Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy

[Ann JS]

Those splendid photographs totally scuttle the "Poor DR at low ISO" nonsense about the D5 which has been proliferating all over the Internet!

 

[shadowblade]

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?

[Jack Hogan]

Brilliant, Bernard.

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[BernardLanguillier]

Brilliant, Bernard.

Thanks Jack! :-)

Cheers,
Bernard

[shadowblade]

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).

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.

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[dwswager]

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!

[John Koerner]

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

"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 (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 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

[shadowblade]

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.

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.'

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

"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.

[John Koerner]

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

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.

[AlterEgo]

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" ?

[shadowblade]

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.

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.

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.

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

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.

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.

[John Koerner]

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

[shadowblade]

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.

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.

[John Koerner]

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

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

[shadowblade]

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

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[AlterEgo]

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

[shadowblade]

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.

[ErikKaffehr]

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.