# DPR's review of D5



## Sporgon (Jun 1, 2016)

For anyone who has followed DPR's relentless persecution of Canon's "low DR" then their review of the D5 is up and offers great giggles in how they worm their way around the fact that the D5 has the same low ISO DR as the 6D.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d5-pro-dslr-review/8

But that doesn't really matter because the high ISO DR is so good, and this is what really matters. (Now). And it didn't really effect their picture taking. 

The camera is simply stunning in every way (judged by to day's standards, and not those of the last eight years) and gets a "score" of 89%. Unfortunately there are no under exposed images taken half and hour after a clear sunset where the shadows have been lifted to reveal a rather ugly kaleidoscope pattern. There is an image where the sky is totally blown, got a bit of a rishi stamp on it, but that makes for a better image, especially as the shadows are dark. You know, skies around sun set exposed correctly were so....well 5Ds-isn really. Much better to blow them out, and concentrate your attention on the lovely lady 

"Setting a new standard" - isn't it an old standard ? Or maybe you could argue it's a new one for Nikon - relatively speaking ;D


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 1, 2016)

*DPReview Review of the Nikon D5*


Oh, fun.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d5-pro-dslr-review

TL/DR version: incremental improvements other than AF (which they gushed about), the loss of DR at base ISO was openly discussed but tempered with 'do you really need that much', and their overall review was as positive as you'd expect.

Just a few pearls:


"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 (after all, you can buy multiple D810s for the same price, if low ISO DR is important to you). For its intended audience, the D5's high ISO imaging capabilities, advanced autofocus and durability are likely to be much more important."


"You'll need to watch your exposure a little more than you would on, say, a D750 or D810 - pushed Raw files out of the D5 exhibit a lot more shadow noise than those other cameras."


DPR has removed the ability to compare two cameras review scores with the 'compare mode'. Apparently this has something to do with changes to their scoring scheme.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 1, 2016)

*Re: DPReview Review of the Nikon D5*

But I'll reiterate DPR's most chuckle-able point: 

If the brand new Nikon-made 20 MP flagship sensor doesn't deliver the DR you need, don't worry: you can always buy the two year old 36 MP Sony-made sensor in the D810. :

- A


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 1, 2016)

Speaks for itself really.


----------



## 9VIII (Jun 1, 2016)

*Re: DPReview Review of the Nikon D5*

They stuck an entirely soupy black void of a background on the first page of their review!

http://www.dpreview.com/files/p/articles/3845625082/Sample-images/DSC_4198.acr.jpeg

The lack of detail in the shadows of that image is absolutely disgraceful!


But wait, it gets better, they have a SECOND picture with swaths of totally flat black and detail free background. Utterly Gobsmacking!

http://www.dpreview.com/files/p/articles/3845625082/Sample-images/DSC_4529.acr_1.jpeg


----------



## Larsskv (Jun 1, 2016)

*Re: DPReview Review of the Nikon D5*

I dont know what to say. They reviewed the D5 the way they we have wanted them to review Canon cameras. It's kind of good, but upsetting at the same time.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 1, 2016)

*Re: DPReview Review of the Nikon D5*



thetechhimself said:


> I find both the comparison's against last gen Canon sensor tech, IE DR of the 6D and previous gen AF of the iTR of the 5DS an evasion of the obvious D5 contender, the 1DX II. They also failed to directly compare the AF of the two, the iTR is the only real mention. Also there was some beating around the D5's RGB sensor and it's impact on AF in contrast detection.
> 
> DPR had a chance to actually not be bias, and yet, they remain biased. I don't want old news rehashed, or the D5 compared against old Canon tech, or the lack of failing to identify where the 1DX II is superior. Shame shame shame. I wanted to believe Rishi a month ago when he was on the forum when he said he wasn't anti-Canon, my logic knew better, and sure enough, lo and behold. The one review that would've made a darn, they spin pro-SonyNikon, again. I'm not surprised, but I was hoping for better.
> 
> It does however, make DPR irrelevant if they cannot bring something to the table, which they've failed to, either by ignorance or by choice.



The last 1D camera they formally reviewed was the 1Ds3, so there's a reason they didn't compare it to the 1DX or 1DX2.

It's not a _good_ reason, but it's still true. :

- A


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Jun 1, 2016)

Crazy how the pushed D5 RAW download file is over twice the size of the 1dX II RAW file size. Would the difference in noise account for such a discrepancy?


----------



## privatebydesign (Jun 1, 2016)

PhotographyFirst said:


> Crazy how the pushed D5 RAW download file is over twice the size of the 1dX II RAW file size. Would the difference in noise account for such a discrepancy?



Yes.


----------



## ritholtz (Jun 1, 2016)

*Re: DPReview Review of the Nikon D5*



thetechhimself said:


> While I'm at it, I predict a Silver being awarded to the 1DX II (if they review it), why they'll fault it I'm not sure yet, not sure they know yet, may be why it's taking them so long to kick out the review.
> 
> It's easier to omit or gloss over data or compare against differing baselines to make something seem better than it is. It's much harder to sink a truly superior product as if it's superior, how do you tank it? I'm of course assuming the 1DX II is superior, but considering the D5 matches the 1DC, which is a 1DX with 4k video, it's a pretty safe bet 4 years later Canon has cooked up a better product, thus it's probably better than the D5, I haven't played with one yet, I can't say either way.
> 
> Ditto Ahsan, I doubt they'll formalize a review.



Not sure how did it receive their gold rating. Nikon D500 is less than 1/3 rd of the price of D5 and scored more than D5. They make very big deal about 3D focusing. But in d500 review they did not use 3d focusing for biking test and mentioned that it is not possible to use in those scenarios. It looks like it is not that useful in lot of situations these cameras are designed for. Yet they make so much noise about one advantage. Did they refer to dxo measurements during their review? They pegged down Canon based on DXO scores so many times.

Their 80d review started with saying how outdated it is compared to some mirrorless 4k offerings. I guess they did not bother to write same thing about D5 compared to competition. I am pretty sure they don't show any test with live view tracking during video either.


----------



## 9VIII (Jun 1, 2016)

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-7d-mark-ii/13



> Getting an optimal ETTR exposure is difficult and usually only best done via extensive bracketing. Given the difficulty of absolutely nailing an optimal exposure, the flexibility offered by a camera with greater dynamic range cannot be understated for situations such as these: they prove more tolerant of any 'mis-exposure' which, in fact, may not be a 'mis-exposure' at all when you're using the in-camera exposure indicators to judge your exposure with higher dynamic range scenes such as this one.



See how dire the situation is when you don't have enough DR?

They even go out of their way to say that ISO invariance will give improve high ISO performance.



> Note that the dynamic range advantages of cameras with high base ISO dynamic range can extend to higher ISOs as well, where the 'ISO-invariance' of cameras like the D7000 allows you to purposefully underexpose the image by lowering the levels of ISO amplification. This gives you extra highlight headroom in accordance with the amount of reduction in ISO amplification. The 7D Mark II is not amenable to this type of shooting.




But of course you'll only find lengthy paragraphs about these deficiencies with the 7DMkII, with no mention of beneficial tradeoffs to be seen.

For the D5 you find multiple legthy paragraphs downplaying the exact same points used to criticise the 7DMkII.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d5-pro-dslr-review/8


> 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 (after all, you can buy multiple D810s for the same price, if low ISO DR is important to you). For its intended audience, the D5's high ISO imaging capabilities, advanced autofocus and durability are likely to be much more important.



http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d5-pro-dslr-review/13


> In real world shooting, the D5's dynamic range hasn't been a huge problem. Sure, you'll need to watch your exposure in high contrast scenes more than you would on, say, a D750 or D810 - pushed low ISO Raw files out of the D5 exhibit a lot more shadow noise than those other cameras. But that's taken care of by either sacrificing some highlight detail during your exposure, or with a little bit of luminance noise reduction in post. And if you shoot JPEG and nail your exposure, or routinely in low light, there's even more to like. Nikon's JPEG processing still doesn't retain quite as much detail, particularly at high ISO, as Sony's content-aware algorithm, but it's noticeably better than the D4S, retaining more detail at higher ISOs with less noise and better color retention.


----------



## Larsskv (Jun 1, 2016)

*Re: DPReview Review of the Nikon D5*



thetechhimself said:


> While I'm at it, I predict a Silver being awarded to the 1DX II (if they review it), why they'll fault it I'm not sure yet, not sure they know yet, may be why it's taking them so long to kick out the review.
> 
> It's easier to omit or gloss over data or compare against differing baselines to make something seem better than it is. It's much harder to sink a truly superior product as if it's superior, how do you tank it? I'm of course assuming the 1DX II is superior, but considering the D5 matches the 1DC, which is a 1DX with 4k video, it's a pretty safe bet 4 years later Canon has cooked up a better product, thus it's probably better than the D5, I haven't played with one yet, I can't say either way.
> 
> Ditto Ahsan, I doubt they'll formalize a review.



The 1DXII will either make a poorer DPR score than the D5, or no review at all.


----------



## tr573 (Jun 1, 2016)

I have really wanted to believe the best of them, but this is ridiculous.


----------



## 9VIII (Jun 1, 2016)

privatebydesign said:


> Speaks for itself really.
> http://www.canonrumors.com/forum/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=29996.0;attach=153506



To be fair I have to say that the D5 generally seems to have better high ISO performance. When I was looking at the samples the 1DX seemed like it was also better than the 1DX2, which makes sense given that there's probably a lot of architecture similarities between the 1DX and D5.
Then again DPR doesn't use any full size images of real people for high ISO samples, that jpeg engine could look really good in practice.

The point should be that the 1DX2 is an incredibly well rounded camera, it's absolutely the most versatile thing on the market bar none.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 1, 2016)

thetechhimself said:


> Next subject... Where is Canon's 7D3? They need to go pee pee on the D500 now with an updated 80D sensor, updated 1DXII AF + 4k.



As I think we've discussed, Canon has historically taken a very long refresh cycle with that brand, like 4-5 years. With all the glass they have, the D500 would need to be game-changingly amazing to convert a lot of people. The D500's a fine rig, but it's no world beater, so Canon will not be in a huge rush.

Further, they don't want to constantly be rolling out major releases that we are 100% expecting. Canon likes there to be schedule dead space between all the >$1,000k rig announcement/buzz/pre-orders/release/reviews to sneak in a new product line from time to time -- that's how we got the Cinema line, the 6D, EOS-M, the SL1, etc. 

So I don't expect a 7D3 anytime soon.

- A


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Jun 1, 2016)

Doesn't make much sense for DPR to review the high-end sports bodies. People buying those already know what they want and/or are locked in with lenses with their system. It's kind of like a road biker reviewing a downhill mountain bike designed to fly off huge cliffs and smashed into things at crazy speeds. Their existing audience doesn't DH bike, and those who do DH bike, are not likely to make a purchase based on non-qualified reviewers. 

I predict this thread will blow up once Rishi comes over to argue with CR again. LoL


----------



## PhotographyFirst (Jun 1, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> thetechhimself said:
> 
> 
> > Next subject... Where is Canon's 7D3? They need to go pee pee on the D500 now with an updated 80D sensor, updated 1DXII AF + 4k.
> ...



Probably not soon, I agree. Canon would have to dump money into R&D, which would hurt profits, even if they made some more sales on a 2016 7DIII. Canon seems to be the smartest camera company when it comes to putting out reliable products that have longer refresh cycles. The rapid innovation cycles of some other brands, just doesn't seem like it is going to work out well in the long term.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 1, 2016)

PhotographyFirst said:


> Doesn't make much sense for DPR to review the high-end sports bodies. People buying those already know what they want and/or are locked in with lenses with their system. It's kind of like a road biker reviewing a downhill mountain bike designed to fly off huge cliffs and smashed into things at crazy speeds. Their existing audience doesn't DH bike, and those who do DH bike, are not likely to make a purchase based on non-qualified reviewers.
> 
> I predict this thread will blow up once Rishi comes over to argue with CR again. LoL



There is value is _mapping out how they perform_, however. 

In the case of feature set, they set the bar for what is possible with a camera.

In the case of the sensor, however, oh the times they are a changin'. Gripped rigs are becoming so specialized for speed / high ISO / etc. that they can't even outperform two year old lower-grade FF camera sensors (depending on what you're shooting of course). I actually welcome the photographic testing/review/journalism sector coming to grips with this clear technological tradeoff and reporting responsibly about it.

- A


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 1, 2016)

PhotographyFirst said:


> Probably not soon, I agree. Canon would have to dump money into R&D, which would hurt profits, even if they made some more sales on a 2016 7DIII. Canon seems to be the smartest camera company when it comes to putting out reliable products that have longer refresh cycles. The rapid innovation cycles of some other brands, just doesn't seem like it is going to work out well in the long term.



It's all about profitability. The money lost from the small amount of people they would lose by putting off the 7D3 one more year (as an example) pales in comparison to the money they'd lose obsoleting a mature production camera a year too soon, from excess/obsolescence charges on already built inventory, etc.

The market is so mature for that kind of camera that no one feature or spec could smash a grab a lot of market share. It's not like Nikon has a 14 fps crop rig ready to go, or a crop sensor that's 3 stops better than the 7D2. So people will stay with the company and glass that they already own almost certainly.

- A


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 1, 2016)

*Re: DPReview Review of the Nikon D5*



thetechhimself said:


> While I'm at it, I predict a Silver being awarded to the 1DX II (if they review it), why they'll fault it I'm not sure yet, not sure they know yet...



I doubt they PLAN to fault something before using it, but I sadly wouldn't be surprised to see something along the lines of:

"The 1DX II framerate couldn't keep up with our man walking slowly towards the camera test. This is unacceptable from Canon's latest offering to the sports- and wildlife markets. The Gold-awarded Nikon D5 delivers an astounding, mind boggling 12FPS, giving it a significant leg up over Canon for even the most demanding of stop-motion photographers shooting the quickest moving subjects."

and then, eleven pages deeper:

"We realized that when doing our man walking slowly towards the camera test, we had the camera set to one-shot mode. After setting the camera properly, it worked at a passable16FPS."


----------



## neuroanatomist (Jun 1, 2016)

9VIII said:


> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-7d-mark-ii/13
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Mr. Rishi*. Paging Mr. Rishi. Where are you, please come and remind us of how DPR is unbiased. :



*Technically, it's Dr. Rishi, but only the fake kind. I can say that without rancor as I am also a doctor of the fake kind.


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 2, 2016)

thetechhimself said:


> Ahsanford, we agree on most points, the 7DIII, we can agree to disagree.
> 
> 7DIII needs no R&D, throw the 80D sensor in it, two DIGIC7s in it, 1DXII AF system in it (the D500 is the D5's AF in a crop, the 7DII is the 1DX AF in a crop, unless someone can give me a good reason why they can't, I say they can), CFAST and 4k via MJPEG output (doable vs x264/x265 which has a much higher thermal footprint). They spent all the R&D on the 1DXII, 80D and G7XII, just reuse existing tech. It's still too early in the 7DII life-cycle to your point, but, early 2017 isn't, my opinion. I think Photokina this year is too early though.



Right back at you -- nothing but respectful disagreement here.

Canon can make the rig you describe. I have zero doubt. There are simply more profitable / more 'share protective' things for them to be working on right now, like:


Protecting different aspects of their ecosystem where they may _actually_ be in jeopardy -- putting 4K in more places in the portfolio, designing an inexpensive super zoom for wildlifers, etc.
Maintaining high prices / profit margins on the 1D line, Cinema line, 5D line, etc.
Investing in a new tech advancements that many lines can use, like DPAF, anti-flicker, silent shutter, etc. have been in the past.
Carving out a new market offering, like FF mirrorless, like a budget purpose-built videocam with 4k with interchangeable lenses, like a super slick cell-phone camera module, etc.

So as much as I look forward to a future 7D3 -- and we certainly will get one -- people won't bolt if Canon doesn't make one soon. Canon will continue to print money with the 7D2 on the mature production line as long as they can.

- A


----------



## 3kramd5 (Jun 2, 2016)

thetechhimself said:


> , throw the 80D sensor in it, two DIGIC7s in it, 1DXII AF system in it (... unless someone can give me a good reason why they can't, I say they can)



Of course they can. they just have to design, proof, program, and produce at the very least all new circuit cards, assemble, write manuals for, market, package, ship, and sell a new camera, and oh, eat the loss of capital put into whatever stock of 7D2-specific parts they have produced but not yet consumed at what is likely sooner than what's called for in their strategic plan.


----------



## Woody (Jun 2, 2016)

9VIII said:


> http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canon-eos-7d-mark-ii/13
> 
> They even go out of their way to say that ISO invariance will give improve high ISO performance.
> 
> ...



DPReview is outright _*PATHETIC*_.


----------



## Woody (Jun 2, 2016)

I seriously doubt we'll see updates to 7D2 and D500.

Time will tell...


----------



## Woody (Jun 2, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> Mr. Rishi*. Paging Mr. Rishi. Where are you, please come and remind us of how DPR is unbiased. :



To be fair, DPReview tried to offer an olive branch to Canon by using the 80D to document Barney's boat building experience:https://youtu.be/C-640dtnRic
;D :


----------



## 9VIII (Jun 2, 2016)

ahsanford said:


> thetechhimself said:
> 
> 
> > Ahsanford, we agree on most points, the 7DIII, we can agree to disagree.
> ...



On the subject of the 7D3 in general, I wouldn't mind if they wait a bit. This is only the first generation of on chip ADC so it's probably not going to be their best, and at this point it's critical that the 7D3 have high quality 4K output. I expect they would move a lot of units if they could get a global shutter working, and that's definitely the kind of tech that would justify the release of a new body.
And it would let them further implement video snapshots as a photography tool, which is where the still seem to be headed.


----------



## Orangutan (Jun 2, 2016)

neuroanatomist said:


> *Technically, it's Dr. Rishi, but only the fake kind. I can say that without rancor as I am also a doctor of the fake kind.



No, actually you're both closer to "real" doctor than an MD: the word "doctor" derives from the Latin for "teacher." Most MD's don't teach (e.g. try to ask them to explain their assessment as they're walking out the door). Ph.D.'s are the "real" doctors; MDs are "surgeons" in the old-school sense; i.e., practitioners.

Oops, almost forgot the


----------



## Bennymiata (Jun 2, 2016)

Woody said:


> neuroanatomist said:
> 
> 
> > Mr. Rishi*. Paging Mr. Rishi. Where are you, please come and remind us of how DPR is unbiased. :
> ...



They had to use a camera that would actually work for the duration of the build. ;D


----------



## sasaki1029 (Jun 4, 2016)

I just read the DPR review for 1dx mark ii and D5 and believe if someone compares the DPR's review for both side by side, he will easily understand the unfair way adopted in the reviewing....

When DPR found 1dx mark ii has better low ISO DR, they said "Did Canon Catch up..." for the topic and try hard to reveal the remaining shortcoming of the Shadow pushing, but for D5, they seems change the mind and said "In fact, the D5's performance closely resembles the performance seen from the Canon 6D...", when found the low ISO DR is worse than before. 

It's clearly to say DPR try to use A7Rii to criticize the low ISO DR performance improvement of 1dx mark ii, and use Canon 6d to defend the fallback of D5 in the same means. For me, This is really the "BIAS".


----------



## ahsanford (Jun 4, 2016)

sasaki1029 said:


> *I just read the DPR review for 1dx mark ii *and D5 and believe if someone compares the DPR's review for both side by side, he will easily understand the unfair way adopted in the reviewing....
> 
> When DPR found 1dx mark ii has better low ISO DR, they said "Did Canon Catch up..."



I'd like to read that 1DX2 review very much... but I'm not sure it exists. 

Are you sure you weren't just referring to their image quality comparison page? They've definitely reported their IQ test shots, but I've not written up a proper review about it to my knowledge.

- A


----------



## ritholtz (Jun 4, 2016)

sasaki1029 said:


> I just read the DPR review for 1dx mark ii and D5 and believe if someone compares the DPR's review for both side by side, he will easily understand the unfair way adopted in the reviewing....
> 
> When DPR found 1dx mark ii has better low ISO DR, they said "Did Canon Catch up..." for the topic and try hard to reveal the remaining shortcoming of the Shadow pushing, but for D5, they seems change the mind and said "In fact, the D5's performance closely resembles the performance seen from the Canon 6D...", when found the low ISO DR is worse than before.
> 
> It's clearly to say DPR try to use A7Rii to criticize the low ISO DR performance improvement of 1dx mark ii, and use Canon 6d to defend the fallback of D5 in the same means. For me, This is really the "BIAS".


Compare 1dx2 with A7R2 for low iso DR and declare it is inferior. Compare high iso noise with D5 (conveniently ignore dxo noise measurements and pick some patch on their studio test and show superior measurements) and declare 1dx2 is inferior. Compare dual pixel AF with 80d and declare it is inferior (no live view tracking in pics). Not sure how Canon does in 3d focus compared with D5. We have to wait for idx2 full review. I think, it is very easy to predict outcome of this test. They are going to drum up superior 3d Nikon focus even though it is limited in use (check d500 review where they can not use 3d focus in their bicycle test where biker is little far from camera). We have seen this for some time. Can someone explain me what are the situations one can use 3D focusing. Based on DPR and Tony tests, looks like it is only useful for close ups. Is it true? Is it possible to track soccer ball or basketball using 3D focusing.


----------



## Larsskv (Jun 6, 2016)

ritholtz said:


> Not sure how Canon does in 3d focus compared with D5. We have to wait for idx2 full review. I think, it is very easy to predict outcome of this test. They are going to drum up superior 3d Nikon focus even though it is limited in use (check d500 review where they can not use 3d focus in their bicycle test where biker is little far from camera). We have seen this for some time. Can someone explain me what are the situations one can use 3D focusing. Based on DPR and Tony tests, looks like it is only useful for close ups. Is it true? Is it possible to track soccer ball or basketball using 3D focusing.



So, DPR failed to mention the usefulness/limitations of Nikons 3D tracking. What a surprise... Just keep in mind that it's really good. It's the best there is. It's Trump good...


----------

