Nikon D5 - first impressions

[Frank Fremerey]

Akira. Did you download the full size to compare?

Auto WB is a bit candy style in the D5 shots, more neutral
with the D600. I very strongly feel there seems to be some
PostProcessing in the RAW with the D5 files, also true with
the D500 files ... in that sense the D600 files are "rawer".

I hope for some good light outdoors this Monday.

I plan to set up a more standardized test with the lens
screwed to a tripod. Exactly the same focus and the like.

With family etc it is not easy to spare time on a weekend.
Much easier to steal an hour from my workday.

I will take the 4.0/200 Micro for that purpose.

[MFloyd]

Yesterday night, I had some concert pictures to take with no stage illumination and at about 9:30 PM. Everything with a D5 and Nikkor 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6:


ISO 40'000

ISO 51'200

ISO 81'250

Moderate noise reduction within Lr. Some pictures are cropped.

What surprises me is the color rendition at such high ISO rates.

[ColinM]

Yesterday night, I had some concert pictures to take with no stage illumination and at about 9:30 PM. Everything with a D5 and Nikkor 28-300mm f/3.5-5.6:

What surprises me is the color rendition at such high ISO rates.

And what ISO settings did you use?

[Akira]

Akira. Did you download the full size to compare?

Auto WB is a bit candy style in the D5 shots, more neutral
with the D600. I very strongly feel there seems to be some
PostProcessing in the RAW with the D5 files, also true with
the D500 files ... in that sense the D600 files are "rawer".

Now I downloaded and examined the full size JPEGs, but my observation hasn't really changed.  The color of D5 images are more saturated, but look more artificial.  Also, I observe some halo artifact in the BAD GODESBERG image by  D5.  D600 image of BAD looks a little less sharp but instead no artifact and seems to offer plenty of details potentially.

[Frank Fremerey]

I will upload some RAW files after I finished the test.

In Mfloyds shots I already see the typical NR artifacts the 5th gen cameras produce.

In bad cases it looks a bit like plaque or badly administered "Camouflage" makeup.

I will use the "flat" profile and see is the profile has an influence on the RAW preprocessor
that seems to produce some harshness even in ISO 100 files.

As you say Akira. D600 files seem to be softer but more detailed at the same settings.

[MFloyd]

I will upload some RAW files after I finished the test.

In Mfloyds shots I already see the typical NR artifacts the 5th gen cameras produce.

In bad cases it looks a bit like plaque or badly administered "Camouflage" makeup.

I will use the "flat" profile and see is the profile has an influence on the RAW preprocessor
that seems to produce some harshness even in ISO 100 files.

As you say Akira. D600 files seem to be softer but more detailed at the same settings.

Frank, herewith a dump of the RAWs to a dropbox, so you can make a more thorough analysis:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/kspvd6wq7dfi0s0/_D502009.NEF?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/3f4anvpts849ugb/_D502017.NEF?dl=0
https://www.dropbox.com/s/vhzcfrjh05er7ei/_D502018.NEF?dl=0
 

[MFloyd]

And what ISO settings did you use?

They are indicated below each picture.

[Frank Fremerey]

I took a series today. Lens mounted to tripod all NR explicitly switched off.

 I also took the Colorchecker Passport target with each camera in the same light so calibration
can be done by you if you like to use another RAW converter than NX-D.

I will upload the RAW files later

[golunvolo]

Those ISO values are ridiculous 

[Frank Fremerey]

This morning I went birding with the D5 and 300PF. Much to do today. Post files tomorrow.

[Frank Fremerey]

Now I have to send her back. I will not miss her. She is very similar to my D3 and I do not need this kind of camera anymore.

A D600 in such a body with current electronics WB and AF. That would be something.

The high ISO capability is fantastic. State of the art currently.

I must say. The D600 is still my favourite although the D500 is real fun to use and I am getting better utilizing her.

[MFloyd]

..... I must say. The D600 is still my favourite although the D500 is real fun to use and I am getting better utilizing her.

I also have a D610, which I will keep probably: it has an excellent sensor; the AF coverage, though, is not suited for action photography. I hear excellent comments about the D500, but I don't see any reasons to "go back" to Dx format; the latter, essentially because I'm thinking 24x36 mm for about 40 years now.

[Frank Fremerey]

Here are my test shots plus calibration:

D5 (rose) http://fotokontext.de/ZENTRALKRAFT/LVZ_7416.NEF
D5 (calibration) http://fotokontext.de/ZENTRALKRAFT/LVZ_7427.NEF
D500 (rose) http://fotokontext.de/ZENTRALKRAFT/DNX_5633.NEF
D500 (calibration) http://fotokontext.de/ZENTRALKRAFT/DNX_5643.NEF
D600 (rose) http://fotokontext.de/ZENTRALKRAFT/ANP_1696.NEF
D600 (calibration) http://fotokontext.de/ZENTRALKRAFT/ANP_1707.NEF

All taken at 1/160th of a second f=8 All with same lens on same tripod in same light, Lens is Ai-S 200mm Micro Nikkor f=4, all ISO 100 ... ups I just see that I accidentialy must have hit the ISO dial on the D500. Sorry



Here are my development of the 3 files. With no other enhancements the D5 seems the hardest, the D600 the softest, the D500 in between. Color deviation is gone after I set all three cameras "picture style" to "neutral; sharpening = 0".

My current working hypothesis is, that the settings in "picture style" somehow influence the RAW even if all these settings are later taken back and neutralized in NX-D. Can that be or am I on a wrong track?

[Ilkka Nissilä]

I've been fine tuning my lenses with the D5 using the automated feature. It seems very reproducible (STD about 1) between instances of repeated LV focus + AFFT operations with the same lens and focal length. However, my 24-70E and 70-200/2.8II give about ten points different readings at the short and long focal lengths, so a compromise value needs to be set. I recommend repeating the auto fine tuning several times and using the average as a working starting point for the fine tune value. I find it seems to work quite well and haven't had to adjust these values based on real world shooting so far.

My test conditions have been using the Lens Align target (larger than normal version target, added on top), about 50x focal length shooting distance, window light indoors during the day, to make sure shot noise doesn't affect the result too much.

I find the AFFT feature is very helpful.

In particular, my 300/4 PF with TC-14E III and TC-20E III required significant fine tuning (7 and 13, respectively) whereas the bare lens is close to zero.

[Frank Fremerey]

Thank you Ilkka!