# D5 Has CRAPPY Low ISO DR!!!



## Yiannis A - Greece (Mar 29, 2016)

Dear friends,

According to DPReview lab tests, it seems that Nikon decided to bring out a $6,500 "pro monster" with a low ISO dynamic range that's much worse than that of $1,996 D750 and even worse; $747 (!!!) D5500 sensor, kills the one of the new "king" of Nikon FF!!!

I think that 1Dx Mk2, not only is going to blow the Nikon crap out of the water, it's going to eat it alive!

Here is the link to the "Nikon vs Nikon" comparison:
http://www.dpreview.com/news/9402203921/nikon-d5-shows-drop-in-dynamic-range

Be strong, enjoy your lives and those you love.
Best wishes

Yiannis.


----------



## IglooEater (Mar 29, 2016)

Thanks! It's gonna be very funny to watch dpreview and dxomark back-peddling on the way they've tried to bash canon for the last few years. 
Such as: "Either way, in our opinion, we'd try not to over-stress the importance of the fact that the D5 has poorer base ISO dynamic range than its current peers." Funny, that's not what they've been saying about any canon release. 
Dxo will just keep up it's weighted results and should have no difficulty causing the D5 to outscore the 1DX II even if every single metric is inferior in the D5.
I see a lot of fun times coming down the pipe


----------



## IglooEater (Mar 29, 2016)

I also think it's interesting to note that Nikon sees right through the foolishness of overemphasizing low-Iso dr, and seems smart enough to work on high-iso dynamic range. Frankly, this would motivate me much more to switch to Nikon if anything would.

Nikon releasing an iso-varient sensor might serve to calm the idiotic worshipping of iso-invariance, who knows.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 29, 2016)

Yiannis A - Greece said:


> According to DPReview lab tests, it seems that Nikon decided to bring out a $6,500 "pro monster" with a low ISO dynamic range that's much worse than that of $1,996 D750 and even worse; $747 (!!!) D5500 sensor, kills the one of the new "king" of Nikon FF!!!
> 
> I think that 1Dx Mk2, not only is going to blow the Nikon crap out of the water, it's going to eat it alive!



Don't worry, DPR promises to test AF performance next, and you can bet their bottom dollar they will find that the D5 is better than everything on the market, especially if they don't bother reviewing the 1D X II just like they didn't bother reviewing the 1D X.


----------



## ritholtz (Mar 29, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yiannis A - Greece said:
> 
> 
> > According to DPReview lab tests, it seems that Nikon decided to bring out a $6,500 "pro monster" with a low ISO dynamic range that's much worse than that of $1,996 D750 and even worse; $747 (!!!) D5500 sensor, kills the one of the new "king" of Nikon FF!!!
> ...


Yah. Automatic eye detection and tracking in portrait photography. Anyone remember their articles when D5 and 1dx2 release? They marketed D5 like next generation Nikon stuff and reported 1dx2 as just evolution considering no improvements in sensor mentioned. it is going to be exactly opposite. ;D D5 seems to be little better than 1DX and D4s in very high iso. These cameras are available for past 4 years in the market.


----------



## zim (Mar 29, 2016)

Why not mention the 5dsr or 80d comparisons that are clearly better or heavens forbid compare like for like i.e. a 1DX (I assume they don't have a 1DX2 yet). How old is the 6D?

The 'A Quick Note' takes the biscuit though good to know that there is more to a camera than a sensor ;D ;D ;D
But don't panic watch this space.... lets switch the game to High ISO and AF to come, and you know exactly what is going to come. DPR has become very transparent.


----------



## ritholtz (Mar 29, 2016)

zim said:


> Why not mention the 5dsr or 80d comparisons that are clearly better or heavens forbid compare like for like i.e. a 1DX (I assume they don't have a 1DX2 yet). How old is the 6D?
> 
> The 'A Quick Note' takes the biscuit though good to know that there is more to a camera than a sensor ;D ;D ;D
> But don't panic watch this space.... lets switch the game to High ISO and AF to come, and you know exactly what is going to come. DPR has become very transparent.


Quick note talks like as if we are going to get a free d810 with D5 purchase. 5DSR has better low ISO DR and matches with 6d and 1dx in high iso dr upto 12800 in Bill claff PDR chart.


----------



## zim (Mar 29, 2016)

Actually the best bits in the whole 'article' is actually the comments from out old friend Mikael Risedal :

Silly DPR bias aside though I have to admit that 3 stop push result is very surprising I wonder if that was a pre-production unit or something went wrong with the test it just doesn't seem correct to me.


----------



## Sporgon (Mar 29, 2016)

Vindication for those of use that have argued all along that 'DR' differences on 14 bit data ( or even 12 for that matter) is just irrelevant to most people, and just comes down to who can make the most ridiculous shadow lifts. Not something that's going to interest (most) owners of a D5. Of course it's great for people like DPR because they can lift the shadows 6 stops and point out that there is in fact a difference between the sensors. 

I had an exmor sensored camera that had a purported 14.5 stops of 'DR', and found it just academic in comparison to the 5DII and 6D. 

Also I think that the shadow lifting craze is tied in with images only ever being viewed on a computer screen. Try printing them and it is a very different (sorry) story. 

I have to now go and read those Mikael Risdal comments ........ ;D


----------



## tr573 (Mar 29, 2016)

Sporgon said:


> I have to now go and read those Mikael Risdal comments ........ ;D



They are truly glorious. 

He actually tried to say that it would be technically too difficult for Nikon to have this fast a readout for 14FPS with on-chip ADC.


----------



## Deleted member 91053 (Mar 29, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yiannis A - Greece said:
> 
> 
> > According to DPReview lab tests, it seems that Nikon decided to bring out a $6,500 "pro monster" with a low ISO dynamic range that's much worse than that of $1,996 D750 and even worse; $747 (!!!) D5500 sensor, kills the one of the new "king" of Nikon FF!!!
> ...



I am sure they will say the AF is better than the 1DX2 - well from my initial playing it isn't. I am not sure it is as good as my 1DX Mk1. I certainly I don't think it will be on the SuperTeles as whilst I found the latest Nikon 500 and 600mm to be better than their predecessors they behind the Canon Mk2 equivalents.
Better - yes, best no.


----------



## jdavis37 (Mar 29, 2016)

I don't get too caught up in forum battles or hype but I do have an eye for bias when it exists. In the DPR article they have already shown the bias clearly:

"For its intended audience, the D5's high ISO imaging capabilities, advanced autofocus and durability are likely to be much more important."

So now the Exmo gets a pass because of the same logic Canon shooters had for years.

Now that said I do have some nagging concerns that Canon's higher ISO's (ISO1600 through 25,600) may suffer a bit due to their newfound low DR focus, something I truly care little about (the DR.. I would love to have signficantly cleaner ISO1600- 12800 for my bird feather fetish).

But the bias is there and DPR can say what they want at this point but for years they have preached low ISO DR and suddenly it becomes less important. While I agree with their statement, it does represent a full circle on their part. We'll see how well the high ISO comes out. The early shots thus far published do not see remarkably better than the D4S.



dilbert said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > Vindication for those of use that have argued all along that 'DR' differences on 14 bit data ( or even 12 for that matter) is just irrelevant to *most people*,
> ...


----------



## Perio (Mar 29, 2016)

Honestly, I don't share the OP's joy regarding the D5 camera. Why does it matter how good/bad it is? Pick up 1dxii (at least that's my plan) and enjoy it. Let Nikon users deal with their cameras themselves.


----------



## Woody (Mar 29, 2016)

I just saw DPReview test results of D5 at ISO 3,280,000 and it looks like total junk to me. In fact, its high ISO performance is not that much better than D4s or 1DX, so I do not know what all the fuss is about. 

After DPReview decided to work with DXOMark in their reviews, their review standards have been dropping.


----------



## Besisika (Mar 30, 2016)

Perio said:


> Honestly, I don't share the OP's joy regarding the D5 camera. Why does it matter how good/bad it is? Pick up 1dxii (at least that's my plan) and enjoy it. Let Nikon users deal with their cameras themselves.


Agreed, it should not be a joy. 
If needed, it should be the opposite. If they stop the competition in the low light direction we will be stuck at this level for a long time.
Besides, something doesn't feel right.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (Mar 30, 2016)

New camera models are now being aimed more directly at specific markets. The D5 is aimed at PJ's who value the ability to capture a image in difficult lighting. Low light sensitivity is probably a trade for low ISO DR that is of limited value to the target market.

Reviewers tend to review products for features they want, rather than for the features the target users need. 

Someone using the extreme high ISO is not likely a person planning to blow up the image to 20 X 30, it will be used for a news report and be a photo that others could not get. I'd happily trade low ISO DR for low light sensitivity. The D5 low light DR is not bad, its merely less than cameras intended for amateurs who underexpose by 5 stops


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Mar 30, 2016)

What's really interesting is pitting against the 5DS/R. Even at -6EV the Canon seems better.


----------



## Yiannis A - Greece (Mar 30, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yiannis A - Greece said:
> 
> 
> > According to DPReview lab tests, it seems that Nikon decided to bring out a $6,500 "pro monster" with a low ISO dynamic range that's much worse than that of $1,996 D750 and even worse; $747 (!!!) D5500 sensor, kills the one of the new "king" of Nikon FF!!!
> ...


+1 Neuro!
To be honest, i bet "all in" that, even if Nikon has nowhere to hide after a straight and unbiased comparison between 1Dx Mk2 vs D5 that will let Nikon look dwarfed by Canon's superiority, DPR and DXO Mark will be there to give 99 points to D5 vs only 80+ to 1Dx2 due to Nikon's undoubtful supremacy; based on what criterion??? Grip color, D5 logo font type??? Only "they" know...

Be happy, healthy and strong; enjoy every single moment with your most beloved ones! Have a nice evening.

Yiannis, Athens, Greece.


----------



## Yiannis A - Greece (Mar 30, 2016)

KeithBreazeal said:


> What's really interesting is pitting against the 5DS/R. Even at -6EV the Canon seems better.


Dear Keith,
i believe you mean "+6EV". On my calibrated EIZO monitor, 5DS R is easily 1/2 stop better at +6EV and 1+ Stop better at +3EV! Now, lets put into equation that Canon is 50+ Megapixels and Nikon only 21!!! A lot of fun ahead when the real duels start between the "evolutionary modest" 1Dx Mk2 and the 3+ million ISO/3min 4k/ $6.5K brick from Nikon!!!

All my best wishes.
Yiannis.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Mar 30, 2016)

Yiannis A - Greece said:


> KeithBreazeal said:
> 
> 
> > What's really interesting is pitting against the 5DS/R. Even at -6EV the Canon seems better.
> ...



Yes, thanks. I have been surprised how well my 5DS looks for shadow noise, so couldn't resist the comparison. Even the colors look better.


----------



## KeithBreazeal (Mar 30, 2016)

A screen shot from page 2 comparisons: D5 versus 5DS R at 6400 ISO. Interesting to say the least.



Nikon D5 vs Canon 5DS R at 6400 ISO by Keith Breazeal, on Flickr


----------



## Bennymiata (Mar 30, 2016)

Maybe Nikon is using an old Canon sensor in the D5? ;D


----------



## Don Haines (Mar 30, 2016)

tr573 said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > I have to now go and read those Mikael Risdal comments ........ ;D
> ...


yet somehow they can read the sensor 60 times per second when it does video.....


----------



## jdavis37 (Mar 30, 2016)

Using the Imaging resource Comparometer, the D5 images at 51.6K ISO and D4S images look very similar though it appears there may be more built in NR going on for the D5. Hard to say. But point is I did not see substantial gains in high ISO between 2 Nikon models (the current and the new replacement). The 1D-X at 51.6K ISO is very close to the D5 (maybe half stop worse).

This confuses me somewhat. If Nikon gave up low ISO DR to focus more on higher ISO, I am not seeing the gains (but via DPR can easily see the losses of DR at low ISO). I may be having a dense moment so forgive if I am.I also recognize camera does not equal sensor, so the D5 may have other things going for it that will prove to be attractive for those wanting a Nikon body. But I am curious why they had to give up the low ISO DR so many touted in the D4S while seemingly gaining little on the high ISO side. Just curious and not trashing the camera or sensor. I will not be buying any Nikon bodies in near future and at some point will very likely buy a 1D-X II (2017) to go with my 5D3. I am sure the D5 images will be very nice and the body as well but find it interesting their low ISO DR has gone away.




Mt Spokane Photography said:


> New camera models are now being aimed more directly at specific markets. The D5 is aimed at PJ's who value the ability to capture a image in difficult lighting. Low light sensitivity is probably a trade for low ISO DR that is of limited value to the target market.
> 
> Reviewers tend to review products for features they want, rather than for the features the target users need.
> 
> Someone using the extreme high ISO is not likely a person planning to blow up the image to 20 X 30, it will be used for a news report and be a photo that others could not get. I'd happily trade low ISO DR for low light sensitivity. The D5 low light DR is not bad, its merely less than cameras intended for amateurs who underexpose by 5 stops


----------



## 3kramd5 (Mar 30, 2016)

Doesn't look crappy to me. 

Odd how everything short of the very best in the world is relegated as crap.


[quote author=jdavis37]
If Nikon gave up low ISO DR to focus more on higher ISO...
[/quote]

I don't believe that is an accurate trade. Rather, I suspect they opted for powerful, high frequency processing to facilitate framerate, at the cost of noise.


----------



## JohanCruyff (Mar 30, 2016)

With such a unusable Low ISO DR, Nikon D5 can't be used for landscape (like all Canon models before 2016), but it might turn out to be an excellent paperweight (like all Canon models before 2016)!


----------



## Stu_bert (Mar 30, 2016)

I got this link from one of the threads here - another perspective on D5 and indicative of what Nikon are responding to from requests of their target market

http://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3981547

One assumes their target market doesn't care too much about the drop in ISO dr at low ISO.

We've always said that Canon does a lot of research and knows their target audiences' needs better than people on these forums. It's reasonable to suggest Nikon does also.

For me I think it shows that perhaps like Canon, they are exploiting current sensor tech for as long as they can before changing to whatever comes next. Economics


----------



## Stu_bert (Mar 30, 2016)

Better still, the author's site

http://www.photonstophotos.net/index.htm

Where he has measurements for the 80D


----------



## GMCPhotographics (Mar 30, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Yiannis A - Greece said:
> 
> 
> > According to DPReview lab tests, it seems that Nikon decided to bring out a $6,500 "pro monster" with a low ISO dynamic range that's much worse than that of $1,996 D750 and even worse; $747 (!!!) D5500 sensor, kills the one of the new "king" of Nikon FF!!!
> ...



It was also astonishing that DPR never noticed or reported the regular lockups that the early copies / firmware D4 cameras suffered from...or at least that's what most of the Nikon pro Wildlife guys informed me of...which is why most of them have quietly ditched Nikon again and reverted back to Canon 1DX's.


----------



## IglooEater (Mar 30, 2016)

dilbert said:


> jdavis37 said:
> 
> 
> > I don't get too caught up in forum battles or hype but I do have an eye for bias when it exists. In the DPR article they have already shown the bias clearly:
> ...



I'm sure you're right, and that there are more people to disagree with me than agree. However this is one of the reason's I'd like to stick with canon. I show my high-iso pics to people with nikons (such as the D7100 or D5300) that outscore the 60D on spec sites, and they're visibly impressed. Maybe I just have a good copy of the 60d, dunno. No, of course I'm not talking about large prints at iso 12000, just small prints and on the web.


----------



## IglooEater (Mar 30, 2016)

The ISO comparison thingy is also up: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=nikon_d5&attr13_1=nikon_d4s&attr13_2=canon_eos1dx&attr13_3=sony_a7sii&attr15_0=jpeg&attr15_1=jpeg&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=51200&attr16_1=51200&attr16_2=51200&attr16_3=51200&attr171_2=off&attr171_3=off&normalization=compare&widget=1&x=0.03136310295843366&y=0.030521571152607882

Looks a bit better than the 1dx, though not stunningly.


----------



## IglooEater (Mar 30, 2016)

dilbert said:


> IglooEater said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



YES! Thank you for making my point! (sorry I was too lazy myself to go and find this kind of test chart myself) The 60d is NOT great at noise. It isn't. Yet, people tell me they couldn't get the results I get on the 60d on cameras classified as "better" by the test charts. Someone has got to explain this to me.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 30, 2016)

IglooEater said:


> The ISO comparison thingy is also up:
> Looks a bit better than the 1dx, though not stunningly.



That makes sense. Of course, the D5 competitor is the 1D X II, so we'll have to wait and see what that comparison looks like.


----------



## ritholtz (Mar 30, 2016)

dilbert said:


> JohanCruyff said:
> 
> 
> > With such a unusable Low ISO DR, Nikon D5 can't be used for landscape (like all Canon models before 2016), but it might turn out to be an excellent paperweight (like all Canon models before 2016)!
> ...


DPR mentioned this in their quick note. Please send your D5 purchase receipt to DPR/dilbert to get your free d810. Most of the current cameras (including much maligned canon rebels, 70d and 7d2 on dpr) are pretty good until +3v push. That is the maximum any one going to push most of the times according to even Nikon users now. D5 is a absolutely fine even with landscapes. Even with d7200 when you push +5ev all the colors are turned into something else. Sony did something with d6300. It has consistently higher DR until very high ISO.


----------



## IglooEater (Mar 30, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> IglooEater said:
> 
> 
> > The ISO comparison thingy is also up:
> ...



Yup. Eager to see the 1dx II results. If I were a 1dx owner (which I'm not, I get all google-eyed when I see one) I think I'd want more of a noise improvement than I see with the D5. I'm really speaking through my hat here. 
How much noise improvement in the 1dx II would tempt you Neuro? ;P


----------



## ritholtz (Mar 30, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Stu_bert said:
> 
> 
> > Better still, the author's site
> ...


Agree. Bill does all the hard work of measuring PDR. DPR uses either Bill data or dxo data and writes some text around it. They add push tests to add more to these numbers. DPR actually claims that they are technical site rather than photography related website.


----------



## neuroanatomist (Mar 30, 2016)

IglooEater said:


> How much noise improvement in the 1dx II would tempt you Neuro? ;P



No doubt more than we'll see. The only tempting thing about the MkII for me is the full AF point coverage at f/8, for my 600 II + 2xIII. But I don't find that tempting _enough_.


----------



## 9VIII (Mar 31, 2016)

jdavis37 said:


> So now the Exmo gets a pass because of the same logic Canon shooters had for years.



This isn't Exmor:
http://nikonrumors.com/2015/12/16/list-of-all-nikon-dslr-cameras-and-their-sensor-manufacturerdesigner.aspx/

Nikon usually uses in house designs for their flagship cameras and they've always been a bit worse than Sony sensors in this area.
The big deal here is that it's worse than the last generation of the same body.


----------



## IglooEater (Mar 31, 2016)

9VIII said:


> jdavis37 said:
> 
> 
> > So now the Exmo gets a pass because of the same logic Canon shooters had for years.
> ...



Thanks for sharing the link- what I Found most interesting was that the D7200 sensor, which I've heard is excellent, was not made by Sony, but by Toshiba.


----------



## Skatol (Apr 1, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> IglooEater said:
> 
> 
> > How much noise improvement in the 1dx II would tempt you Neuro? ;P
> ...



but, but , but......it has 4k video capability!


----------

