# Nikon D5 Sensor Score from DXOMark



## ahsanford (May 24, 2016)

Apparently the D5 review is up at DXO... but it's not.

This is the link: http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Nikon-D5-sensor-review-A-worthy-successor

But it's a dead end. 

Here it is in my newsreader, so I suppose it will be reposted shortly, FYI.

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 24, 2016)

A worthy successor...with less low ISO DR than the APS-C sensor in Canon's 80D.


----------



## d (May 24, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> A worthy successor...with less low ISO DR than the APS-C sensor in Canon's 80D.



DR is so last season....this time around it'll be all about the high ISO.

d.


----------



## ahsanford (May 24, 2016)

Results now posted: http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Nikon-D5-sensor-review-A-worthy-successor

Get a load of this. Compared to the prior D4S and D810:

* Color depth: D810 > D5 > D4S
* Dynamic range: D810 >> D4S > D5 
* High ISO: D4S > D810 > D5 (this is a _bit_ misleading -- see the plots for this)

So: 


The D810's Sony 36 MP sensor is outperforming Nikon's 20-21 MP D5 sensor on all three of DXO's sensor metrics. Let that one soak in. I don't know if that's more of a slow clap for the D810 sensor or a Price is Right failure sound effect for the D5 sensor.


The camera that the D5 is replacing arguably has a better sensor in it. Chasing those 4 extra MP with the D5 apparently came at a cost.


Neuro is correct. The Canon 80D has more DR than the D5.

...And yet they entitled this article _"Nikon D5 sensor review: A worthy successor"_. Wow.

...And they called the 'predecessor' to the D5 *as being the D4* and not the D4S to possibly soften the blow that the D5 didn't get much better. Double wow.

#dxo #fairandbalanced

- A


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 24, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> ...And yet they entitled this article _"Nikon D5 sensor review: A worthy successor"_. Wow.



But, you know, they're not biased or anything. :


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 24, 2016)

*Re: Review - D5 by DXO*

DPR claimed that with the D5, Nikon sacrificed some low ISO DR for better high ISO performance. Yet...DxO's measurements show the while the D5 has less DR than the D4s at low ISO, it has no more DR at high ISO...and more noise at high ISO. 

DPR uses DxO's scores in their 'reviews' – I wonder how they'll handwave around these results... :


----------



## Chaitanya (May 24, 2016)

*Re: Review - D5 by DXO*



neuroanatomist said:


> DPR claimed that with the D5, Nikon sacrificed some low ISO DR for better high ISO performance. Yet...DxO's measurements show the while the D5 has less DR than the D4s at low ISO, it has no more DR at high ISO...and more noise at high ISO.
> 
> DPR uses DxO's scores in their 'reviews' – I wonder how they'll handwave around these results... :


Also according to DPreview statement they use the data from DXO that DXO shares out to general public. I cant find the exact page on which DPreview staff made that statement but it was regarding some cellphone review. 

Also on a side note: Since DXO has compared Leica SL as well in their D5 review, two weeks back when I was watching the Formula 1 Spanish GP, during the prerace show I saw some photographers present on the grid who were using that camera.


----------



## ahsanford (May 24, 2016)

*Re: Review - D5 by DXO*



neuroanatomist said:


> DPR claimed that with the D5, Nikon sacrificed some low ISO DR for better high ISO performance. Yet...DxO's measurements show the while the D5 has less DR than the D4s at low ISO, it has no more DR at high ISO...and more noise at high ISO.
> 
> DPR uses DxO's scores in their 'reviews' – I wonder how they'll handwave around these results... :



This (below) is what they are talking about, I believe. Much like how the 24-70 f/2.8 VR they put out seems to deprioritize center resolution to do better away from center than you'd expect, the sensor seems to have been tweaked to not lose a DR as quickly from ISO 1600 - 12800. It's an atypical plot shape for a sensor's DR.

But, as you noted, the noise is higher even if they saved some higher ISO DR from falling off. That's a really nuanced line to walk.

- A


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 24, 2016)

The DXO sensor score of 88 for the D5 tell us that their measurements favor a sensor with high DR and High MP by a wide margin. Their score gives weighting to the different parameters and those weightings are assigned by people who may not be actual money earning or award winning photographers. They could have experts help assign those values and make them public, but they keep them secret and the end results puzzle us. Their values may not match mine. 

The same is true of the tests. They have devised their own test methods, ones that are not accepted by the photographic industry, believing that their tests are better. This means that the individual tests they post have little or no correlation with results from other testers. Any similarities are accidental. Don't expect this to change, its somewhat of a cultural thing that I saw in my job of evaluating components and tests from products around the world as part of my previous job. I had the ability to force would be suppliers to use standardized industry approved tests, or their would not be approved. Those who wanted to invent their own tests that favored their products or way of thinking hated that. They came from that same country (Good and smart people, but wanting to do things differently.) 

Fortunately, Nikon has ignored their scoring, because the D5 is not aimed at those who need high DR or high MP. The camera sensor just barely beats out the 4 year old 1D X. That makes the 1DX somewhat of a bargain.

Of course, people think that DXO is rating a camera. They are not, they are only rating the sensor. A rated camera may have poor autofocus, or lots of shortcomings, but get a top score. I think that as a overall camera, the D5 is very good, as are Canon's top of the line products. I'd have no issues using either Canon or Nikon top of the line cameras.


----------



## ahsanford (May 24, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> Of course, people think that DXO is rating a camera. They are not, they are only rating the sensor....



100% understood. But if we drink the Kool-Aid that DXO is 'directionally accurate' (even if methods are somewhat flawed, disregard the batsh-- overall score and focus on the individual tests) -- just for a hypothetical argument -- I think the following statements could roughly be made:

1) Gripped top-end rigs no longer are the 'best of the best' sensors. Lower cost + higher MP rigs seem to be outperforming the IQ of the top end rigs right now. I appreciate that a D5 or 1DX can do a ton more than a 5D3 or D810 can, but at a pure IQ level they are not necessarily the top dog like they used to be. This undermines the gripped-rig value proposition slightly. 

2) Nikon users might be correct in grilling Nikon corporate for _who is making the sensor_ in any new offerings. EXMOR seems to clearly outperform over Nikon sensors yet again here.

Fair statements? Disagree?

- A


----------



## zim (May 24, 2016)

Mt Spokane Photography said:


> The DXO sensor score of 88 for the D5 tell us that their measurements favor a sensor with high DR and High MP by a wide margin. Their score gives weighting to the different parameters and those weightings are assigned by people who may not be actual money earning or award winning photographers. They could have experts help assign those values and make them public, but they keep them secret and the end results puzzle us. Their values may not match mine.
> 
> The same is true of the tests. They have devised their own test methods, ones that are not accepted by the photographic industry, believing that their tests are better. This means that the individual tests they post have little or no correlation with results from other testers. Any similarities are accidental. Don't expect this to change, its somewhat of a cultural thing that I saw in my job of evaluating components and tests from products around the world as part of my previous job. I had the ability to force would be suppliers to use standardized industry approved tests, or their would not be approved. Those who wanted to invent their own tests that favored their products or way of thinking hated that. They came from that same country (Good and smart people, but wanting to do things differently.)
> 
> ...



very well said


----------



## East Wind Photography (May 24, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Mt Spokane Photography said:
> 
> 
> > Of course, people think that DXO is rating a camera. They are not, they are only rating the sensor....
> ...



Don't agree with the undermining of the gripped rig value proposition. If you don't need a gripped rig system but only prefer better sensor performance then buy something for that purpose. I think you guys are splitting hairs on the performance issue. Valuation is better weighed on the system and not just the sensor.

I can't shoot sports with an electronically cooled CCD sensor fixed to a manually focused lens....though it might be fun to try.


----------



## unfocused (May 24, 2016)

I quit paying much attention to DXO testing years ago.

I look at the graphs and consistently see only tiny differences in the lines. I know people on both sides get worked up about their tests, but frankly, I would never make a buying decision based on the insignificant differences their tests show.


----------



## Mt Spokane Photography (May 24, 2016)

unfocused said:


> I quit paying much attention to DXO testing years ago.
> 
> I look at the graphs and consistently see only tiny differences in the lines. I know people on both sides get worked up about their tests, but frankly, I would never make a buying decision based on the insignificant differences their tests show.



That is certainly my way of thinking. I've made the mistake of purchasing cameras based on reviews that were flawed more than once (you'd think I'd learn  )

I tether my camera to a computer to photograph my products on a light table. I focus and set the aperture to get the depth of field I want, or put the feature I want in sharp focus. I can change the angle or take other measures to eliminate unwanted reflections, all in near real time with every Canon XD or XXD since the 40D, and they all work great. 

I bought a D800, it was horrible to tether and remote control, reduced resolution so you could not focus on fine details, it was so slow as to be unusable. I also had a D300S, it was worse. I don't know if current Nikon models work any better, I've tried to find good reviews, but they seem to be lacking. I'd think the A7R II being a mirrorless would tether well, but the few reviews I've seen hinted that it is not good at tethering for remote operation.

I stick with Canon now because I know the remote tethering just works.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 24, 2016)

*Re: Review - D5 by DXO*



neuroanatomist said:


> DPR claimed that with the D5, Nikon sacrificed some low ISO DR for better high ISO performance.



I still don't get how that works. 

I suspect that other trades (e.g. framerate) impacted read noise, and at the same time improvements were made to high ISO.

Coincidence, not causation (sacrifice).


----------



## MigueEsteves (May 24, 2016)

I still have my 300D working, better than the D5 everyday ;D


----------



## Yiannis A - Greece (May 25, 2016)

*DXOMark D5 crappy results...*

Dear friends,

i just finished observing DXOMark review of the Nikon D5 and it's finally "official" that, D5 scores worse than it's Nikon predecessors (D4, D4s) in every single test apart from bit depth! 1+ stop worse dynamic range, 18-25% less high ISO image quality (in fact, the worst FF sensor since D3x) and a total score of only...88 (for a heavily biased Nikon site)! Even Canons' "humble", beloved, "good old" 1Dx Mk1 (i personally own a pair of 5D Mk3s among others) achieves a 2786 ISO score! 

So, how the hell do they call the D5 "A worthy successor"??? Why should somebody with a D4 or d4s should even think of buying one? well, maybe, for 3 minutes of heavily cropped 4K footage with lousy continuous AF!!! 

I'm pretty sure that 1Dx Mk2 is going to s**t all over D5 in an upcoming review; although i'm more than sure that DXO will give Mk2 an overall score of...87 ;D

Here is the link to the review, have fun:

http://www.dxomark.com/Reviews/Nikon-D5-sensor-review-A-worthy-successor

As always, all my best wishes for you and your beloved. Have a nice evening wherever you are.

Yours
Yiannis - Athens, Greece.


----------



## StudentOfLight (May 26, 2016)

I wonder if the ISO score took a knock because they overstated their ISO more than on previous models. According to DXO, the D5 is only producing an image of brightness equivalent to ISO 66, as opposed to ISO 80 on the 1DX, when the cameras are both set to ISO 100. (p.s. The D4s was ISO 75)

The D5 Sports ISO score appears to be failing the SNR threshold first. This is in contrast to what DPR studio samples presented. Does this mean that:
a) the D5 RAW are cooked with some added NR spices at higher ISOs or 
b) the RAW converter is helping the D5 more than older cameras or 
c) Other (explain)


----------



## Skatol (May 26, 2016)

Found the conclusion most humorous.
Did not realize the 1DX MII is considered old now.

"Conclusion

Moving from a 16-Mpix to a 20.8-Mpix sensor is quite significant for professionals, and the improvements in high ISO DR are useful in a camera like this. In terms of sensor resolution, the Nikon D5 now matches *the admittedly aging Canon EOS 1Ds Mk II,* a camera still widely used for magazine features (think double-page spreads) as well as commercial photography. While it’s true that models such as the Nikon D810 (and the Canon EOS 5DS and SR) are arguably more suited now for that kind of work, the Nikon D5 nonetheless represents a tipping point in all-around capability. With its excellent sensor performance, phenomenal AF system, impressive burst rate and durable build, the Nikon D5 is clearly optimized to appeal to those targeted by the company’s marketing department, yet its capabilities should also entice other kinds of photographers, whether they own a Nikon D810 or not."


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 26, 2016)

Skatol said:


> Found the conclusion most humorous.
> Did not realize the 1DX MII is considered old now.
> 
> "Conclusion
> ...



I expect they meant the *1Ds Mk III*, which has a 21.1 MP sensor and was launched in 2008.

(Because, you know, comparing the new 20 MP FF D5 to an 8 year old 21 MP FF 1-series camera makes so much more sense than comparing it to a the new 20 MP FF 1-series body...)


----------



## ahsanford (May 26, 2016)

Skatol said:


> Found the conclusion most humorous.
> Did not realize the *1DX MII* is considered old now.
> 
> "Conclusion
> ...



Um... 's' and 'X' are not the same letter.

This comment from DXO confused the hell out of people. I believe they meant the 1Ds Mark _III_, aka 1Ds3, which predated the 1DX, and it (like many Canon FF sensors) sat around 21 MP. I think that's the comparison they were trying to make.

1Ds Mark II, aka 1Ds2, only had 16-17 MP if I recall. So it's an older reference and they got the model wrong / had a typo. 

#dxo #welledited #knowstheircanons

- A


----------



## ritholtz (May 26, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Skatol said:
> 
> 
> > Found the conclusion most humorous.
> ...


They both, just keep picking the context which suits their argument and showers praise. When I checked their SNR graph, D5 is behind 1dx in per pixel view. Surprisingly it is also behind in 8MP view. So they don't want to compare with 1dx. If SNR graph represents noise, how did D5 shows lower noise in studio screen.


----------



## privatebydesign (May 26, 2016)

ritholtz said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Skatol said:
> ...



Don't worry, Rishi will be along shortly to say we are all fools with tin foil hats for even dreaming DPReview are biased, it all makes sense we just don't understand because we are too dumb :


----------



## ahsanford (May 26, 2016)

ritholtz said:


> They both, just keep picking the context which suits their argument and showers praise. When I checked their SNR graph, D5 is behind 1dx in per pixel view. Surprisingly it is also behind in 8MP view. So they don't want to compare with 1dx. If SNR graph represents noise, how did D5 shows lower noise in studio screen.



You're looking at a detail level when a superficial review tells you that they are cooking the books...

- A


----------



## Mancubus (May 26, 2016)

For the first time on a new camera release I do not envy Nikon. Actually I'm quite glad I didn't switch.

There is no excuse for the camera to suck on all 3 measurements. And when I say "suck" I mean anything that isn't an improvement or at least on par with the previous bodies.

At this price range and at only 20mp it should perform AT LEAST as good as the d810 for Dynamic range and color depth. And at least as good as the D4S for high ISO.

I haven't tried a 1dx2 yet but I'm quite sure it will be better than the 1dx in all 3 aspects. I'm hoping that the 5d4 shows the same improvements.


----------



## ahsanford (May 26, 2016)

Mancubus said:


> For the first time on a new camera release I do not envy Nikon. Actually I'm quite glad I didn't switch.
> 
> There is no excuse for the camera to suck on all 3 measurements. And when I say "suck" I mean anything that isn't an improvement or at least on par with the previous bodies.
> 
> ...



Could you imagine if the 5DS outperformed the 1DX2 in each metric -- noise, DR and color? That's basically what a two year D810 has just done at half the price to the D5. (I fully appreciate the D5 can do backflips on so many other fronts, but at an IQ level, the testing says quite a bit.)

Yes, the DXO metrics are flawed / opaque / highly questionable. But someone else will pull a Bryan Carnathan and thoroughly beat up the D5 and stack it up against prior Nikon rigs with some kind of reproducible method and it's possible that they broadly/directionally back up DXO's findings.

You could read such a finding two ways: Nikon laid an egg or that D810 sensor is a one-off legendary advancement. I'm leaning more towards the former as Sony has followed up the D810 sensor with another solid offering in the A7R II.

- A


----------



## Sporgon (May 26, 2016)

dilbert said:


> But DPR also sings a very pretty song about the AF in the D5/D500 so maybe that makes up for it when money is on the line ... I think people are going to miss that extra stop off ISO more tho.



What about the all important extra half stop of DR ?


----------



## Skatol (May 26, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Skatol said:
> 
> 
> > Found the conclusion most humorous.
> ...


You are correct, I read too quickly and clicked the link. The link in the article takes you to the 1DX MII Test and Review page. I'll be more careful to proof read next time.


----------



## ritholtz (May 26, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> ritholtz said:
> 
> 
> > They both, just keep picking the context which suits their argument and showers praise. When I checked their SNR graph, D5 is behind 1dx in per pixel view. Surprisingly it is also behind in 8MP view. So they don't want to compare with 1dx. If SNR graph represents noise, how did D5 shows lower noise in studio screen.
> ...


It is like them trying too hard to justify the camera based on the their test methodology against their own numbers. Based on DXO sensor score, it is behind previous 2 generations D4 and D4s. They still praise it saying it is a worthy successor. When rebels score same, they titled it as "New ‘EOS for Beginners’ flagship DSLR offers no improvement in sensor scores". It is like they don't care their own score. Then Why bother calculating and printing it.

They compare with one camera in one sentence and switch to some other camera. They mentioned D4, D4s, D3s, IDX2, 1DX and Lieca. Then they threw in Canon EOS 1Ds Mk II to prove superiority of D5 and start talking about some magazines and print industry.


----------



## Random Orbits (May 27, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Sporgon said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



LOL, lenses!


----------



## J.R. (May 27, 2016)

Random Orbits said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Sporgon said:
> ...



+1 ... The camera body is only one part of the equation. 

BTW, king of AF? yeah I read it on the internet and so it MUST be true!


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 27, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Well if you happily own a Canon camera then you wouldn't care about that extra half stop of DR, would you?



??

Care to share your reasoning?


----------



## StudentOfLight (May 27, 2016)

I called it... like waaaaay back:
http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?topic=28799.msg575560#msg575560

just saying


----------



## ritholtz (May 27, 2016)

J.R. said:


> Random Orbits said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...


I checked out DPR autofocus bicycle test. Those pictures posted are not really that much better than 80d. 
They make so much noise about 3d focus. When it comes to bicycle AF test, they wrote that it is not possible to use it. Trying to understand when can we use 3d/iTR focussing. Don't know why Canon is not aggressively pushing this functionality to lower models.


----------



## J.R. (May 27, 2016)

ritholtz said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > Random Orbits said:
> ...



I have NOT read DPR and don't intend to do so. That being said, from what I remember, they are unusual in testing AF and their conclusions don't match user experience. In one review, the reviewer was clueless as to how Canon's AF worked and gave a negative review that the camera does not focus well at all. 

AF has so may variables that it's really difficult to tell which one is the "king". I buy something I can either (a) try myself and be comfortable with; or (b) learn from actual user experience by corresponding those who take good photos with the camera under consideration. 

DPR's statements such as "king of AF" isn't something I would trust to make a buying decision, leave alone a switching decision.


----------



## quod (May 27, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> A worthy successor...with less low ISO DR than the APS-C sensor in Canon's 80D.


By whose measurement? Yours? Canon's? Where is the 80D review in DxO? Oh yeah, they don't have one.


----------



## J.R. (May 27, 2016)

quod said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > A worthy successor...with less low ISO DR than the APS-C sensor in Canon's 80D.
> ...



Bill Claff has measured so. Check out the chart generated from his website.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 27, 2016)

quod said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > A worthy successor...with less low ISO DR than the APS-C sensor in Canon's 80D.
> ...



Bill Claff. 

DxO is scheduled to support the 80D RAW format next month, so they'll have the data in DxOMark sometime after that. I doubt their 80D review will compare it to the D5, but time will tell.


----------



## quod (May 27, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> quod said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...


Per DxO, the D5 DR smokes the 1DX DR. I guess the 80D is better than the 1DX? Is that what we should conclude?


----------



## IglooEater (May 27, 2016)

J.R. said:


> quod said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Perhaps- but I'd rather the D5's performance from these charts. I don't need more dr at ISO100 (sure it could be nice, but I don't need it). I want more DR at ISO 6400-that's where I'm limited.


----------



## J.R. (May 27, 2016)

quod said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > quod said:
> ...



DxO doesn't say that the D5 DR smokes the 1DX DR. The landscape DR is measured at 12.3EV for D5 as opposed to 11.8EV for 1DX. A difference of 0.5EV. 

DXO on its own website states that 



> A value of 12 EV is excellent with differences below 0.5 EV usually not noticeable.



Hardly smokes the 1DX DR ... talk about an overstatement. 

And yeah, the 80D does have more DR than the 1DX _at low ISO_. See below ... Happy?


----------



## J.R. (May 27, 2016)

IglooEater said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > quod said:
> ...



Eh? Not from the low ISO DR brigade, are you?

You need to understand what you are comparing - the Nikon flagship FF D5 vs. the lowly Canon APS-C 80D. Apples Vs. Oranges. The two cameras are hardly competition to each other. A more meaningful analysis would be between D5 and 1DX II.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 27, 2016)

quod said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > quod said:
> ...



You can conclude whatever you want. DxO measures sensors, the D5 sensor scores lower than two generations of its predecessors, and they conclude the D5 is 'a worthy successor'. Sounds like you both enjoy exaggerated claims.


----------



## Don Haines (May 27, 2016)

Now here's a radical thought....

What if design constraints means that you can't design something that is the best at everything? What If Canon (and Nikon) have to choose to optimize their sensor design for either high ISO or low ISO but it can't be both? What if both companies decided to design their flagship cameras for the challenging conditions that people are buying them for, and that's why they are both fantastic at high ISO and mediocre at low?

Imagine! Designing a camera for what it is to be used for instead of designing it to score well on DXO tests under unrealistic conditions! Who would have thought!


----------



## J.R. (May 27, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> Now here's a radical thought....
> 
> What if design constraints means that you can't design something that is the best at everything? What If Canon (and Nikon) have to choose to optimize their sensor design for either high ISO or low ISO but it can't be both? What if both companies decided to design their flagship cameras for the challenging conditions that people are buying them for, and that's why they are both fantastic at high ISO and mediocre at low?
> 
> Imagine! Designing a camera for what it is to be used for instead of designing it to score well on DXO tests under unrealistic conditions! Who would have thought!



I guess that is exactly what is happening with a large number of options available within a single brand for buyers.


----------



## Mikehit (May 27, 2016)

J.R. said:


> I guess that is exactly what is happening with a large number of options available within a single brand for buyers.



There is a marketing strategy that one company creating two competing products will generate more than the sales of the two individual items added together. So even though the company may be able to produce a 'landscape camera' and a 'sports camera' the reason for having these 2 bodies is less about technology or specialisation and more about marketing strategy.


----------



## J.R. (May 27, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > I guess that is exactly what is happening with a large number of options available within a single brand for buyers.
> ...



Maybe true ... but then do you think that Canon is holding back a 14fps, 50mp body?


----------



## Mikehit (May 27, 2016)

J.R. said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > J.R. said:
> ...




At 50MP, it probably could shoot at 14fps......for under 3 seconds, assuming all MP are created equal. Or half a second if the greater MP affects autofocus calculations or other functionality.


----------



## J.R. (May 27, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



;D


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 27, 2016)

dilbert said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



Is that a no, you won't share it?

In that case, I can only read between the lines: you are suggesting that happily owning something means the owner doesn't care about how it could possibly be improved. That's utter silliness. 

I'm a happy canon owner. 
I'm a happy sony owner.
I'm an unhappy nikon owner.

I care more about how the first two can improve than the third.


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 27, 2016)

quod said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > quod said:
> ...



The 80D has more low ISO DR than the D5. Oh no! Now what?


----------



## Jack Douglas (May 27, 2016)

Reading here is better than the funnies. 

Jack


----------



## zim (May 27, 2016)

bdunbar79 said:


> quod said:
> 
> 
> > neuroanatomist said:
> ...



Aye, except clearly the D5 has better DR than the 80D at ISO 50 :


----------



## ritholtz (May 27, 2016)

zim said:


> bdunbar79 said:
> 
> 
> > quod said:
> ...


Based on Bill chart, you can shoot 80d at iso 100 and still end up more DR than D5 at ISO 50.


----------



## zim (May 27, 2016)

ritholtz said:


> zim said:
> 
> 
> > bdunbar79 said:
> ...



I think I used the wrong emoticon, I was making a joke about how dxo will justify their results. I seem to recall them doing a similar thing with lens fstop range to bias results.


----------



## ritholtz (May 28, 2016)

zim said:


> ritholtz said:
> 
> 
> > zim said:
> ...


It is my mistake. I did not check emoticon. I wonder, why D5 has same DR at ISO 50 and ISO 100. Isn't it suppose to have more DR at ISO 50 like d810 compared to ISO 100.


----------



## scyrene (May 28, 2016)

ritholtz said:


> I wonder, why D5 has same DR at ISO 50 and ISO 100. Isn't it suppose to have more DR at ISO 50 like d810 compared to ISO 100.



It's an expanded ISO, isn't it? Like ISO 50 on Canon cameras - so it's simulated, rather than real. 64 on the D810 is the real base ISO; but it also has an extended low setting, ISO 32. Extended low ISO settings never have more DR than the base setting (in fact I've seen it stated for e.g. the 5D3 says ISO 50 has *less* DR than ISO 100).


----------



## Neutral (May 28, 2016)

What we see in general is that most of the new sensors used in the latest (last 3-4 years) FF cameras are not much different in performance (when normalized to some common resolution), even a BSI a7r2 42mpx sensor is not too much ahead though still possibly the best sensor. I also do not expect that 1DXmII sensor would be significantly better than 1Dx sensor for high ISO, only slight improvements in some areas (except for low ISO DR where improvement is significant).
This most possibly means that current sensors technology has reached saturation point limited by current sensors design limitation (Bayer sensor limitation) and it would be very difficult to get more out of that. 
So I would not expect much more advances in this area unless something drastically different comes in the mass production
Making sCMOS technology more cheap for mass production could add some advantages but not really too much – it just would allow to get closer to the theoretical performance limits for Bayer sensor design.
So do not expect much from the new product based on the old design and technology – they will be slightly noticeable.

If we look at all that from wider angle then it is clear that we are now at the turning point for implementation of something drastically different, which could allow utilizing all the light hitting the sensor.
So let us wait until someone get out with the mature sensors technology using full RGB pixels (3-layers design – something like Foveon type sensor). Whoever will be the first might be able to get significant advantage.
I suspect/feel (based on different rumors) that first camera using such kind of sensor might be new Sony a9 pro level camera. If rumors telling about 70-80mpx sensor for a9 are correct, I tend to think that this will not be 80mpx Bayer sensor. 80mpx Bayer sensor does not make much sense for FF sensor due to number of different reasons, but rather 3-layes RGB sensor on the chip, with each pixel being full RGB pixel able to capture all amount of light hitting the pixel area. Then this would translate to about 24-28 mpx spatial sensor resolution providing at least 1-1.5 stops better high ISO performance compared with any other competitors on the market , let alone other sensor metrics.
Might be I am too optimistic but I feel that it is just right time for something revolutionary in sensor technology/production
Interesting to see if anyone from sensors manufactures feel the same and could try to get advantage of that.


----------



## GMCPhotographics (May 28, 2016)

J.R. said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > J.R. said:
> ...



It's a through put of data problem, not a sensor or shutter problem. It's certainly not a marketing problem either. The biggest restriction in a camera is the internal processor. 50mp @ 14fps will generate a lot of data and that will need a very very fast processor to handle that kind of data throughput. You would need a processor capable of handling 700mbits/sec and the current dual Digic 6 is good for 252mb/s (5DS = 50.5mp x 5fps). The 1DXII seems to use an over clocked pair of Digic 6 chips called a Digic 6+, which seems to be good for 325mb/s (16fps x 20.2mp). If the usual and historical increase in performance between the generations of Digic holds to be true, then we can expect a single Digic 7 chip to be good for the same as a dual Digic 6 pair (circa 252mb/s) and a dual Digic 7 should be good for about 1.5x that number to yield around 380mb/s. A dual Digic 7+ should be good for 487mb/s, a future Dual Digic 8 could yield around 570mp/s and a Dual Digic 8+...around 730mp/s. 
This means that we a still a long way off a 14fps 50mp camera. We are looking at 2 generations of Digic development before we hit the 730mb/s required to get a 14fps 50mp camera. 
The dual Digic + processors are usually released in the 1Dx series cameras. So we are looking at something like 4 years between 1Dx releases....so by my maths, that's 8 years away. I suspect that the next 1Dx will get a massive bump in resolution. 
The next round of cameras using a single Digic 6+ chip should yield a 5D4 with a through put of around 225mp/s. We can cut that pie a number of ways. 37.5mp @ 6 fps or 28mp @ 8fps (which I think has been rumored).


----------



## bwud (May 28, 2016)

GMCPhotographics said:


> J.R. said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



But aren't there architectural changes which could alleviate some of the load on the digic unit, for example digitizing the signal before it even reaches the processor?


----------



## Mikehit (May 29, 2016)

bwud said:


> But aren't there architectural changes which could alleviate some of the load on the digic unit, for example digitizing the signal before it even reaches the processor?



I thought the processor did the digitising so how can it be digitised before the processor?


----------



## bwud (May 29, 2016)

Mikehit said:


> bwud said:
> 
> 
> > But aren't there architectural changes which could alleviate some of the load on the digic unit, for example digitizing the signal before it even reaches the processor?
> ...



Current canon architecture has that function in the DIGIC processor, but there's no reason they couldn't move them earlier in the path (like on the sensor unit).


----------



## Don Haines (May 29, 2016)

bwud said:


> Mikehit said:
> 
> 
> > bwud said:
> ...


Digitising is the function of the A/D converter. Depending on how the system is designed, this can be done as a stand-alone chip(s), on the processor die, or on the sensor die.... Each has advantages and disadvantages.

As far as processing power goes, the need for speed also depends on how the system is designed. You can process the data as it is generated or you can dump it straight from the A/D into memory, to be processed later... and once again, each has advantages and disadvantages.


----------



## bwud (May 29, 2016)

Don Haines said:


> bwud said:
> 
> 
> > Mikehit said:
> ...



Sure, I was just giving one example of a function which could be offloaded from the processor. ADCs need not be particularly "smart," and parallelizing the function (for example one per column of pixels or, at the extreme, one per pixel) could free up space on the processor dye, remove a bottleneck, etc.

The initial post I replied to talked in bits/second, but part of that figure includes creating bits. Throughput could theoretically increase if the processor is fed digital data from the onset.


----------



## Don Haines (May 29, 2016)

bwud said:


> Don Haines said:
> 
> 
> > bwud said:
> ...


Yeah, there are so many ways to do things.... and it all depends on your final goal....


----------



## Sporgon (May 29, 2016)

dilbert said:


> How many threads have there been on CR about how DR doesn't matter?



None. 

Of course DR matters. The asinine part is arguing that the advantage of 13 over 11.5 offers much improved 'IQ' in the majority of photography, and the sensors are much more advanced, so Canon are behind etc etc. I remember watching an interview with the Canon CEO where the two-bit journalist asked him what Canon were going to do about their 'poor IQ'. The poor guy nearly fell off his chair in surprise ! 

The Nikon D5 sensor is one of the funniest things that happened in the photographic gear world for some time - watching the web journalists who have hung their hats on 'extra DR is king' and ' off sensor ADC is so medieval' wriggle and squirm their way around this most modern sensor and its 'old' characteristics.


----------



## bgateb (May 29, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> #dxo #fairandbalanced
> 
> - A



i just had to LOL at this.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 29, 2016)

dilbert said:


> The "mind set" of CR is that more DR is not important, therefore it doesn't matter if the camera has 11, 12, 13 or 14 stops of DR.



Nice to see that your reading comprehension skills are as astute as ever. :


----------



## Woody (May 29, 2016)

dilbert said:


> The "mind set" of CR is that more DR is not important, therefore it doesn't matter if the camera has 11, 12, 13 or 14 stops of DR.



Your sarcastic line of attack cuts both ways.

If 11/12/13/14 stops of dynamic range does not matter, then it also means that all the DXOMark scores are rubbish and all the arguments about the superiority of Sony Exmor sensor hold no water.

You dare to stick your neck out for this?


----------



## Orangutan (May 29, 2016)

dilbert said:


> How many threads have there been on CR about how DR doesn't matter?


Sorry, I have to jump on this too. The reason you (and others) receive harsh replies for dwelling on DR is not that it's unimportant, but that you seem to assert that it's the only characteristic that's important. It's as if you claimed that fuel efficiency were the only characteristic that's important in a vehicle. Everyone agrees that fuel efficiency is important, but if you need to carry a lot of cargo you certainly wouldn't choose a fuel-efficient scooter.

Of course, you could now ask whether we would be interested in a vehicle that carries a lot of cargo and also has the fuel efficiency of a scooter. Of course! But that doesn't exist, so we're left to choose from among the vehicles that do exist.

Low-ISO DR is *one* important characteristic, but not the only one.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (May 29, 2016)

dilbert said:


> But DPR also sings a very pretty song about the AF in the D5/D500 so maybe that makes up for it when money is on the line...



Ah - so when it's a _Nikon_, you're OK with the idea that "superior" sensor performance isn't necessarily the whole story, and that for some photographers, other things might matter more.

_Interesting_...


----------



## Keith_Reeder (May 29, 2016)

zim said:


> Aye, except clearly the D5 has better DR than the 80D at ISO 50 :


Which is, of course, more, and more, and more marginally important to the majority...


----------



## Keith_Reeder (May 29, 2016)

dilbert said:


> How many threads have there been on CR about how DR doesn't matter?



And now, in your rush to defend the D5, you suddenly accept the premise...


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 29, 2016)

Keith_Reeder said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > But DPR also sings a very pretty song about the AF in the D5/D500 so maybe that makes up for it when money is on the line...
> ...



Well yeah when the sensor sucks according to your one metric, you gotta come up with something else.


----------



## Keith_Reeder (May 29, 2016)

But when we've talked about this sort of thing in the context of _Canons_, we've been making excuses to defend Canon's incompetence.

Now that a Noink has taken a step back, low ISO DR-wise, it's suddenly _OK_ for other parameters to be more important.

The word "hypocrite" _doesn't even come close_ to describing Dilbert, does it?


----------



## bdunbar79 (May 29, 2016)

Keith_Reeder said:


> But when we've talked about this sort of thing in the context of _Canons_, we've been making excuses to defend Canon's incompetence.
> 
> Now that a Noink has taken a step back, low ISO DR-wise, it's suddenly _OK_ for other parameters to be more important.
> 
> The word "hypocrite" _doesn't even come close_ to describing Dilbert, does it?



That's only one of many words I can think of.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 29, 2016)

dilbert said:


> 3kramd5 said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



What most people aren't interested in is comparing between brands, which is the inexorable context of almost all DR threads. And you set up a self-selecting sample by invoking people who are happy with their canon cameras. They don't care about datasheet parameters of the primary I/O device in a Nikon camera any more than a happy Nikon owner cares about the MTBF of a canon shutter. Why should they if they're happy with what they have? People who aren't happy with what they have are far more likely to pay attention to alternatives.

If you were to start a thread: would you like your canon camera to be better in any category, including DR, the answer would be a resounding yes, even if a given improvement would make no practical difference to every participant.

And of course if I set up a thread suggesting that "the difference between 12 and 13 stops of DR is like life and death," I would be rightly ridiculed and labeled a troll for using such hyperbole.


----------



## zim (May 29, 2016)

Keith_Reeder said:


> zim said:
> 
> 
> > Aye, except clearly the D5 has better DR than the 80D at ISO 50 :
> ...




Well yes for the majority of sonik measurebaitors that seem to frequent CR.

DXO will have to find some way of defining that D5 sensor as superior my guess is that they will take the total ISO range as the advantage even when it's clearly not better than the 810 at 64 (which is actually looking like a rather special brew in fairness) and less than the 80D at ISO100


----------



## IglooEater (May 29, 2016)

J.R. said:


> IglooEater said:
> 
> 
> > J.R. said:
> ...



Nope, never have been on that brigade- check my past posts. I've agreed it would be nice, but I have higher priorities.

I agree it's a rather silly comparison- I don't think anyone would take the 80D over the D5 were money not an object.


----------



## Jack Douglas (May 29, 2016)

3kramd5, you've said it as clearly as anyone could. Never the less there are some pretty dense brains that exhibit in CR threads. Canon has me hook, line and sinker and the other brands are for other folk. Still, it's fun to look at the others brands and know what's going on.

Jack


----------



## 9VIII (May 30, 2016)

Keith_Reeder said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > How many threads have there been on CR about how DR doesn't matter?
> ...



It is pretty hilarious.

People stick with Canon because they keep a holistic view of their equipment. Having one small weakness on what is the best in the industry in every other way sounds like a good trade off to me.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 30, 2016)

9VIII said:


> Keith_Reeder said:
> 
> 
> > dilbert said:
> ...



What's hilarious is expecting consistency...from dilbert. :-X


----------



## Orangutan (May 30, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> 9VIII said:
> 
> 
> > Keith_Reeder said:
> ...


I think there is an underlying consistency: I think he (and others) simply believe that Canon is acting dishonestly. The reasoning goes something like this:

If Canon "has" the tech for better DR, why don't they put it in? It can only be to use their position to manipulate the market and soak more money from their customers. If Canon doesn't "have" the tech, then they're lying to us about how innovative they are, and they're just stringing-along their customers to keep them hooked on Canon gear until they can "get" the tech. Because if people found out that they had nothing, NOTHING!!, all their customers would flee and they'd collapse in flames. In either case, Canon is being dishonest. But what about Nikon? Well, Nikon has proved they're honest by putting the best sensors in their products, even at the low-end; so if the D5 drops off a bit then that was an honest choice based on need, rather than a manipulative choice based on greed.

Many of the DRummers ascribe human emotion to corporations, when there's nothing personal or emotional about it: they're just trying to generate profit for their shareholders and bonuses for the execs. That's just how business works.


----------



## ahsanford (May 30, 2016)

Orangutan said:


> I think there is an underlying consistency: I think he (and others) simply believe that Canon is acting dishonestly. The reasoning goes something like this:
> 
> If Canon "has" the tech for better DR, why don't they put it in? It can only be to use their position to manipulate the market and soak more money from their customers. If Canon doesn't "have" the tech, then they're lying to us about how innovative they are, and they're just stringing-along their customers to keep them hooked on Canon gear until they can "get" the tech. Because if people found out that they had nothing, NOTHING!!, all their customers would flee and they'd collapse in flames. In either case, Canon is being dishonest. But what about Nikon? Well, Nikon has proved they're honest by putting the best sensors in their products, even at the low-end; so if the D5 drops off a bit then that was an honest choice based on need, rather than a manipulative choice based on greed.
> 
> Many of the DRummers ascribe human emotion to corporations, when there's nothing personal or emotional about it: they're just trying to generate profit for their shareholders and bonuses for the execs. That's just how business works.



If Canon needs more DR, they will offer it themselves, or if they can't do that in a reasonable timeframe, they'll license sensors from Sony.

*...IF their market research says that they need to do that or customers will run away to Sony or Nikon.* 

I contend that's a whopping/improbable 'if'. Canon's 'customer goodwill' -- due to higher quality, better service, market-leading ecosystem of first and third party products -- may be sufficiently great that Canon knows they can offer a 2nd-best sensor and retain their business. 

Or Canon knows from considerable experience that the general market cares more about AF, ergonomics, handling, lenses, etc. and less about sensors and that's where they make their investments to improve.

- A


----------



## Orangutan (May 30, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > I think there is an underlying consistency: I think he (and others) simply believe that Canon is acting dishonestly. The reasoning goes something like this:
> ...



In summary, it's not a conspiracy to defraud the camera-buying public, it's just a business decision.


----------



## Orangutan (May 30, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Oh, I don't think Canon is being dishonest, I simply believe they don't (or at least didn't at the time) have the technology developed.
> 
> What appears to have happened is that Canon essentially stopped funding R&D into building better sensors for DSLRs.



Either that, or they continued "R" but decided that "D" wasn't sufficiently profitable to be worth the cost to upgrade the production. That's my guess, but it's only a guess. And they've been correct so far, it has not cost them much market share or profit. Eventually it will, but when...?


----------



## R1-7D (May 30, 2016)

dilbert said:


> Orangutan said:
> 
> 
> > ...
> ...



All companies do this. Apple, you could argue, is the worst offender. They've just bumped their phones up to 2GB of RAM because up until just recently 1 GB was 'good enough'.

And you know what? Canon and Apple are right. For more peoples' needs their products deliver, and their incremental upgrades drive future sales. This isn't dishonest; this is good business practice. 

I don't get why people are so hung up on this.


----------



## 3kramd5 (May 31, 2016)

R1-7D said:


> dilbert said:
> 
> 
> > Orangutan said:
> ...



I'd argue that companies which put 'good enough' into their product are best serving a wide customer base. More than enough adds cost with questionable value. 

It's up to both the vendor and the consumer to determine what 'good enough' is and what a reasonable price is. When those determinations align, thumbs up.


----------

