Concerns over the Nikon D5 DR Strategy

[Ann JS]

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.

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[shadowblade]

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).

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.

[shadowblade]

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.

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'.

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[shadowblade]

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)...

[Ann JS]

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.

[douglevy]

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

[dwswager]

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.

[shadowblade]

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

[BernardLanguillier]

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

[shadowblade]

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.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I have not seen those data. Bill Claff has some data on the sensor here 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.

[shadowblade]

Hi,

I have not seen those data. Bill Claff has some data on the sensor here 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.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

Check this one… 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.

[shadowblade]

Hi,

Check this one… 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.

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

I would agree on that,a very good match for the A6000 sensor

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.

[shadowblade]

Hi,

I would agree on that,a very good match for the A6000 sensor

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.

[Jack Hogan]

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

[BernardLanguillier]

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.







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.

Cheers,
Bernard