Nikon D5 - first impressions

[Erik Lund]

Nikon Nordic stated verbally that the IQ in the Df was better than the D4 since they didn't have to' bother' with the video circuits in the Df

[stenrasmussen]

In the Facebook group "Nikkor Lenses" there is a japanese photographer (Ichiro Taniguchi‎) that has tested both the D5 and the 1DxII:
"admittedly, the AF speed of the newer VR model is faster on the D5, but all i can say is this, when i compare it to the 1DXii, it hits focus 9/10 times where as the Canon only has a 6/10 success rate in focus lock, not to mention that the D5 can focus in near pitch black and still lock"

[Andy]

Tech comparison of Canon 1DX2 and Nikon D5 by reader cgarcia at fredmiranda:
http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1421475
Please note the non-zero vertical baseline in the graphs - increasing the visual appearance of the "gap" between the 2 rather seemingly similar performing cameras (for this test).

First impression by Brad Hill (Blog entry from March 28th, 2016)
http://www.naturalart.ca/voice/blog.html

rgds, Andy

[Ilkka Nissilä]

At dpreview Rishi comments "I personally tend to think that if you care about DR, you care more about lower ISO DR (which, when higher, allows you to preserve highlights under even high ISO conditions by purposefully using lower ISOs). Whereas if you care more about high ISO image quality, you probably care mostly about the SNR 18% at high ISOs."

This is totally backwards as far as I'm concerned. High ISO is often used at night, in extremely low light which typically is artificial light, is often very contrasty (incandescent bulbs, candle light, spots etc.) and finally produces a colour cast that usually needs to be corrected and may be quite difficult to correct. High dynamic range at high ISO is very helpful when this correction is to be made without the introduction of unpleasant coloured noise.

Low ISO is often used 1) in the studio, where you can control lighting contrast so you only need a certain amount of DR, 2) when photographing landscapes and other static subjects in bright daylight, where you can benefit from the high DR  - to a point. But a single high DR image with contrast managed in post processing is still much worse in shadow image quality than a properly exposure blended image made of images captured at a range of exposures, if the scene is static enough to use multiple exposures. In my opinion the low ISO DR is moderately useful but relying on it is not the best way to manage high contrast scenes unless the scene is in motion in which case blending may introduce discrepancies that may require some additional work (and consideration). Many of the best landscape photographers in the world have been using Canon DSLRs for years, without so much of a problem. They like their TS-E wide angle lenses and are easily able to work around the DR  limitations of their sensors. In high ISO  action photography you cannot use exposure blending really, and because the signal to noise characteristics in low light high ISO work are not so good to begin with, all the improvement that can be achieved in high ISO including dynamic range is welcome.

The D5 isn't the camera that would be chosen for landscape. It is expensive, relatively low resolution and mainly designed for high speed. Thus making a sensationalistic headline to an article regarding the D5's low ISO DR is just bad journalism, it's what one would expect from an evening tabloid.    Making a headline based on something else would have been more appropriate.

[bjornthun]

At dpreview Rishi comments "I personally tend to think that if you care about DR, you care more about lower ISO DR (which, when higher, allows you to preserve highlights under even high ISO conditions by purposefully using lower ISOs). Whereas if you care more about high ISO image quality, you probably care mostly about the SNR 18% at high ISOs."

This is totally backwards as far as I'm concerned. High ISO is often used at night, in extremely low light which typically is artificial light, is often very contrasty (incandescent bulbs, candle light, spots etc.) and finally produces a colour cast that usually needs to be corrected and may be quite difficult to correct. High dynamic range at high ISO is very helpful when this correction is to be made without the introduction of unpleasant coloured noise.

Low ISO is often used 1) in the studio, where you can control lighting contrast so you only need a certain amount of DR, 2) when photographing landscapes and other static subjects in bright daylight, where you can benefit from the high DR  - to a point. But a single high DR image with contrast managed in post processing is still much worse in shadow image quality than a properly exposure blended image made of images captured at a range of exposures, if the scene is static enough to use multiple exposures. In my opinion the low ISO DR is moderately useful but relying on it is not the best way to manage high contrast scenes unless the scene is in motion in which case blending may introduce discrepancies that may require some additional work (and consideration). Many of the best landscape photographers in the world have been using Canon DSLRs for years, without so much of a problem. They like their TS-E wide angle lenses and are easily able to work around the DR  limitations of their sensors. In high ISO  action photography you cannot use exposure blending really, and because the signal to noise characteristics in low light high ISO work are not so good to begin with, all the improvement that can be achieved in high ISO including dynamic range is welcome.

The D5 isn't the camera that would be chosen for landscape. It is expensive, relatively low resolution and mainly designed for high speed. Thus making a sensationalistic headline to an article regarding the D5's low ISO DR is just bad journalism, it's what one would expect from an evening tabloid.    Making a headline based on something else would have been more appropriate.

One of those workarounds is to shoot Canon TS-E lenses on Sony A7R II with the Metabones electronic Canon to Sony E mount adapter, due to the higher DR of the Sony sensor.

[Frank Fremerey]

Thank you Ilkka.

The study of sensor characteristics might be purely academic. Yet there are people who enjoy it anyway.
That does not necessarily be tabloid style. Misinterpretation of facts can always be in the eye of the beholder too.
Finding the facts and discussing them does no harm per se.

[MFloyd]

I couldn't agree more than with Ilkka's comments: I'm essentially an action photographer, often taking pictures from small planes where I have often to put, into one single image, the cockpit and the landscape, something impossible to match with a single picture with regard to DR; HDR with high speed bracketing is the solution I'm using. On the other side, I'm also making landscape photos where I'm applying the same technique if I'do not have a tripod.  So, lower DR for the D5 is not of a major concern to me; even if it proved to be true. By the way, I still haven't received my long time expected (and paid) D5, but I'm confident that I made the good choice.

[richardHaw]

People forget about poor events photographers like me

Where ISO100-3200 is the most important for us  

Its gonna suck if that is the case, Nikon is a "expose to the left" brand as far as im concerned, unlike canon and fuji where the reverse is true. This might cost a shot or two.

[Ilkka Nissilä]

So at events, use a D810 for the ISO 100-1000 stuff and D5 for 3200-12800.

In any case an event photog would need backup camera bodies (1 minimum, 2 preferred) so it is ok if the different bodies have slightly different optimal use scenarios. It can be used to advantage.

[Andy]

Ole J. Liodden updated his earlier D5 report - he was one of the Betatesters of the D5.
http://oleliodden.com/photo-gear/field-reviews/beta-test-report-nikon-d5/

quote:
UPDATE 27.03 2016: Today I installed the new Lightroom and Camera RAW software supporting the Nikon D5 camera and I could finally view the NEF-files from the beta testing September-November 2015, and I’m shocked. The image quality at ISO 32 000 is not as stated below only “promising” but very, very good. The sharpness and low noise at ISO 25 000+ is better than I could see in the jpg-files. The test report below was written in mid January when I only could view the JPG-files. All exposures were done in NEF + jpg format.

rgds,
Andy

[Andy]

The D5 introduces a new category of lens compatibility - seemingly a long list of 1st generation VR lenses are impacted.

Please find below the excerpts of both manuals: D4/D4s (left) and D5 (right). The category on "Incompatible Accessories and non-CPU lenses" is identical.
Many of these lenses aren't that old, so people might be concious about this compatibility issue if they use these lenses.

Don't know how to read the sentence in the section "VR lenses": "We recommend turning vibration reduction off, when using other VR lenses"
Read literally, no VR lens should work with the D5. Gee, then my D5 seems to be faulty - it worked with VR lenses ....

Andy

[Andrea B.]

.....marred by fog?

What in the world does that mean anyway? VR causes some light leak?
This is very strange indeed.

[Andy]

Did a quick check, to check for noise patterns with long time exposure at decent ISO levels - just to see and understand the pattern.

I did a 30 second exposure at room temperature, no lens on the camera, cap instead, viewfinder closed where possible, dark room.
ISO set to 12.800. 3 cameras: D5, D4, D750

Basically all 3 camera have very low noise levels, potentially not seriously impacting in these condition image quality. Basically 3x dark frames with very low noise levels.
 
Just for visualization: Raised exposure compensation by + 3 EV with NX-D, NR=off, saved file to 1200x800, high quality
If someone is interested in downloading the NEFs <click here>

Interesting to see the patterns. My interpretation:
1) The D4 has "balanced" red and blue chroma noise, amp glow on the left side of the recorded frame. Some horizontal banding.
2) The D5 has a rather red dominated chroma noise, blue noise is lower. The amp glow is on the right side of the frame
3) The D750 has the lowest noise level at this setting. Amp glow is on the bottom of the frame. Some horizontal banding.
(I did longer exposures as well, where the amp glow was much "better" visible)

rgds, Andy

1) D4, 2) D5, 3) D750

[Ilkka Nissilä]

Electromagnetic interference between the VR system and the sensor?

[Roland Vink]

The list of incompatible non-CPU lenses is pretty standard (although the serial numbers given are not entirely accurate)

The VR lenses are not recommended for "long exposures", where VR is of no use anyway ...