Ilkka,
the data Bill used for the D5 were coming from the one production camera I had access to over the weekend. As I have more than 30 different Nikon D-SLRs I've done the RAW data collection for Bill in the past accross the whole range and quite a few of the other Nikon DSLR measurements in his tool are based on these files.
For this camera, I sent Bill 3 data sets.
1) D5, set to 14bit lossless NEF
2) D5, set to 12bit lossless NEF (Bill has different values for 12bit, but this also served as cross check to the 14bit data set)
3) D4, set to 14bit lossless NEF (for crossreference, quality check of the setup used for this run)
While he is
reasonable confident that the data is what it is, we agreed to re-run this exercise when I get my own copy later this week. Just to have more data points.
wrt to the emerging discussion about the "low" DR at low ISO levels the D5 provides:
1) We have to confirm with more datasets that this is indeed a pattern of the D5 camera type, and not only this particular sample
2) As many have stated previously, we are approaching fast physical limits (i.e. growth in quantum efficiency), so there will be trade-offs to be made in optimizing for a particular use case. Like the Nikon D810 is optimized for very high resolution and high DR at low ISO, it is not the tool for fast, low light circumstances. The sweet spot of the D5 might differ, but it can't be the champ in all corners of the potential usage spectrum a large customer base has.
3) The "merit" of the digital world is, that Nikon doesn't only has to rely on interviews and customer surveys what their users do, they can analyze millions of images of their target audience and actually see what people do and how their tools are being used for. What if (hypothetically), most D5 target users used the current generation cameras in JPEG mode only? (because speed of the workflow is of paramount importance, like in sports).
4) Or the professionals who work for Reuters have to comply with the
JPEG only policy for photo journalists? Other news channel might mirror this as well. And Nikon basically optimizes the design for this world, where their users have to accomodate these emerging requirements?
5) It has to bee seen, what the addition of 4k video functionality contributed to the seemingly lower ISO DR performance. What if video has a much higher priority on the list of requirements Nikon heard from their core customer base, vs. superior DR at low ISO?
6) We don't know yet what Nikon has in their sleeves for a D810 successor. It might be the greatest camera for landscape shooters anybody could wish for. Nikon would probably not object if people would buy 2 cameras - it's called business strategy
7) We hadn't had a chance to compare the D5, D4 and D810 in such a particular scoped test. Will need to be done anyway to measure visible impact and outcomes. Would not be the first time, if internet folklore treats some individual measurements as the biggest issue on earth and most wouldn't even see anything in their results.
8.) Starting with the D3 and then proceeded with the D4, the D5 shows again a different pattern of (higher frequency) noise stored in the NEF files. Need to be checked, what the Nikon engineers decided to design in this regards and how it impacts different scenarios and workflow options.
9) An example how others see it: a quick comment by
Iliah BorgMy personal approach:
Like you, stay "calm", look at it with curiosity when more info is available. But this is no different as with the other technical factors were the D5 behaves a bit differently, like WB consistency, exposure consistency, color fidelty, etc ...
In the end, a camera consists of so many interdependent components that a holistic view might be the most appropriate. It's the total "package" what counts.
rgds, Andy