Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy

[shadowblade]

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.

[John Koerner]

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

[shadowblade]

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)

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.

[John Koerner]

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

[shadowblade]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[Colorado David]

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.

[Theodoros]

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...

[shadowblade]

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.

[shadowblade]

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.

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.

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).

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.

[Theodoros]

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...

[shadowblade]

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.

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?

[Theodoros]

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...

[shadowblade]

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.

[shadowblade]

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.

[Rob C]

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

[Rob C]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DinQcvbnZRU

Might settle something for the less cynical...

;-)

Rob C

[dwswager]

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.

[shadowblade]

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.

[Ann JS]

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?

[shadowblade]

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.