding use (my largest albums are 14x14, and any large prints I sell are canvas).

Those who have mentioned the 750 - some of my second shooters use them and they're OK, but the color response hasn't impressed me, and the 1/200 sync speed is a dealbreaker for how I work.

@Theodoros "2. The few pros that exist among wedding photographers work with MF cameras (especially Contax 645 - Pentax is rising, Leica S007 with Contax lenses, but Hassies and Mamiya too) and then use some DSLRs for back up... The better back-up DSLRs are considered to be the Nikon D4 and Canon DX (by far) and then the ...D700 & the EOS 5DIII!  D800 & EOS 5ds users are simply NOT "wedding photographers" or about to become that..."

In the New England market where I work, I know 2 photographers shooting MF film, and 1 (me) shooting MFD at weddings (and that's rare, 2-3 weddings a year). If I had to guess based on conversations within my network, the 5D3 is the most popular wedding camera, followed by the D750, D700 and D3/D4 cameras. But really it's 5D3/D750 and everything else, though a few in the last year or so have picked up Fujis and Sonys.

Just my .02

-Doug
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: dwswager on April 16, 2016, 09:59:06 pm
Which particular capabilities

Obviously yours is a very journalistic style of photography - all sorts of subject matter, in all sorts of environments, without having to make huge prints (i.e. less demand on the sensor and more demand on the rest of the camera).


In every way other than number of megapixels, the image quality from the D5 will be equal to and in most ways better than the D810 or D750.   When you say less demand on the sensor you constrain yourself merely to MP count.  The file on the card is the product of more than just the sensor too.  And even then, not as much MP is necessary as most people believe.  135 film had about 8.5MP.  The larger the print, the farther the actual viewing distance.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: shadowblade on April 16, 2016, 11:23:27 pm
In every way other than number of megapixels, the image quality from the D5 will be equal to and in most ways better than the D810 or D750.

How so?

There are only measurable characteristics of an image sensor.

For D4s vs D810:

Resolution - D810 wins, no contest

Noise (i.e. ISO performance) - Draw. D810 wins by a mile at base ISO (due to having a base ISO of 64 vs 100). It's pretty much even from ISO 100-1600. D4s pulls ahead above that. On the other hand, the new Sony 42MP sensor no longer suffers at high ISO, so I'd expect the D810's successor (competing against the D5) to not have that issue. I'm talking about whole-image noise, i.e. printed at the same size.

Colour separation - D810 by a bit. The D4s has a weaker colour filter, due to its optimisation for high-ISO performance. The weaker filter lets in more light and improves high-ISO performance, but at slight cost in colour accuracy

Pattern noise - Draw. Both sensors have negligible pattern noise.

Dynamic range - Draw. D810 wins by a bit below ISO 800. From ISO 800 up, D4s wins by a bit.

Quote
When you say less demand on the sensor you constrain yourself merely to MP count.

Because that's the main difference between the two sensors. A sensor only has a few characteristics - resolution, noise, dynamic range and colour accuracy. All of these are interrelated.

Quote
The file on the card is the product of more than just the sensor too.

Yes, it's the sensor, the lens, the A/D conversion (really part of the sensor) and the RAW converter. Out of those, every component other than the sensor can be applied equally to the D4s, D810 and D750.

Everything else on the camera - AF, frame rate, exposure metering, etc. - is just there to focus the lens onto the sensor at the right place and time, with the right settings, and has no bearing on the technical quality of the image that comes out the other end.

Quote
And even then, not as much MP is necessary as most people believe.  135 film had about 8.5MP.

There's a reason many non-action photographers didn't bother with 135 format film, shooting MF and LF film instead. Generally 645, 6x6 and 6x7 for studio portraits, etc., and 612 and 617 for landscapes.

135 colour film was strictly for action, journalism/events (where you weren't printing large anyway) and amateur use.

Quote
The larger the print, the farther the actual viewing distance.

Tell that to the average gallery or buyer.

If you show them a 4x6" print, they'll walk right up to it until it's in their face. If you show them a 32x96" panorama mounted on a wall, they'll still walk right up to it until it's in their face, and expect to see every leaf on the tree.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: BernardLanguillier on April 16, 2016, 11:37:13 pm
There is little doubt that high res stitches result in better large prints (I have a 6 feet 350mp stitch in front me in which people 3mm tall can easily be told apart), but it is totally possible to generate excellent A2 prints with 21 mp.

cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: shadowblade on April 17, 2016, 12:26:35 am
There is little doubt that high res stitches result in better large prints (I have a 6 feet 350mp stitch in front me in which people 3mm tall can easily be told apart), but it is totally possible to generate excellent A2 prints with 21 mp.

cheers,
Bernard

A2 is pretty small as far as wall-mounted prints go. In 3:2 aspect ratio, it's roughly 16x24".

Naturally, it's more than large enough for prints in books and magazines, or web images. But the majority of wall-mounted prints I sell are 20x30" or larger, and 20x30" is already a small print - from an interior design perspective, if a print is going to be a centrepiece, going over a mantle, a sofa or a piano, or along a dining room wall, for instance, it had better be huge.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: ErikKaffehr on April 17, 2016, 01:08:35 am
Hi,

I have not seen those data. Bill Claff has some data on the sensor here (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%201D%20X,Nikon%20D5,Nikon%20D810) see enclosed screen dump.

What I see is that low level noise is very similar between the Canon 1Dx and the D5, while the D5 seems to be better at high ISOs. Keep in mind that Bill's data doesn't show measured ISO but nominal ISO.

Neither the Canon 1Dx nor the D5 data looks to me as typical of on sensor column wise conversion like the D810. So, I am pretty sure that DR on the D5 is limited by ADC noise.

My take is that if I was using tripod I would go with the D810 of the Nikon alternatives. In real life I am mostly shooting on tripod, using a Sony A7rII.

Best regards
Erik


Based on pre-release models and now some general release models, it appears that Nikon has implemented a strategy that sacrifices some low ISO DR to gain high ISO DR.   It seems to me, based on test curves this might be manipulated in software rather being a function of the hardware.  If so:

1. Why do it for the D5 which is a general purpose camera?

2. Why not make it user selectable?

I think this might make sense on the D500 which is targeted more to sports/wildlife where higher ISO are the norm.   But for the D5, I question the strategy.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: shadowblade on April 17, 2016, 03:09:04 am
Hi,

I have not seen those data. Bill Claff has some data on the sensor here (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%201D%20X,Nikon%20D5,Nikon%20D810) see enclosed screen dump.

What I see is that low level noise is very similar between the Canon 1Dx and the D5, while the D5 seems to be better at high ISOs. Keep in mind that Bill's data doesn't show measured ISO but nominal ISO.

Neither the Canon 1Dx nor the D5 data looks to me as typical of on sensor column wise conversion like the D810. So, I am pretty sure that DR on the D5 is limited by ADC noise.

My take is that if I was using tripod I would go with the D810 of the Nikon alternatives. In real life I am mostly shooting on tripod, using a Sony A7rII.

Best regards
Erik

I'd be interested to see the curves from the 80D and upcoming 1Dx2, which both use on-chip A/D conversion.

All curves will plateau like that eventually - even with on-sensor ADCs. Read noise is minimal, but still exists. Just that the ISO level at which they start showing that is usually too low to show up.

I suspect that the sensor on the D5 may be made using an older fab plant, compared with higher-density sensors like the 80D, upcoming D500, D810 and A7r2 sensors. A lower-density sensor just doesn't require the same precision or fine circuitry as a higher-density sensor, and, in any case the real value and capability of a D5 don't lie In the sensor, but in everything else that goes with it (AF, body, processors, etc.). So, they save the newer and more sophisticated fab plants and methods for the sensors and bodies that really need it.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: ErikKaffehr on April 17, 2016, 03:41:05 am
Hi,

Check this one (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%207D%20Mark%20II,Canon%20EOS%2080D,Nikon%20D7200,Sony%20ILCE-6300)… http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%207D%20Mark%20II,Canon%20EOS%2080D,Nikon%20D7200,Sony%20ILCE-6300

Best regards
Erik


I'd be interested to see the curves from the 80D and upcoming 1Dx2, which both use on-chip A/D conversion.

All curves will plateau like that eventually - even with on-sensor ADCs. Read noise is minimal, but still exists. Just that the ISO level at which they start showing that is usually too low to show up.

I suspect that the sensor on the D5 may be made using an older fab plant, compared with higher-density sensors like the 80D, upcoming D500, D810 and A7r2 sensors. A lower-density sensor just doesn't require the same precision or fine circuitry as a higher-density sensor, and, in any case the real value and capability of a D5 don't lie In the sensor, but in everything else that goes with it (AF, body, processors, etc.). So, they save the newer and more sophisticated fab plants and methods for the sensors and bodies that really need it.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: shadowblade on April 17, 2016, 03:59:30 am
Hi,

Check this one (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%207D%20Mark%20II,Canon%20EOS%2080D,Nikon%20D7200,Sony%20ILCE-6300)… http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%207D%20Mark%20II,Canon%20EOS%2080D,Nikon%20D7200,Sony%20ILCE-6300

Best regards
Erik

Interesting. It's on par with all the other APS-C sensors (allowing for its slightly smaller size - 1.6x crop vs 1.5).

I'm expecting good things from the 1Dx2 sensor. Not that it really needs it, since it lives in the ISO 800-plus range anyway. And I'm expecting the 5Ds to be quickly superseded by a Mk2 version, with the new sensor technology. After all, those who are interested in 50MP are usually also very concerned with low-ISO DR and image quality.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: ErikKaffehr on April 17, 2016, 04:42:59 am
Hi,

I would agree on that,a very good match for the A6000 sensor (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%207D%20Mark%20II,Canon%20EOS%2080D,Sony%20ILCE-6000)

Best regards
Erik


Interesting. It's on par with all the other APS-C sensors (allowing for its slightly smaller size - 1.6x crop vs 1.5).

I'm expecting good things from the 1Dx2 sensor. Not that it really needs it, since it lives in the ISO 800-plus range anyway. And I'm expecting the 5Ds to be quickly superseded by a Mk2 version, with the new sensor technology. After all, those who are interested in 50MP are usually also very concerned with low-ISO DR and image quality.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: shadowblade on April 18, 2016, 04:34:50 am
Hi,

I would agree on that,a very good match for the A6000 sensor (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%207D%20Mark%20II,Canon%20EOS%2080D,Sony%20ILCE-6000)

Best regards
Erik

Would definitely be very interested in a 1Dxs or D5x - same AF and other systems as the action bodies, but three times the resolution with a third the frame rate. A bit like the 1Ds3 and D3x of old. Doubly so if it didn't have the inbuilt grip and went with a compact form factor.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: Jack Hogan on April 18, 2016, 12:18:10 pm
Based on pre-release models and now some general release models, it appears that Nikon has implemented a strategy that sacrifices some low ISO DR to gain high ISO DR.   It seems to me, based on test curves this might be manipulated in software rather being a function of the hardware

The difference in low/high ISO performance is a function of wildly different sensor and downstream electronics approaches (like Canon vs Sony different).  Nothing that can be controlled or made up for in software.

Jack
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: BernardLanguillier on April 18, 2016, 08:02:01 pm
Back to the initial topic, here are some images shot with the D5 on Sunday in pretty difficult light. The lack of lower ISO DR hasn't proven to be an issue till date.

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1658/26446936451_3ab43c984d_o.jpg)

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1519/26420707342_fe9bafc678_o.jpg)

(https://farm2.staticflickr.com/1700/26487108176_6e53dacfe0_o.jpg)

I am still learning the intricacies of its very complex AF capabilities, but so far it is very impressive. All these images were captured with the 400mm f2.8.

Many more images after the link (https://www.flickr.com/photos/bernardlanguillier/).

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: Ann JS on April 19, 2016, 02:08:59 am
Those splendid photographs totally scuttle the "Poor DR at low ISO" nonsense about the D5 which has been proliferating all over the Internet!

 
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: shadowblade on April 19, 2016, 02:32:59 am
Those splendid photographs totally scuttle the "Poor DR at low ISO" nonsense about the D5 which has been proliferating all over the Internet!

Technically, no it doesn't. It's been measured at having 2 stops less DR than the D810 and A7r2.

But DR - like colour gamut in printers - is a binary thing. You either have enough of it or you don't. If you have enough, 'more DR' isn't going to add anything to your shot, since everything already fits into the camera's dynamic range. It's a bit like a backpack - if it can already fit all your gear, making it bigger isn't going to help. But it will help on the day that you have to carry a bigger/heavier load, and the smaller pack can't hold everything you need.

Clearly, all the elements in this scene fit into the camera's dynamic range, so having more DR isn't going to help. But put it side-by-side with a D810 or A7r/A7r2 and shoot at a sunset, with buildings or trees silhouetted against a sky. Then take a look at the shadow detail in each. It would be a more interesting comparison.

Looks like the AF system is good, though. Mounted archery isn't an easy thing to photograph. How much better than the D4s?
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: Jack Hogan on April 19, 2016, 02:36:04 am
Brilliant, Bernard.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: BernardLanguillier on April 19, 2016, 04:31:27 am
Clearly, all the elements in this scene fit into the camera's dynamic range, so having more DR isn't going to help. But put it side-by-side with a D810 or A7r/A7r2 and shoot at a sunset, with buildings or trees silhouetted against a sky. Then take a look at the shadow detail in each. It would be a more interesting comparison.

Sure, there is no doubt that my D810 has better DR at base ISO, but the relevant question for me was: does the D5 have enough DR for the applications I will use it for. As far as I am concerned, such scenes in bright and pretty harsh light is as tough as it gets for my action camera. So the answer for me is: yes, the D5 has enough DR for my applications.

Looks like the AF system is good, though. Mounted archery isn't an easy thing to photograph. How much better than the D4s?

Yep, this isn't an easy applications for different reasons:
- the speed of the horse isn't totally stable and can be pretty fast,
- there is a Z component to the movement,
- there are various objects coming in the way (the head of the horse, the bow,...) that can confuse the AF system.

The D5 did very well, but I think I can still get it to perform better by testing more the many available options.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: BernardLanguillier on April 19, 2016, 04:55:09 am
Brilliant, Bernard.

Thanks Jack! :-)

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: shadowblade on April 19, 2016, 05:07:31 am
Sure, there is no doubt that my D810 has better DR at base ISO, but the relevant question for me was: does the D5 have enough DR for the applications I will use it for. As far as I am concerned, such scenes in bright and pretty harsh light is as tough as it gets for my action camera. So the answer for me is: yes, the D5 has enough DR for my applications.

That's where having multiple cameras comes in. The D5, 1Dx and similar sensors are fine for action, since that tends to be either in bright conditions with limited DR, or dark conditions where you're bumping up the ISO anyway. But, even aside from resolution, I wouldn't use it as a non-action camera - there are too many situations where an extra two stops makes a huge difference (just think of the number of scenes that benefit from a 2-stop GND).

Quote
Yep, this isn't an easy applications for different reasons:
- the speed of the horse isn't totally stable and can be pretty fast,
- there is a Z component to the movement,
- there are various objects coming in the way (the head of the horse, the bow,...) that can confuse the AF system.

The D5 did very well, but I think I can still get it to perform better by testing more the many available options.

Not that the 1Dx or D4s, or even 5D3, really have any problems tracking things.

Intelligent acquision and tracking - ignoring intervening objects, keeping track of eyes, individual animals in a herd, etc. - is probably where further improvements in AF will come in, more so than actual speed or accuracy.

It's why I'd really like a D5x or 1Dxs - unmatched AF along with high pixel density and resolution, for applications where you really need both (wildlife). Probably more generally useful than having triple the frame rate but a third the resolution.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: BernardLanguillier on April 19, 2016, 05:35:35 am
That's where having multiple cameras comes in. The D5, 1Dx and similar sensors are fine for action, since that tends to be either in bright conditions with limited DR, or dark conditions where you're bumping up the ISO anyway. But, even aside from resolution, I wouldn't use it as a non-action camera - there are too many situations where an extra two stops makes a huge difference (just think of the number of scenes that benefit from a 2-stop GND).

Yes.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: dwswager on April 19, 2016, 08:28:46 am
That's where having multiple cameras comes in. The D5, 1Dx and similar sensors are fine for action, since that tends to be either in bright conditions with limited DR, or dark conditions where you're bumping up the ISO anyway. But, even aside from resolution, I wouldn't use it as a non-action camera - there are too many situations where an extra two stops makes a huge difference (just think of the number of scenes that benefit from a 2-stop GND).

+1 on different cameras for different situations.  I own and shoot a D810 and have a D500 on preorder.  Even with sports I will have both out for games.  The DX crop lets me shoot the D500 with a 70-200mm for example and the D810 will have either a longer focal length or something like the 24-70mm or 16-35mm on it at different times.

I am still of the opinion, however, that the D810 is the best general purpose camera.  Fast enough, especially in 25MP 1.2x crop mode with enough pixels in FX and plenty of DR.  Image below from a couple days ago shooting the Number 1 ranked high school softball team in the state of Alabama.  It was shot with the D810.  Would 10-14 fps be better than 6fps, absolutely.  Is it required...nope!
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: John Koerner on April 19, 2016, 09:53:57 am
Technically, no it doesn't. It's been measured at having 2 stops less DR than the D810 and A7r2.

Technically? Under what conditions?

Who cares about 2 stops DR under most conditions?

Nobody is going to buy the D5 to "do sunsets" ::)



But DR - like colour gamut in printers - is a binary thing. You either have enough of it or you don't. If you have enough, 'more DR' isn't going to add anything to your shot, since everything already fits into the camera's dynamic range. It's a bit like a backpack - if it can already fit all your gear, making it bigger isn't going to help. But it will help on the day that you have to carry a bigger/heavier load, and the smaller pack can't hold everything you need.

Exactly right. That the D810 has "more DR" than the D5 is usually overkill and not relevant.



Clearly, all the elements in this scene fit into the camera's dynamic range, so having more DR isn't going to help. But put it side-by-side with a D810 or A7r/A7r2 and shoot at a sunset, with buildings or trees silhouetted against a sky. Then take a look at the shadow detail in each. It would be a more interesting comparison.

More interesting ... to whom?

I could give a flip about the shadow detail found in a backlit building, personally. ::)
(That is about as UN-interesting a subject as I could imagine.)

What I believe most (normal) people find "interesting" is either the minute detail of creatures they will never be able to see themselves ... and/or seeing intense, authentic action "captured" in the moment. If you want to think about people putting their money where their mouths are, I guarantee you that the "yearly revenues" of the sports industry dwarf the yearly revenues of the "fine art" industry, and by a hundred country miles. (Hence the comparative pricing of the cameras ;))

For every "new 60-inch sunset portrait" that gets hung on a wall, there are millions of action shots read in magazines, or posted on commercial online sites, etc.

Hey, I am a nature lover, but let's face it: "nature shows" don't dominate prime time television (and neither do "fine art" exhibits).
The fact is, sports and news dominate, which is the venue where the D5 is going to excel. The only thing that can compete with news and sports is advertising. And here, most photographers are going to be using MF not the D810 or Sony A7rII.

So wake up and smell the coffee (http://www.thenaturephotographer.club/images/smilies/coffee.png)

"Fine Art" photography is an awfully-small niche by comparison to these 3 giants.
Does it have its place? Yes. But it's an awfully-small place (beautiful though it may be).

With that said, while the D5 may not be able to match the D810 in low ISO DR ... it was not designed to do so. Where the D5 does excel is where most commercial action photographers (sports/news) are going to need a camera to be. Most news and sports events aren't static, and the need for high ISO increases dramatically when you're needing very fast SS to capture action and your light becomes limited. And it is here where the D5 shines compared to the competition. In fact, check out the performance of the D5 and D810 versus Canon's equivalent here (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%201D%20X,Canon%20EOS%205DS%20R,Nikon%20D5,Nikon%20D810) (and attached).

As you can see, the D810 totally dominates up till about IS0 600.
From ISO 600 to ISO 1000, everybody (Canon and Nikon) are pretty equal.
From ISO 1000 to ISO 2000, the Canons dominate the D810, but the D5 pulls marginally ahead of the pack (though the Canon 5DsR stays close).
After that, it's all the D5.

The only thing Canon has a firm hold of is the middle ground; they excel at neither end of the spectrum, while the Nikons excel at both ends of the spectrum.
(Which I expect to be further-augmented when the D900 comes out.)

Therefore, I agree with your 2-camera DSLR suggestion: an action camera and a detail camera.



Looks like the AF system is good, though. Mounted archery isn't an easy thing to photograph. How much better than the D4s?

I am excited to see the AF of the D5 as well. Also, don't forget about the D500 for its class. Canon's current finest (80D) already lags behind (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Canon%20EOS%2080D,Nikon%20D7200) the elder D7200, so I am sure the disparity will be even greater for the 7D Mk II compared the the D500 (which is also purported to excel in low light).

Jack
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: shadowblade on April 19, 2016, 10:31:04 am
Technically? Under what conditions?

Who cares about 2 stops DR under most conditions?

Nobody is going to buy the D5 to "do sunsets" ::)

The point is, it takes away from its utility as a 'general purpose' body which handles everything well.

Take the same camera and throw in a high-resolution, high-DR Exmor sensor (essentially, a D5x) and you'd have a much more well-rounded body - slightly worse for fast action, when 14fps actually makes a difference over 7fps, but more capable for almost anything else.

As it stands, it's an excellent fast-action camera - that's what it's designed for. But that shouldn't be conflated as meaning it's the best general-purpose camera.

Quote
Exactly right. That the D810 has "more DR" than the D5 is usually overkill and not relevant.

Except when it isn't. Then you're stuck.

On the flip side, is there ever a penalty to having more DR? When you don't need it, you don't use it. But, when you do need it, you have the option, other than saying, 'Sorry, my shadows are blown out.'

Quote
More interesting ... to whom?

I could give a flip about the shadow detail found in a backlit building, personally. ::)
(That is about as UN-interesting a subject as I could imagine.)

Interesting to anyone who cares about the technical performance of the camera.

Quote
What I believe most (normal) people find "interesting" is either the minute detail of creatures they will never be able to see themselves ... and/or seeing intense, authentic action "captured" in the moment.

Or seeing places they'll never visit.

Quote
If you want to think about people putting their money where their mouths are, I guarantee you that the "yearly revenues" of the sports industry dwarf the yearly revenues of the "fine art" industry, and by a hundred country miles. (Hence the comparative pricing of the cameras ;))

Most of which is in video or live tickets, not action stills.

Besides, the US and English-speaking countries are not the whole world. Many places are far less sports-obsessed.

Quote
For every "new 60" sunset portrait" that gets hung on a wall, there are millions of action shots read in magazines, or posted on commercial online sites, etc.

For each print sold to hang on a wall, millions of action shots would have to be looked at by thousands of viewers online or in magazines to generate the same revenue.

Lots more sports shots are seen, but each shot individually, on average, generates very little revenue.

Quote
Hey, I am a nature lover, but let's face it: "nature shows" don't dominate prime time television (and neither do "fine art" exhibits).
The fact is, sports and news dominate, which is the venue where the D5 is going to excel.

Sports and news on television also aren't captured using stills cameras. When it comes to printed images (in books, etc.), sports certainly doesn't dominate. Journalistic-style images do, but the really big-impact shots - two-page spreads, foldouts and front/back covers - are, more often than not, high-detail images, many times of things which aren't moving much. Think of Financial Review, National Geographic, New Scientist, etc.

With regards to film and television, look at how many scenes utilising 3Dfx you find in an average film. Generally quite a lot. Every one of these requires numerous high-resolution backdrops and textures captured by cameras before being incorporated into a scene and rendered. Sure, it's behind the scenes rather than in-your-face like a sports shot, but, without high-resolution photography to capture the backgrounds and textures, you wouldn't have the scene.

Quote
The only thing that can compete with news and sports is advertising. And here, most photographers are going to be using MF not the D810 or Sony A7rII.

Five years ago, definitely. Not any more. Many advertising photographers and agencies have replaced their 40MP Hasselblads with Nikons. The quality and resolution are good enough, and getting better with each iteration, and they can do things with the cameras (abuse them, shoot video with them, put them in dangerous situations) that they wouldn't risk or couldn't do with a MF body.

Quote
"Fine Art" photography is an awfully-small niche by comparison to these 3 giants.

Fine art is only one application of high-resolution/high-detail photography. It just happens to be the one that stands out, since it's the one where the photo is the end product, rather than a means to a different end. There are other commercial applications which dwarf even sports.

Product photography. Real estate (a huge, huge thing, especially with 360-degree interactive, zoomable views which have popped up everywhere in the last few years). Fashion. Videography and cinema (the next generation of high-resolution cameras being potentially 8k-capable). Backdrops and textures for 3Dfx in film, video and games. Even some aspects of wedding photography (as a MF film replacement for formal shots). Most of these demand the highest resolution and image quality possible. 3Dfx backdrops for cinema are often created from stitched panoramas measuring hundreds of megapixels, if not gigapixels.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: John Koerner on April 19, 2016, 11:42:20 am
The point is, it takes away from its utility as a 'general purpose' body which handles everything well.

Take the same camera and throw in a high-resolution, high-DR Exmor sensor (essentially, a D5x) and you'd have a much more well-rounded body - slightly worse for fast action, when 14fps actually makes a difference over 7fps, but more capable for almost anything else.

As it stands, it's an excellent fast-action camera - that's what it's designed for. But that shouldn't be conflated as meaning it's the best general-purpose camera.

Wrong.

The D5 does everything ... everything better than the D810 ... handles every situation better ... except DR and max resolution.

Yes, the D810 may take a slightly-better single-image, under ideal conditions, but you can still take a nice shot of the same thing with the D5.

By contrast, under truly challenging, hectic conditions, the D5 can capture excellent shots that you couldn't even get with the D810.

So while the D810 may be able to take a "better" landscape, but you can still take a fine landscape with a D5.

Meanwhile, you couldn't even capture a decent low-light action shot with a D810. You would get unusable garbage.



Except when it isn't. Then you're stuck.

Wrong. You have your understanding exactly bass-ackwards.

You're never "stuck" with the D5, which is the whole point. It allows you to capture THE widest possible range of opportunities to camera.

The truth is, you are only "stuck" with the D810 ... because there are situations where it simply can't handle :o

That is WHY it is only "half the price" ;)

The D810 may have better single-image capabilities, in ideal circumstances, but it is NOT the better overall, "handle everything well" tool.

Jack

PS: I don't have the time, or inclination, to respond to the rest of what you said. Just wanted to underscore the point you completely miss.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: AlterEgo on April 19, 2016, 11:46:13 am
So while the D810 may be able to take a "better" landscape, but you can still take a fine landscape with a D5.

and how does "can still take a fine landscape" qualify for "The D5 does everything ... everything better than the D810" ?
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: shadowblade on April 19, 2016, 12:13:28 pm
Wrong.

The D5 does everything ... everything better than the D810 ... handles every situation better ... except DR and max resolution.

DR is binary.

There are a lot of situations where two stops means the difference between a blown sky/blocked shadows and a well-exposed scene.

So, if the D810 handles DR and resolution better than the D5, why not put an updated D810 sensor into a D5? Two versions - one for rapid-fire action, the other for those who want better image quality but don't need such a fast burst rate. Then you've got the same tracking ability, same AF, same everything else, so you can't complain about the camera being 'unable to AF anything' - but you get a better sensor and have the best of both worlds.

Quote
Yes, the D810 may take a slightly-better single-image, under ideal conditions, but you can still take a nice shot of the same thing with the D5. By contrast, under truly challenging, hectic conditions, the D5 can capture excellent shots that you couldn't even get with the D810.

I've never encountered such a situation, and I've shot street scenes in the dark and stage performances in dim and constantly-changing lighting.

Quote
So while the D810 may be able to take a "better" landscape, but you can still take a fine landscape with a D5.

Meanwhile, you couldn't even capture a decent low-light action shot with a D810. You would get unusable garbage.

Then you've likely got the AF settings on the D810 all wrong.

The D810 shares the same AF module as the D4, albeit with a bit less processing power. It AFs better than anything other than the D4/D4s/D5/1Dx, and equals the 5D3. It handily beats the 1D3/1Ds3. If you can't shoot a decent low-light action shot with the D810, the problem isn't with the camera.

Quote
Wrong. You have your understanding exactly bass-ackwards.

You're never "stuck" with the D5, which is the whole point. It allows you to capture THE widest possible range of opportunities to camera.

The truth is, you are only "stuck" with the D810 ... because there are situations where it simply can't handle :o

That is WHY it is only "half the price" ;)

The D810's AF and metering system may not be as blindingly fast as the D5, but it's no slouch either. It has no problems tracking wildlife with long lenses, birds in flight, or cars going round a racetrack. It has no problems tracking moving subjects at a dimly-lit indoor event or a stage performance. The D4s's AF (a fairer comparison than the D5) may handle it better, but there are no situations which the D810 simply can't handle.

Same thing works in the other direction as well. If you need to print at large sizes, the D810 will work a lot better than the D4s or the D5. If you're focus-length limited even with a 500/600/800mm lens and need to crop, the D810 will handle it a lot better. If you're shooting a high-DR scene (much, much more common than just sunsets - ever heard of street lights or stage lighting?) the D810's images will be two stops more accommodating than the D5. The D4s/D5 can handle it, but not nearly as well as the D810.

And it's half the price because of competition, not because of its capabilities. The 645D was a game-changer in this regard. If they priced it at the launch price of the D3x, or the same as the D5, it'd come perilously close to the price of the 645Z. There's a lot of overlap in the capabilities and potential user base of the 645Z and D810, so they need to sell it for significantly less. At present, there's no overlap between the D5 and something at a higher price point. But if someone came out with an 8k video camera capable of capturing action stills tomorrow and sold it for $6k, you could bet that the price of the D5 and 1Dx2 would plummet overnight.

Quote
The D810 may have better single-image capabilities, in ideal circumstances, but it is NOT the better overall, "handle everything well" tool.

I never said it was.

I said a D5x - D5 systems, with a D810-style sensor and lower fps to compensate - would be. Just like the 1Ds3 was, over the 1D3.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: John Koerner on April 19, 2016, 12:17:07 pm
and how does "can still take a fine landscape" qualify for "The D5 does everything ... everything better than the D810" ?

Let's put it this way: in ideal conditions, the D5 will take a superb landscape shot (maybe not quite to the degree of a D810, but still superb).

And then, at the other end of the spectrum, in low light, the D5 will take an industry-leading, high-action, high-ISO critical shot ... where the D810 would produce pure, unusable garbage ... missing the moment and (thus) failing to capture the opportunity at all.

In fine, the D5 can handle landscapes 10x better than the D810 can handle low-light, fast-action.

Hope this simplifies, and clears the air, so you understand.

Jack
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: shadowblade on April 19, 2016, 12:20:20 pm
Let's put it this way: in ideal conditions, the D5 will take a superb landscape shot (maybe not to the degree of a D810, but still superb).

Not by current standards. Not once you blow it up to 40x60" and find all the details that other cameras picked up but you missed. In ideal conditions, its output is little better than the eight-year-old 5D2.

It's not just the D810. When shooting things that don't move, it also loses to the 5Ds, A7r, A7r2, A7, A72, D750 and even D600/D610.

For non-action shots, resolution, DR and colour matter. The action cameras produce solid output, but can hardly be considered top-tier in this regard, being beaten by almost every other full-frame camera.

Quote
On the flipside, in low light, the D5 will take an industry-leading, high-action, high-ISO critical shot ... where the D810 would produce pure, unusable garbage.

I think there's something wrong with your D810.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: John Koerner on April 19, 2016, 12:39:21 pm
Not by current standards. Not once you blow it up to 40x60" and find all the details that other cameras picked up but you missed. In ideal conditions, its output is little better than the eight-year-old 5D2.

It's not just the D810. When shooting things that don't move, it also loses to the 5Ds, A7r, A7r2, A7, A72, D750 and even D600/D610.

Dude, you're a like a broken record, stuck on 60" images.

The percentage of photographers who make 60" prints is less than 0.00000000000001%

And I have got news for you, the 8 year old, 5D2 has taken some spectacular images :D

The D5 may "lose" to the line-up you mentioned, on a chart, but not by much.

By contrast, all of the aforementioned lose to the D5 when subjects start moving and aren't in ideal light, and they lose by a wider margin than they were ahead in a perfect setting ;)

Since we are talking "general purpose" professional camera, movement and less than ideal light = 95% of the time.



For non-action shots, resolution, DR and colour matter. The action cameras produce solid output, but can hardly be considered top-tier in this regard, being beaten by almost every other full-frame camera.

Wow, you really are ... well, I will be nice.

I have conceded your "non-action" point, so stop talking about it.
Never said the D5 was "top tier" as a landscape camera, so stop building strawmen just to keep rambling ::)

What I said was the D5 handles landscapes better than the D810/A7rII handles fast-action, low-light.

THE POINT is an all-purpose camera does 100x more than take static shots in perfect light. (So shut up about "perfect light" already. You keep arguing a granted point.)

A "general purpose" camera is designed to handle everything.
When you have ONE tool in your hand, to capture everything, from sunrises in the morning, to live-action by day/twilight, on into the night, mist, etc., the D5 will be the better tool to handle everything well.



I think there's something wrong with your D810.

I think there is something wrong with you.

Jack
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: shadowblade on April 19, 2016, 01:06:17 pm
Dude, you're a like a broken record, stuck on 60" images.

The percentage of photographers who make 60" prints is less than 0.00000000000001%

And I have got news for you, the 8 year old, 5D2 has taken some spectacular images :D

I know. I used to shoot one, moving to digital from MF film.

But its images don't hold up nearly as well as those from the D810, A7r, A7r2 and 5Ds.

Quote
By contrast, all of the aforementioned lose to the D5 when subjects start moving and aren't in ideal light, and they lose by a wider margin than they were ahead in a perfect setting ;)

You talk as if every other camera is completely incapable of shooting moving subjects or at an ISO above 100.

The reality is, for almost every subject other than fast, erratic, close-up action in dim lighting, there is no difference between the 1Dx, D3, D4, D5, 5Ds, 5D3, D810 and even D700. In all but those situations, all these cameras will track more-or-less perfectly.

Even when shooting fast action in poor lighting, the D4s/1Dx have an advantage, but it's not night and day. All these cameras will give you plenty of keepers. The top action bodies will give you a few more.

Ever seen sports or press photographers in a third-world country? By and large, they're not using 1Dx/1D4 or D4s/D4/D3s bodies. Some aren't even using full-frame bodies. But the work they produce is as good as that which you see in the first world, where photographers are using 1Dx, 5D3 and D4s bodies - in some cases, it's excellent. This includes everything from camel racing and Mongolian horse archery to night-time soccer matches and motorcycle street racing in Nairobi and. Because, in 99% of situations, any of those cameras will do a more-than-decent job.

Unless your sport of choice is black cats racing around obstacle courses in the dark.

Quote
Since we are talking "general purpose" professional camera, movement and less than ideal light = 95% of the time.

95% of the time if you're shooting sports or photojournalism. That's maybe 10% of pro photographers.

Most modern top-level cameras can handle weddings and events proficiently - they require neither lightning-fast AF nor the highest-resolution or highest-ISO sensor, so any decent full-frame camera will cover that.

If you're shooting advertising, real estate, product photography, reproduction work, forensics, scientific photography, studio work, professional portraits, etc. etc., you're not shooting fast action in less-than-ideal light.

Quote
THE POINT is an all-purpose camera does 100x more than take static shots in perfect light. (So shut up about "perfect light" already.)

Point out one instance where I have ever mentioned perfect light.

That's right, you can't. I never once mentioned perfect light. You did.

Good landscapes are almost never taken in perfect light. They're taken in difficult, high-contrast, often rapidly-changing light. That's what gives them the drama. Flat lighting makes for poor landscapes.

Quote
A "general purpose" camera is designed to handle everything.
When you have ONE tool in your hand, to capture everything, from sunrises in the morning, to live-action by day/twilight, on into the night, mist, etc., the D5 will be the better tool to handle everything well.

I'd take a D810 or D750 every time for that.

Can't handle fast action as well as the D4/D4s/D5, but handles everything that isn't fast action just as well or better, and it weighs less.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: AlterEgo on April 19, 2016, 01:22:34 pm
Let's put it this way: in ideal conditions, the D5 will take a superb landscape shot (maybe not quite to the degree of a D810, but still superb).

well, in ideal conditions D810 can do fast AF action too @ still superb level, not quite to the degree of a D5 but with better DR/resolution :-) ... same logic

Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: shadowblade on April 19, 2016, 02:08:05 pm
well, in ideal conditions D810 can do fast AF action too @ still superb level, not quite to the degree of a D5 but with better DR/resolution :-) ... same logic

If I wanted an ideal, 'do everything/go everywhere' camera, I'd take the guts of the D5, replace the sensor with the one from the A7r2 (or the upcoming 80MP Sony one), put it in a compact body with optional grip and alter the firmware to include both 40MP mRAW and 20MP pixel binning.

That would give you:
- Top-level AF and tracking
- A top-quality, ultra-high-resolution, high-DR sensor for those times you need it
- Lower resolutions for higher frame rate - 3.5fps at 80MP, 7fps at 40MP and 14fps at 20MP (the mechanics being built for 14fps but higher-resolution modes being limited by bandwidth).
- Better image quality at 20MP than a native 20MP sensor (pixel binning getting rid of most CA and moire)
- Compact size for when space is at a premium, with the option of a grip if you frequently shoot in portrait orientation or just want to work on your biceps

Or you could take an updated-for-2016 D810 and throw in the processor and AF from a D5, and you'd end up with much the same product.

Call it the D5x and sell it for $6k and you'd have an all-round winner.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: ErikKaffehr on April 19, 2016, 02:52:33 pm
Hi,

Here are some data from Bill Claff: http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D5,Sony%20ILCE-7RII

I would say that shadowblade makes a good point.

Best regards
Erik



If I wanted an ideal, 'do everything/go everywhere' camera, I'd take the guts of the D5, replace the sensor with the one from the A7r2 (or the upcoming 80MP Sony one), put it in a compact body with optional grip and alter the firmware to include both 40MP mRAW and 20MP pixel binning.

That would give you:
- Top-level AF and tracking
- A top-quality, ultra-high-resolution, high-DR sensor for those times you need it
- Lower resolutions for higher frame rate - 3.5fps at 80MP, 7fps at 40MP and 14fps at 20MP (the mechanics being built for 14fps but higher-resolution modes being limited by bandwidth).
- Better image quality at 20MP than a native 20MP sensor (pixel binning getting rid of most CA and moire)
- Compact size for when space is at a premium, with the option of a grip if you frequently shoot in portrait orientation or just want to work on your biceps

Or you could take an updated-for-2016 D810 and throw in the processor and AF from a D5, and you'd end up with much the same product.

Call it the D5x and sell it for $6k and you'd have an all-round winner.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: BernardLanguillier on April 19, 2016, 05:32:24 pm
With all due respect, there are quite a few pointless gear discussions at LL, and I have wasted my share of time in many of those, but this one is shaping out to be record breaking! ;)

The reality, plain and simple, is that no single camera is best ar everything but that many cameras are excellent at a lot of things.

Every one of us just needs to know our exact needs and be objective about the actual performance of the cameras we are considering relative to these needs. I do landscape and action and have decided to own both a D810 and a D5. I'd rather have used my cash on something else and have zero pride in camera ownership, my focus was only to get the best tool for the job. And having used those cameras for their intended purposes, I believe I took the right decision.

Every one of us has different needs, financial situations, skills,... so there is zero value in trying to convince others that we know better than them what is best for them.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: AlterEgo on April 19, 2016, 05:38:49 pm
If I wanted an ideal, 'do everything/go everywhere' camera, I'd take the guts of the D5, replace the sensor with the one from the A7r2 (or the upcoming 80MP Sony one), put it in a compact body with optional grip and alter the firmware to include both 40MP mRAW and 20MP pixel binning.

if you do binning post sensor you can't get 14fps though (otherwise you can do 80mp @ 14fps and you are not)...
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: shadowblade on April 19, 2016, 10:01:21 pm
if you do binning post sensor you can't get 14fps though (otherwise you can do 80mp @ 14fps and you are not)...

Why not? The limitation is almost certainly going to be in the write-to-card speed - that's the slowest thing in the pipeline by far.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: shadowblade on April 20, 2016, 01:29:22 am
With all due respect, there are quite a few pointless gear discussions at LL, and I have wasted my share of time in many of those, but this one is shaping out to be record breaking! ;)

The reality, plain and simple, is that no single camera is best ar everything but that many cameras are excellent at a lot of things.

Every one of us just needs to know our exact needs and be objective about the actual performance of the cameras we are considering relative to these needs. I do landscape and action and have decided to own both a D810 and a D5. I'd rather have used my cash on something else and have zero pride in camera ownership, my focus was only to get the best tool for the job. And having used those cameras for their intended purposes, I believe I took the right decision.

Every one of us has different needs, financial situations, skills,... so there is zero value in trying to convince others that we know better than them what is best for them.

Cheers,
Bernard

That's why many - maybe even most - people shoot at least two different bodies, depending on what they're shooting and where they're going. It's why the D4s/D810 combo is so popular, as is the 1Dx/A7r2 (the 5Ds having arrived three years too late to gain much traction) and as was the 1D3/5D2.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: shadowblade on April 20, 2016, 01:40:25 am
Hi,

Here are some data from Bill Claff: http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D5,Sony%20ILCE-7RII

I expect Canon's 1Dx2 to be a better all-round camera than the D5, if it uses the same on-sensor ADC tech as the 80D.

AF should be comparable between the two bodies, and will be top-of-the-line anyway. The 1Dx2 also shoots 2fps faster.

The Canon sensor should have better DR at low ISO and comparable high-ISO performance (not sure about ridiculous-ISO peformance, such as ISO 102400 and up, which no-one actually uses).

Canon's generally also been stronger in video, and I suspect the 1Dx2 will also incorporate most of the functions of the 1Dc, making it much more useful for journalism and journalistic-style travel photography, which increasingly incorporates video (I don't expect there to be a 1Dc2).

Finally, Canon currently has a stronger lineup of supertelephotos. The 200-400L is incredible - the inbuilt 1.4x TC adds a huge amount of utility, particularly when shooting action where you can't afford to take 15 seconds out to change teleconverters, or in environments where you really don't want to be taking the lens off (e.g. on the deck of a ship or Zodiac with seaspray everywhere). It would be nice to see future supertelephotos all incorporate a 1x/1.4x/2x TC switcher.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: hjulenissen on April 20, 2016, 02:15:25 am
Why not? The limitation is almost certainly going to be in the write-to-card speed - that's the slowest thing in the pipeline by far.
I would guess that the limitation is usually one of:
1. The sensor itself overheating
2. The attainable sampling rates of A/D converters (on sensor or off)
3. The bandwidth of poorly conditioned, relatively long cable runs from sensor to supporting electronics

I am not an expert on (analog) circuit design, but I guess that performance usually is a compromise between cost, size, power drain, image quality, pixel-rates, emi, etc. If you want pixel-rates that are 2x or 10x the current industry norm (=comfort levels), you probably will have to pay by a shift in said compromise.

Less likely candidates:
4. Bandwidth/processing speed of cpu (storage of raw files more likely to be bandwidth limited than computation limited)
5. Speed of memory buffer (DDR memory tends to be OOM slower than cpu speeds)
6. Memory card bandwidth (not really an issue for "burst")
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: shadowblade on April 20, 2016, 04:06:31 am
I would guess that the limitation is usually one of:
1. The sensor itself overheating

Not likely. Current, even very dense sensors can handle live view and video (which still reads every pixel on the sensor) and can be used for hours-long exposures without overheating.

Quote
2. The attainable sampling rates of A/D converters (on sensor or off)

I doubt it, since current 42MP and 50MP sensors can sample video at 25 or 50fps, utilising every pixel on the sensor (although downsampling to 1080p or 4k for storage). The sampling rate of that is much faster than even reading 80MP at 14fps.

Quote
3. The bandwidth of poorly conditioned, relatively long cable runs from sensor to supporting electronics

This is still much, much faster than the 350MBps write speed of XQD cards, or even the write speed of next-generation 1GBps XQD cards. I don't know if this would present any bottleneck to getting data from the sensor to the processor at 1960MBps (80MP at 14 bits and 14fps), but the write speed is a much bigger bottleneck. Hence the need to downsample to 40MP or 20MP for the faster burst speeds.

Quote
Less likely candidates:
4. Bandwidth/processing speed of cpu (storage of raw files more likely to be bandwidth limited than computation limited)

Agree

Quote
5. Speed of memory buffer (DDR memory tends to be OOM slower than cpu speeds)

Memory used in computer graphics cards handle ridiculous amounts of data at very high speeds. Also less necessary if you use multiple banks running in parallel, or if you process and downsample in real time and write it straight to card for unlimited burst durations.

Quote
6. Memory card bandwidth (not really an issue for "burst")

This is probably the biggest issue, actually. Burst rates at full resolution would be very slow, unless you used a large, fast buffer. But it can be alleviated by downsampling to mRAW or sRAW for the faster speeds.

Don't forget, high-speed video cameras, shooting hundreds of frames per second, handle more data than even an 80MP sensor shooting at 14fps. And they're not always attached to computers to do this.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: Rob C on April 20, 2016, 04:51:58 am
With all due respect, there are quite a few pointless gear discussions at LL, and I have wasted my share of time in many of those, but this one is shaping out to be record breaking! ;)

The reality, plain and simple, is that no single camera is best ar everything but that many cameras are excellent at a lot of things.

Every one of us just needs to know our exact needs and be objective about the actual performance of the cameras we are considering relative to these needs. I do landscape and action and have decided to own both a D810 and a D5. I'd rather have used my cash on something else and have zero pride in camera ownership, my focus was only to get the best tool for the job. And having used those cameras for their intended purposes, I believe I took the right decision.

Every one of us has different needs, financial situations, skills,... so there is zero value in trying to convince others that we know better than them what is best for them.

Cheers,
Bernard


Goodness me, Bernard, it's taken you a long time to realise that!

I have a very good reason for following this thread, even though zero interest in upgrading cameras: the little bar that usually serves me lunch has one major flaw: the guy who serves soup is very unstable, and will invariably spill some during the delivery journey from his serving pot to my plate, resulting in wet eating implements at the very least, if not drops on my own person. In an effort - so far successful - to prevent this happening to me, I have taken to switching on the cellphone as I wait for him to come fill my soup plate, placing the cellphone on the place mat before me, and shifting the actual soup plate well to the side, away from me, and preventing him, through this shocking breach of etiquette, from giving me any extra helping of said soup other than where it belongs.

The longer this thread becomes, the safer I feel, and the less energy I need expend in an attempt to keep reading without switching around. As my actual, really concerned attention is rivetted on the soup server and not the thread, this is a completely satisfactory arrangement for me.

Anyway, looking at your shots with the 2.8/400 helps me better guess which lens Hans Feurer might be using most of the time - I think it's perhaps a tad longer than yours, but just as far out of my financial acceptability paradigm. All of this personal and deeply photographic research fills mealtimes with sweet oblivion and necessary distraction from the task at hand!

;-)

Rob
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: Josh-H on April 20, 2016, 04:56:52 am
Quote
"Goodness me, Bernard, it's taken you a long time to realise that!"

AMEN!
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: BernardLanguillier on April 20, 2016, 05:52:03 am
Anyway, looking at your shots with the 2.8/400 helps me better guess which lens Hans Feurer might be using most of the time - I think it's perhaps a tad longer than yours, but just as far out of my financial acceptability paradigm.

It really depends on how much you spend on soup and cars. ;)

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: BernardLanguillier on April 20, 2016, 06:05:57 am
AMEN!

It's been a veeeeeery long time I haven't been involved in any discussion of the sort, believe me.

I do admit that I wasted lots of time genuinely trying to convince the world about the value of high DR bodies, only to realize that this was perceived by many as a brand discussion which I never cared about.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: Rob C on April 20, 2016, 06:22:08 am
It really depends on how much you spend on soup and cars. ;)

Cheers,
Bernard


In my dotage, as little as possible on either! The best soup is the stuff (infinitely variable) that I make for myself. But the consumption of that's reserved for weekends when I try to avoid pubic places as much as I can. I doubt the public either appreciates the gesture or is even aware it's being offered.

;-)

Rob
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: dwswager on April 20, 2016, 07:35:07 am
Just to add a little perspective to this discussion:

1. If you can't make a quality large print from either the D5 or the D810 you are doing it WRONG!

2. Considering that a D810 image is 7360 pixels on the long edge and the D5 image is 5568 pixels on the long edge, if you make a 60" print from the D810, then a D5 image would yield a 45.39 inch print at the same resolution.  Considering that probably less than 0.00001% of all images get printed larger than 45" inches you can draw your own conclusion as to how beneficial the additional pixels are in the grand scheme of things.  Full Disclosure, I own and love the D810.

Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: Josh-H on April 20, 2016, 08:01:40 am
Quote
2. Considering that a D810 image is 7360 pixels on the long edge and the D5 image is 5568 pixels on the long edge, if you make a 60" print from the D810, then a D5 image would yield a 45.39 inch print at the same resolution.  Considering that probably less than 0.00001% of all images get printed larger than 45" inches you can draw your own conclusion as to how beneficial the additional pixels are in the grand scheme of things.  Full Disclosure, I own and love the D810.

I wish this wisdom was more commonly held. Well said.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: shadowblade on April 20, 2016, 08:18:04 am
2. Considering that a D810 image is 7360 pixels on the long edge and the D5 image is 5568 pixels on the long edge, if you make a 60" print from the D810, then a D5 image would yield a 45.39 inch print at the same resolution.  Considering that probably less than 0.00001% of all images get printed larger than 45" inches you can draw your own conclusion as to how beneficial the additional pixels are in the grand scheme of things.  Full Disclosure, I own and love the D810.

I'd consider 20-24MP good for around 20x30" or 24x36", and marginal for larger prints. I'd consider the D810/A7r as being excellent at 24x36", good at 32x48" and marginal for 40x60", although the larger format is more forgiving (e.g. where I might want 200ppi for a smaller print, a larger one may only require 150ppi, or even less at the very largest sizes). It's not a strictly linear relationship - as the print size increases, you tend to need more overall pixels, but fewer PPI. Ideally, I like to produce 40x60" prints using stitched images, even with the A7r2 (although a 70-80MP sensor would likely change this), but would still be happy to produce one from a single frame if that's all I had. I couldn't say the same about blowing up most 21MP 5D2 files to that size, particularly low-key images or ones with lots of shadow details.

You don't often need to print that big, but, with the right image, it can be the difference between, 'Here's $5k, I want that thing blown up huge to hang in my lounge' and 'Sorry, I can't print it that big and still have it look good'

Bottom line is, for 99% of applications/shots, any of the D810, D4s or D750 will be more than adequate and will give you indistinguishable final results. But, when you're comparing top-tier gear, it's all about getting that last 1%, where the different cameras will give you noticeably different final results.

A top athlete would do a lot to shave 0.1s over 100m.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: Josh-H on April 20, 2016, 08:28:59 am
Quote
'Here's $5k, I want that thing blown up huge to hang in my lounge' and 'Sorry, I can't print it that big and still have it look good'

You know.. over the last 7+ years I have sold prints up to 60 x 90 inches from 1DX 18 MPX files for well into the thousands of dollars. NOT ONCE have I had a client say 'its not sharp enough', or 'it doesn't have enough resolution". Not once.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: shadowblade on April 20, 2016, 08:53:01 am
You know.. over the last 7+ years I have sold prints up to 60 x 90 inches from 1DX 18 MPX files for well into the thousands of dollars. NOT ONCE have I had a client say 'its not sharp enough', or 'it doesn't have enough resolution". Not once.

Fair enough if there's nothing to compare it to. The impact of the size and scale of such large prints can overwhelm any effect of the loss of detail.

Put it side-by-side against a high-resolution version and, suddenly, it becomes, 'Why's this one blurry?'. It's like putting a 480p TV next to a 1080p one, or a 1080p one next to a 4k one. The lower-resolution one looks just fine on its own, until you put it next to a better one.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: Manoli on April 20, 2016, 09:06:23 am
You know [...] I have sold prints up to 60 x 90 inches from 1DX 18 MPX files for well into the thousands of dollars. NOT ONCE have I had a client say 'its not sharp enough', or 'it doesn't have enough resolution". Not once.

I'd consider 20-24MP good for around 20x30" or 24x36", and marginal for larger prints. [...]
A top athlete would do a lot to shave 0.1s over 100m.

IMO you're both right.

A good case can be made that it's quasi impossible to tell the difference between prints made at a base resolution of around 250ppi. The examples above rely on a base resolution of around 88 ppi.   I think that's too marginal to make a hard and fast rule. It can be done, has been done but will depend on subject matter and, at these limits, the quality of pp.

For a great majority, at reasonable viewing distances, resolution or lack thereof won't be the first thing they'll notice - an abruptness in (subtle) tonal transitions will be - unless they're viewing your 60" masterpiece through a loupe.

If you want to play safe, it's wiser to try and stay above 150-180 ppi unrezzed base resolution - but that doesn't mean the limits can't be pushed - they can, just not all the time.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: dwswager on April 20, 2016, 10:23:59 am
IMO you're both right.

A good case can be made that it's quasi impossible to tell the difference between prints made at a base resolution of around 250ppi. The examples above rely on a base resolution of around 88 ppi.   I think that's too marginal to make a hard and fast rule. It can be done, has been done but will depend on subject matter and, at these limits, the quality of pp.

For a great majority, at reasonable viewing distances, resolution or lack thereof won't be the first thing they'll notice - an abruptness in (subtle) tonal transitions will be - unless they're viewing your 60" masterpiece through a loupe.

If you want to play safe, it's wiser to try and stay above 150-180 ppi unrezzed base resolution - but that doesn't mean the limits can't be pushed - they can, just not all the time.

Quite right.  My 60" example came from a previous post and I used it to make my point.  I rarely print larger than 28" and when I do it is a multi-shot stitch.

But having worked with Epson on a military tech project, when they say their dither algorithm tops out by 360ppi and even that is rarely distinguishable from it's output when fed 240ppi, I believe them.  I used Genuine Fractals back in the day to work pretty decent magic with 2.1 and then 6MP images.  Guys feeding it 720ppi are the same guys whining they could see the dots back in the late 1990s.  Yeah, with a 4x Schneider loupe!

I think the sharpness is over done today the way over saturated was back in the Fuji Velvia days.  Velvia gave a wonderful look, but was just over done for everything.  Images sell for the emotional impact the evoke.  Some images need sharpness and high resolution and other just don't.  Obviously, it is better to start with high resolution and soften it when needed, but I just think we have gotten a little anal retentive over it compared to all the other attributes that make a great photograph great.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: shadowblade on April 20, 2016, 11:26:05 am
I think the sharpness is over done today the way over saturated was back in the Fuji Velvia days.  Velvia gave a wonderful look, but was just over done for everything.  Images sell for the emotional impact the evoke.  Some images need sharpness and high resolution and other just don't.  Obviously, it is better to start with high resolution and soften it when needed, but I just think we have gotten a little anal retentive over it compared to all the other attributes that make a great photograph great.

On the other hand, many images sell well precisely because they have so much visible detail, in addition to an interesting and aesthetically-appealing subject. I often hear comments about things looking so real and being so detailed that they almost don't look like photos, instead having a holographic, almost 3D effect, and of people saying that, each time they look at certain photos, they see something new - a detail or feature they hadn't seen before - thus giving the image great staying power rather than being interesting merely for a single viewing.

Sure, not every photo needs this, but better to have the capability for those photos that benefit from it than to lack it when you most want it.

Also much of the 'excess sharpness' you see in certain images is just that - excess sharpening - rather than excessive detail. Sometimes, you will see prints which appear far too crisp, but, on closer inspection, actually don't show all that much detail - just lots of sharpening.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: Josh-H on April 20, 2016, 06:41:14 pm
Quote
On the other hand, many images sell well precisely because they have so much visible detail,

Interesting.. This has not been my experience and the images I am seeing that sell in Galleries are not purchased because they have 'so much visible detail'. They are purchased for the emotional connection the viewer has with the image. Im not sure I have ever heard anyone say 'I bought this because it had so much detail'.

In my own experience, it is on the whole, photographers who care about 'visible detail'. And again, on the whole, photographers are not the ones purchasing prints in my experience. Art buyers care about emotional connection and not about detail (assuming they are not an investment purchase). YMMV.. but thats my experience

BTW: We are now way off the original topic.. sorry about that.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: ErikKaffehr on April 20, 2016, 09:20:02 pm
Hi,

It is an interesting discussion, thanks for taking on that…

I am not selling pictures, so I have no experience with that. My standard print size is A2, 16"x23". That size is the largest you can print on a normal desktop printer using cut sheet paper. For me it works nicely with 50x70 cm framing with a mat.

At that size I essentially found that there is no great advantage of say 24 MP over 12 MP. Most of my best pictures were made 12 MP because I was doing some nice travel. When I got into 24 MP I did compare 12 MP to 24MP and could observe a small advantage of 24 MP, but not in all cases.

For some reasons, most not very good, I bought a used MFD equipment. So for the last three years I was shooting 39 MP with an old Hasselblad system with the P45+ back. The P45+ gives 39 MP. Again, I made some comparisons and found that I and a few other observers could not tell my A2-prints apart. Must tell, in one of the cases three observers picked the MFD image, although I could not see a technical difference.

So, my conclusion is that 24 MP is very good for A2 and 12 MP is reasonably good for A2. On the other hand, I was told by a printer I respect that 36 MP has advantages over 16 MP when printing on glossy papers even at A2 size.

I seldom print larger than A2, in part due to wall space limitation, next size up is either 70x100 cm or 50x100 cm. At 70x100 mm I think it is possible to make stunning prints from 24 MP, but both the photographer and the printer need to do their homework. I think a 24 MP images will be OK but not great in 70x100 cm without proper sharpening workflow.

My best friend uses Canon 5DIII and I don't lack DR in his images. I always had cameras having a decent amount of DR, at least since the Sony A-100 came out, but I seldom felt DR was a limitation. The Sony A99 had a significant advantage in DR over my Sony Alpha 900, but it took a long time to observe.

I have been on two Dolomites workshops with Hans Kruse. Hans shoots both Canon and Nikon, with Nikon having the DR advantage and before the 5DsR also the resolution advantage. Hans fully acknowledged the DR advantage of the Nikon, but you cannot miss that he likes shooting with the Canon a bit more.

Getting back to Megapixels. My clear understanding is that human vision is dominated by low to medium frequency detail. So an image that has good MTF for low and medium frequencies will look better than an image processed for actual pixel viewing on screen.

I started looking at sharpening for prints a while ago, using SQF (Subjective Quality Factor) as a measure for print quality, using MTF data measured on my A7rII, what I found that SQF can be essentially constant for increasing image sizes even at short viewing distance (50 cm / 20"). What I found worked best was no sharpening in LR, followed by 75% at radius r=2 in FocusMagic.

Check the corresponding SQF plot, below. You can see that MTF is almost constant up to 0.3cy/pixel, that is 60% of Nyquist, than drops rapidly to Nyquist. Even at large print sizes the contrast sensivity of human vision will be within the straight part of the sharpened MTF curve. Sharpness drops at Nyquist so aliasing/fake detail near Nyquist is not enhanced.

Technically, this image is a bit oversharpened. MTF goes over 100% between 0.1 and 0.3 cy/pixel. I have seen some "museum standard" demanding between 90 and 105% in the relevant range. But, this sharpening would give optimal quality for large prints. At least for that camera used with that lens.

(http://echophoto.dnsalias.net/ekr/Articles/Sharpeningstudy/Results/best_20151109-_DSC3191_LR_NOSHARP_FMDF_075_YR4_01_sqf.png)

I have of course made prints, using small cropped areas, and I have tested both LR and C1. C1 produces a tiny bit cleaner detail. The crops I viewed corresponded to something like 40"x60". The crops were A4 size, which allowed for side by or one on top over the other viewing at close.

Best regards
Erik




BTW: We are now way off the original topic.. sorry about that.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: shadowblade on April 20, 2016, 11:03:44 pm
Interesting.. This has not been my experience and the images I am seeing that sell in Galleries are not purchased because they have 'so much visible detail'. They are purchased for the emotional connection the viewer has with the image. Im not sure I have ever heard anyone say 'I bought this because it had so much detail'.

Being aesthetically pleasing, having an interesting subject and fitting in with the decor is a baseline prerequisite - if an image doesn't fit those criteria, it's not even in the race.

But, often, many images will fit the criteria. Then people will take a second, third or fourth look at them, get closer to the image, and, assuming the print size is large enough to see a difference, the ones they will usually comment on and show further interest in are the ones where, as they look more closely, they are able to see more and more things which weren't apparent on the first viewing that grabbed their attention, maintaining interest for longer - things which aren't apparent on lower-resolution images because the resolution wasn't great enough to show them.

Sure, if you show them a low-resolution image printed at a large size in isolation, they'll usually be impressed (again, provided the image meets the basic criteria), but, put a low-resolution and high-resolution image with similar aesthetic qualities (sometimes even shot at the same place), printed on smooth paper or high-gloss aluminium, side-by-side, and the difference is startling - all of a sudden, the lower-resolution image doesn't look so good, all else being equal.

I guess what I'm saying is that high resolution doesn't replace aesthetic considerations. But it certainly helps. The aesthetics of your shot are not going to change depending on which camera you're shooting with - that part's up to you. But what the camera can do - and what no amount of skill on your part can do - is give you greater resolution, better colour and better dynamic range.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: BernardLanguillier on April 21, 2016, 06:56:52 pm
Back to the original topic... or sort of...

http://cameradecision.com/compare/DxO-One-vs-Nikon-D5

This was the 5th link proposed by Google when I searched for DxO D5 support... ;)

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: BernardLanguillier on April 21, 2016, 10:09:37 pm
Dear all,

I have come accross this interesting site enabling easy comparison of photographic DR per ISO.

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

The D5 has already been measured.

It puts things in pespective a bit, as it shows that the catastrophically poor DR of the D5 at base ISO is in fact ahead of the Canon 5DIII for instance and within 0.5 stop of the 5DS until ISO 800~.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: shadowblade on April 21, 2016, 10:45:32 pm
Dear all,

I have come accross this interesting site enabling easy comparison of photographic DR per ISO.

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm

The D5 has already been measured.

It puts things in pespective a bit, as it shows that the catastrophically poor DR of the D5 at base ISO is in fact ahead of the Canon 5DIII for instance and within 0.5 stop of the 5DS until ISO 800~.

Cheers,
Bernard

I've been looking at that.

The 5D3 and 5Ds are not exactly great at low ISO. They still use the old off-sensor ADCs and have significantly poorer low-ISO DR/noise than the Exmor sensors or the new 80D (when adjusted for sensor size). Congratulations - at low ISO, the new sensor slightly beats an 8-year-old 5D2 sensor and 4-year-old 5D3 sensor, and loses slightly to a new 5Ds sensor based on twelve-year-old technology that every other sensor company (and now Canon itself) has abandoned. Obviously, at high ISO, it's no contest.

Compared with the D4s, the D5 is a stop behind at low ISO. Compared to the D810 and A7r, it's about two stops behind at low ISO, and no better than the A7r2 at high ISO.

And look at the D5 in DX mode vs the Canon 80D, which uses the new on-sensor ADC (as does the 1Dx2). DX mode is 1.5x crop whereas the 80D is 1.6x crop, so the Nikon even has the sensor size advantage here. Yet, at base ISO, it's almost one-and-a-half stops behind.

I suspect the D5 will lose badly to the 1Dx2 on any objective level. The 1Dx2 is likely to have a better sensor - much better at low-ISO, and comparable at high-ISO. It shoots 2fps faster. It's meant to do better video. The AF systems are both top-of-the-line for their respective companies, so should be comparable. And Canon's line of superteles is superior to Nikon's. Of course, none of this matters if you're already heavily invested in Nikon glass...
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: BernardLanguillier on April 21, 2016, 11:20:24 pm
I suspect the D5 will lose badly to the 1Dx2 on any objective level. The 1Dx2 is likely to have a better sensor - much better at low-ISO, and comparable at high-ISO. It shoots 2fps faster. It's meant to do better video. The AF systems are both top-of-the-line for their respective companies, so should be comparable. And Canon's line of superteles is superior to Nikon's. Of course, none of this matters if you're already heavily invested in Nikon glass...

Realistically speaking AF is by far the most important aspect of these cameras. The rest doesn't matter as far as it is good enough, and both cameras are good enough in terms of sensor, handling, video,... ;)

I'd love the 1DXII to have an AF performing even better than that of the D5, this would open even more possibilities for photographers. Per my first hand experience, the AF of the D5 is a significant progress on difficult subjects compared to anything I have used prior to it. It is anyone's guess whether Canon has been able to match that or not. Those 2 cameras being on top of their respective line up doesn't mean that they will perform the same (sensors would be identical too according to this very wicked logic)...

As far as super teles is concerned, both brand have an amazing line up with +/- on both sides with no real weak points. Any of those lenses can serve well top pros, the absolute better one will depend on the lens you actually need for your applications. If you need a 200-400 f4, Canon is clearly ahead, if you need any of the classical long teles (400, 500, 600, 800), Nikon is a bit ahead at the moment. If you need a DO lens, Canon is the way to go,...

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: shadowblade on April 22, 2016, 01:52:30 am
Realistically speaking AF is by far the most important aspect of these cameras. The rest doesn't matter as far as it is good enough, and both cameras are good enough in terms of sensor, handling, video,... ;)

AF may be the most important aspect to these cameras, being action cameras, but is probably not the biggest distinguishing feature between them. After all, both will have AF that's more than good enough for 99.99% of purposes - in fact, the 1Dx and D4s are probably good enough for 99.99% of real photographic use, and the 5D3 and D810 good enough for 99.9% of use.

Video will likely be the biggest distinguishing feature. These are photojournalist's cameras, and, increasingly, photojournalists need to capture not only stills, but also video for web and TV (with newspapers and magazines increasingly moving online rather than being printed). The 1Dx2 essentially fulfils the role of both the 1Dx and 1Dc and, supposedly, has a lot of video functionality. From what I can tell, the D5 is less optimised for video, although its stills may be good. A sensor with better DR also helps a lot in this respect, since videographers don't have the same ability to use filters and other methods to deal with wide dynamic range.

Quote
I'd love the 1DXII to have an AF performing even better than that of the D5, this would open even more possibilities for photographers. Per my first hand experience, the AF of the D5 is a significant progress on difficult subjects compared to anything I have used prior to it. It is anyone's guess whether Canon has been able to match that or not. Those 2 cameras being on top of their respective line up doesn't mean that they will perform the same (sensors would be identical too according to this very wicked logic)...

I don't know - was there anything you really couldn't capture effectively with the D4s and 1Dx? This may be like comparing 720ppi vs 600ppi input between Epson and Canon/HP printers - both are far beyond what anyone actually needs.

Quote
As far as super teles is concerned, both brand have an amazing line up with +/- on both sides with no real weak points. Any of those lenses can serve well top pros, the absolute better one will depend on the lens you actually need for your applications. If you need a 200-400 f4, Canon is clearly ahead, if you need any of the classical long teles (400, 500, 600, 800), Nikon is a bit ahead at the moment. If you need a DO lens, Canon is the way to go,...

The long teles of both companies are probably good enough that there's little to choose between them - all of them are super-sharp and focus quickly and accurately. The big difference is the 200-400 - if you're not currently invested in either system, the Canon's inbuilt 1.4x TC would probably be enough to swing you in that direction, since it's so much more convenient (and also sharper) than Nikon's option.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: dwswager on April 22, 2016, 08:51:12 am
Resolution:

Given a 20MP image, double the resolution is 80MP, not 40MP.  Megapixels is just a proxy for resolution which for an image is 2 dimensional.  Hence, unless you print a 1 dimensional string of pixels, to double the resolution is not 2x, but 2^2x!  This is why the difference from 20MP or 24MP to 36MP is not as significant as MP count would lead you to believe. 

DR:

Nikon could have released a D5 with equal or better DR and similar curve characteristics to the D810 or D750, but chose not to.  So my point is trying to determine if they made a good choice.  Is the trade they made worth what they are giving up for the intended users of the D5.  I think the D500 people would make that trade.  That is give up base ISO to get better images at higher ISOs, but even then it will depend how much one gives up at the low end and how much one gets at the higher ISOs.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: BernardLanguillier on April 22, 2016, 08:56:34 am
AF may be the most important aspect to these cameras, being action cameras, but is probably not the biggest distinguishing feature between them. After all, both will have AF that's more than good enough for 99.99% of purposes - in fact, the 1Dx and D4s are probably good enough for 99.99% of real photographic use, and the 5D3 and D810 good enough for 99.9% of use.

Frankly, I don't think so.

When you talk about success ratio of perfectly focused images on randomly moving subjects in low light, we are very very far from being 99% good.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: dwswager on April 22, 2016, 09:04:51 am
Frankly, I don't think so.

When you talk about success ratio of perfectly focused images on randomly moving subjects in low light, we are very very far from being 99% good.

Cheers,
Bernard


I concur.  I shot a soccer game 2 nights ago and the one shot I know I wanted on the card was a header goal.  It was serviceable, but not exactly sharp.  This was shot with a D810, 1.2x crop, 70-200mm f/2.8, at ISO 2500.  With action shooting, it is a very minor change in focus or release that takes a shot from great to merely serviceable.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: shadowblade on April 22, 2016, 08:48:30 pm
Resolution:

Given a 20MP image, double the resolution is 80MP, not 40MP.  Megapixels is just a proxy for resolution which for an image is 2 dimensional.  Hence, unless you print a 1 dimensional string of pixels, to double the resolution is not 2x, but 2^2x!  This is why the difference from 20MP or 24MP to 36MP is not as significant as MP count would lead you to believe. 

That's obvious enough to anyone with a basic grasp of mathematics.

Even a 1.4x increase in linear dimensions is a huge increase in the size of a print. And, in practice, it's more than that, since larger prints tend not to need the same ppi as smaller ones.

Quote
DR:

Nikon could have released a D5 with equal or better DR and similar curve characteristics to the D810 or D750, but chose not to.  So my point is trying to determine if they made a good choice.  Is the trade they made worth what they are giving up for the intended users of the D5.  I think the D500 people would make that trade.  That is give up base ISO to get better images at higher ISOs, but even then it will depend how much one gives up at the low end and how much one gets at the higher ISOs.

They sacrificed low-ISO performance. But did they actually gain high-ISO performance from that, or was the gain in high-ISO performance completely unrelated? After all, the A7r2 sensor appears to have the same SNR at high ISO as the D5 sensor, without sacrificing low-ISO DR.

The only reason DR plateaus out at low ISO is due to the contribution of read noise - usually from electronics between the photosites and A/D conversion. Without the contribution of read noise, sensors are effectively ISO-less - that is, pushing an ISO 100 shot by six stops gives you the same result as taking it at ISO 6400 natively.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: shadowblade on April 22, 2016, 08:52:19 pm
Frankly, I don't think so.

When you talk about success ratio of perfectly focused images on randomly moving subjects in low light, we are very very far from being 99% good.

Cheers,
Bernard

I'm not talking about 99.99% of shots of randomly-moving, fast subjects in very low light. I'm talking about 99.99% of all images.

The new AF system gives you an advantage in a subset of a subset of shots. If the subject is not both fast and random, or the light level is not low, the D4s/1Dx also keep up perfectly.
Title: Won't Nikon soon introduce a DXX0 model with D5 AF-technology?
Post by: ErikKaffehr on April 23, 2016, 01:45:58 am
Hi,

Don't you think there will be a D820 or a D900 soon, using the AF-technology from the D5 utilising a Sony sensor?

I am a bit surprised we have not seen the A7rII sensor in a Nikon.

If you check out Bill Claff's data it looks like a real champ at both low and high ISO. Keep also in mind that Nikon often makes a bit better use of Sony's sensors than Sony themselves. http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D5,Nikon%20D810,Sony%20ILCE-7RII

Regarding resolution, I would say it is a good thing to have. It seems that the AA-filter has been dropped on most high res sensors, I am not sure that is a good thing but it increases perceived sharpness a bit.

If I can choose between a 24MP sensor and a 42 MP sensor and both have similar performance I would prefer the higher res one, any time!

Best regards
Erik

Best regards
Erik
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: BernardLanguillier on April 23, 2016, 02:44:50 am
Yes, most probably, but don't forget that the D810 uses the same AF module as the D4s, yet is pretty far in actual AF performance.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: BernardLanguillier on April 23, 2016, 06:52:13 am
I'm not talking about 99.99% of shots of randomly-moving, fast subjects in very low light. I'm talking about 99.99% of all images.

The new AF system gives you an advantage in a subset of a subset of shots. If the subject is not both fast and random, or the light level is not low, the D4s/1Dx also keep up perfectly.

For the applications targeted by these cameras the improvements at hand are very significant.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1425827/0#lastmessage

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: shadowblade on April 23, 2016, 08:53:10 am
Yes, most probably, but don't forget that the D810 uses the same AF module as the D4s, yet is pretty far in actual AF performance.

Cheers,
Bernard

Not that far. For 99% of shots, both will keep up just fine, and you won't see a difference between the two.

If you're an action photographer, of course, you probably live in that other 1%, so you will see a difference in a larger number of your shots.

It's the same with resolution. 99% of the time, people will be printing small enough that there's no perceptible difference between a 20MP camera and a 50MP one. But if you live in that other 1% and a significant number of your shots end up as large prints, you will see a noticeable difference.

That's why these are specialist tools, not general-purpose cameras.

As for the AF module, remember that the D810 needs significantly more precision than the D4s to take advantage of all its pixels, due to the greater resolution. The AF is slower to allow this.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: shadowblade on April 23, 2016, 09:01:11 am
For the applications targeted by these cameras the improvements at hand are very significant.

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1425827/0#lastmessage

Cheers,
Bernard

Yet the applications where these improvements will be noticeable are only a tiny proportion of photographs.

If you're shooting fast action in good light, a D4s or 1Dx will also track perfectly (so will a 5D3 or D810). If things are dark but the subject isn't moving so fast towards or away from the camera, or is far away enough that the lens doesn't have to move much, a D4s or 1Dx will also track perfectly. You can't track better than perfectly - the D5's AF won't help where the tracking is already working well.

It's only in situations where the D4s/1Dx shoot somewhat less than perfectly that you'd see a significant improvement through the D5's AF - fast action in very dark environments.

Only a small number of users will actually gain a benefit over the previous model. That's to be expected, and there's nothing wrong with that - it's the nature of specialised cameras.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: hjulenissen on May 03, 2016, 04:37:03 am
Not likely. Current, even very dense sensors can handle live view and video (which still reads every pixel on the sensor) and can be used for hours-long exposures without overheating.

I doubt it, since current 42MP and 50MP sensors can sample video at 25 or 50fps, utilising every pixel on the sensor (although downsampling to 1080p or 4k for storage). The sampling rate of that is much faster than even reading 80MP at 14fps.
Are there any cameras on the market that reads out 50 million pixels at 50 fps?

Quote
This is probably the biggest issue, actually. Burst rates at full resolution would be very slow, unless you used a large, fast buffer. But it can be alleviated by downsampling to mRAW or sRAW for the faster speeds.
Not sure that you understood my point here. As long as you are writing to a large, fast internal buffer, then (obviously), the write speed to flash card does not matter.

The moment you need to drain that buffer (by shooting long series), the flash card writing starts to matter.

-h

Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: dwswager on May 03, 2016, 07:56:31 am
I started this thread specifically because the Nikon D5 is considered, by Nikon, as their preeminent DSLR.  That is, it is it is the one stop shop, generalist camera.  It certainly also is the best specific fast action based on the shutter box and buffer.  So the real question turned out to be is what they were getting on the high ISO end worth what they were giving in trade for it at the low end.  So far the general consensus seems to be yes...in a qualified manner.  The qualification seems to be most people commenting with thumbs up seem to be shooting it for action/low light. 

The real fault line here is the difference between how Nikon views their line up and how users view that same line-up.  The easy one is the D750.  Most users would have moved that camera to the professional line leaving the D610 as the enthusiast 24MP full frame camera.  And when I say move, I mean in a body of comparable durability and in the same accessory line as the D810 and D500.  Easy way to spot is the round viewfinder eyepiece.  Hence, the majority that would be effected by the loss of low ISO performance, probably are already using something else like a D810 or D750 or DF.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: shadowblade on May 03, 2016, 11:29:51 am
Are there any cameras on the market that reads out 50 million pixels at 50 fps?

At least 30fps - the 5Ds can shoot video at 30fps, and uses every pixel on the sensor to do so. That is, every pixel on the camera is read in order to produce video, even if it's then downsampled to 4k before being written to the card.,
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: hjulenissen on May 03, 2016, 02:10:40 pm
At least 30fps - the 5Ds can shoot video at 30fps, and uses every pixel on the sensor to do so. That is, every pixel on the camera is read in order to produce video, even if it's then downsampled to 4k before being written to the card.,
Sources? I spent 2 minutes with google and could not find an authorative source either way.

H
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: shadowblade on May 03, 2016, 02:56:43 pm
Sources? I spent 2 minutes with google and could not find an authorative source either way.

H

They're not reading every 2nd or 3rd pixel, that's for sure - if they were, they'd produce horrible moire and other artifacts. Canon moved away from the every-few-lines approach to the every-pixel-and-downsample approach after the 5D2.

No idea about sources. I don't look for them when it's both self-evident and consistent with what Canon has done in the past.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: AlterEgo on May 03, 2016, 02:57:52 pm
They're not reading every 2nd or 3rd pixel, that's for sure - if they were, they'd produce horrible moire and other artifacts. Canon moved away from the every-few-lines approach to the every-pixel-and-downsample approach after the 5D2.

and sources are ?
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: shadowblade on May 03, 2016, 03:02:55 pm
and sources are ?

No idea about sources. I don't go looking for them. You can choose to believe it or not, I don't care either way.

It's consistent with what Canon has done in previous models (apart from the 5D2, the very first with video), makes sense from an engineering point of view and is consistent with the video output from the sensor.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: hjulenissen on May 09, 2016, 08:06:37 am
They're not reading every 2nd or 3rd pixel, that's for sure - if they were, they'd produce horrible moire and other artifacts.
Line-skipping was used in highly praised "still image cameras used for video", such as the 5Dmk2. And yes, that camera had lots of artifacts.
Quote
No idea about sources. I don't look for them when it's both self-evident and consistent with what Canon has done in the past.
If we are in the "speculation and hand-waving" department, I'd offer mine as well:

The 5Ds is clearly pitched at the stills photographer. Canon will have a video oriented 6D/5Dmk3 replacement soon. I would not expect the 5Ds to be particularly adept (for its price or introduction date) when it comes to video.

So do you have any other examples supporting your claim that "current 42MP and 50MP sensors can sample video at 25 or 50fps, utilising every pixel on the sensor"?

Am I right that the Sony A7rII does line-skipping in FF mode (strange wording in the link below), while the cropped "super 35" (18MP crop of 42MP) is 4k@25fps? Why would the worlds best camera sensor manufacturer do such a thing unless it is somewhat hard to read out all those pixels many times a second? If the camera can actually process and compress 100mbps lossy 4k@25p video, why use anything less than the optimal starting-point (42MP of full sensor area/resolution, properly downsampled to 4k)?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/video/hands-review/sony-a7rII
"The camera also runs very hot when shooting 4K internally, to the point where overheating could be an issue in certain environments or shooting styles.
...
The full-frame mode uses the whole resolution of the sensor and thus uses pixel binning to down-sample it to 4K. While full frame isn’t quite as sharp as Super 35 and can pick up a small amount of moiré and aliasing in some shots,
"

-h
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: shadowblade on May 09, 2016, 09:36:27 am
Line-skipping was used in highly praised "still image cameras used for video", such as the 5Dmk2. And yes, that camera had lots of artifacts.If we are in the "speculation and hand-waving" department, I'd offer mine as well:

The 5Ds is clearly pitched at the stills photographer. Canon will have a video oriented 6D/5Dmk3 replacement soon. I would not expect the 5Ds to be particularly adept (for its price or introduction date) when it comes to video.

So do you have any other examples supporting your claim that "current 42MP and 50MP sensors can sample video at 25 or 50fps, utilising every pixel on the sensor"?

Am I right that the Sony A7rII does line-skipping in FF mode (strange wording in the link below), while the cropped "super 35" (18MP crop of 42MP) is 4k@25fps? Why would the worlds best camera sensor manufacturer do such a thing unless it is somewhat hard to read out all those pixels many times a second? If the camera can actually process and compress 100mbps lossy 4k@25p video, why use anything less than the optimal starting-point (42MP of full sensor area/resolution, properly downsampled to 4k)?
http://www.bhphotovideo.com/explora/video/hands-review/sony-a7rII
"The camera also runs very hot when shooting 4K internally, to the point where overheating could be an issue in certain environments or shooting styles.
...
The full-frame mode uses the whole resolution of the sensor and thus uses pixel binning to down-sample it to 4K. While full frame isn’t quite as sharp as Super 35 and can pick up a small amount of moiré and aliasing in some shots,
"

-h

5D2, 7D, 6D and the xxD line up to the 70D use line-skipping video.

5D3, 7D2 and 1Dx (i.e. the newer high-end bodies) use pixel binning.

No idea what the Sony bodies do. I don't use them to shoot video.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: hjulenissen on May 10, 2016, 01:29:41 am
5D2, 7D, 6D and the xxD line up to the 70D use line-skipping video.
Sounds reasonable
Quote
5D3, 7D2 and 1Dx (i.e. the newer high-end bodies) use pixel binning.
By pixel binning, I assume that you capturing the charge of each individual sensel, combining groups of sensels values into one charge, then reading that value using a single A/D-converter.

Do you have any sources? I can't think of how they would do pixel binning of a Bayer CFA-ed raw signal.
Quote
No idea what the Sony bodies do. I don't use them to shoot video.
Since you mentioned 42MP in your original argument, I assumed that you had some opinion on Sony cameras.

-h
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: shadowblade on May 10, 2016, 08:12:40 am
Sounds reasonableBy pixel binning, I assume that you capturing the charge of each individual sensel, combining groups of sensels values into one charge, then reading that value using a single A/D-converter.

Do you have any sources? I can't think of how they would do pixel binning of a Bayer CFA-ed raw signal.Since you mentioned 42MP in your original argument, I assumed that you had some opinion on Sony cameras.

-h

No, the combination takes place after all the photosites have been individually read. As in, all of them undergo A/D conversion first, then the image is downsampled to the final resolution. I don't know how you could bin the pixels prior to A/D conversion without using a completely different architecture to full-resolution stills.

Don't believe me? Take a single frame from a video sequence of a nonmoving scene, then take a still image of the same subject using the same ISO and shutter speed as was used for video. Downsample the still image to the same resolution as the video frame. You will find that the noise is in the same ballpark. In other words, the video sequence is making use of every pixel on the sensor - if it were only using every second or third pixel, you'd be getting several times the noise.
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: BernardLanguillier on May 10, 2016, 09:07:36 am
Yet the applications where these improvements will be noticeable are only a tiny proportion of photographs.

If you're shooting fast action in good light, a D4s or 1Dx will also track perfectly (so will a 5D3 or D810). If things are dark but the subject isn't moving so fast towards or away from the camera, or is far away enough that the lens doesn't have to move much, a D4s or 1Dx will also track perfectly. You can't track better than perfectly - the D5's AF won't help where the tracking is already working well.

Another report from real world showing pretty clearly that there is no need to be working on super challenging subjects to see very significant improvements from the AF of the D5:

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/post/57740464

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: hjulenissen on May 11, 2016, 02:30:21 am
No, the combination takes place after all the photosites have been individually read. As in, all of them undergo A/D conversion first, then the image is downsampled to the final resolution. I don't know how you could bin the pixels prior to A/D conversion without using a completely different architecture to full-resolution stills.
Exactly. Then you are not talking about pixel binning, but straight image scaling. Pixel binning occurs in the analog domain to overcome readnoise. Image scaling is (in this context) a sw/hw digital process.

http://www.photometrics.com/resources/learningzone/binning.php
"Binning is the process of combining charge from adjacent pixels in a CCD during readout. This process is performed prior to digitization in the on-chip circuitry of the CCD by specialized control of the serial and parallel registers. The two primary benefits of binning are improved signal-to-noise ratio (SNR) and the ability to increase frame rate, albeit at the expense of reduced spatial resolution."
Quote
Don't believe me? Take a single frame from a video sequence of a nonmoving scene, then take a still image of the same subject using the same ISO and shutter speed as was used for video. Downsample the still image to the same resolution as the video frame. You will find that the noise is in the same ballpark. In other words, the video sequence is making use of every pixel on the sensor - if it were only using every second or third pixel, you'd be getting several times the noise.
I don't have a 5Ds. I have a 7D, and I think that we agree that it is doing line-skipping?

Further, I think that your method has some serious limitations. You do know that lossy video codecs throw out something like 99% of the information in an image, using (in effect) complex spatio-temporal transforms? And that removing noise is an efficient pre-processing to help efficient encoding? Comparing noise levels visually in such cases is very hard.

I would rather suggest you (if you have one) record video of some still resolution chart. If there is line-dropping going on, you should see clear examples of spatial aliasing, rather than the (generally preferreable, IMO) smooth reduction in high-frequency reproduction.

-h
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: BernardLanguillier on May 18, 2016, 08:54:53 am
First AF comparison on moving subjects with the 1DXII at Dpreview:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/6990762465/motor-drive-and-motocross-with-the-nikon-d5-and-canon-1d-x-ii/3

Sounds like the D5 wins on that metric.

It is indeed so good AFwise that I would have been amazed if the 1DXII has been even better.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: dwswager on May 18, 2016, 09:18:59 am
First AF comparison on moving subjects with the 1DXII at Dpreview:

http://www.dpreview.com/news/6990762465/motor-drive-and-motocross-with-the-nikon-d5-and-canon-1d-x-ii/3

Sounds like the D5 wins on that metric.

Cheers,
Bernard

Based on this, the 7DmkII doe not compete well with the 1DX, 1DXmkII or D5.  I'd love to see how the D500 fares against the D5 in focus speed, lock on and tracking. 

For sports, there are times when pure burst rates can make the difference, but also lots of times when it doesn't (the action moves too fast for even a 10-14fps camera to catch the peak), especially when light is low and shutter speed retarded. 
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: BernardLanguillier on May 29, 2016, 09:01:56 am
A few random images captured with the D5 recently.

(https://c7.staticflickr.com/8/7238/26718661574_ae5e01c41d_o.jpg)

(https://c1.staticflickr.com/8/7423/27228716232_acfb18e89d_o.jpg)

(https://c8.staticflickr.com/8/7287/26719441423_a67f235e5d_o.jpg)

Don't know why, but the camera seems to work.

Cheers,
Bernard
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: Bart_van_der_Wolf on May 29, 2016, 10:32:17 am
Don't know why, but the camera seems to work.

Then maybe it is the photographer who can make a difference, since it couldn't be just the camera ... ;)

Cheers,
Bart
Title: Re: Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy
Post by: BernardLanguillier on May 29, 2016, 11:00:05 pm
Then maybe it is the photographer who can make a difference, since it couldn't be just the camera ... ;)

Ah yes, maybe. ;)

Now some cameras are better than others at not introducing hurddles btwn a photographic intent and its realization. Funny to say this considering the bulk of the beast, but the D5 does a great job at removing itself from the story.

Cheers,
Bernard