Nikon D4 vs. D5 high ISO comparison, NEF samples available for download

Nikon-D5
Some more Nikon D5 sample photos (both JPG & NEF) as many readers already have the D5 in their hands:

Nikon D5 sample photo by Ole Jørgen Liodden
First, Ole Liodden updated his Nikon D5 review and he is "shocked":

"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."

Next is a Nikon D4 vs. Nikon D5 high ISO comparison from www.dragosstoica.ro. The full resolution samples are available on flickr, the NEF files can be downloaded here.

ISO 6,400

Nikon D4:
Nikon D4 ISO 6400

Nikon D5:
Nikon D5 ISO 6400

ISO 12,800

D4:
Nikon D4 ISO 12800

Nikon D5:
Nikon D5 ISO 12800

ISO 25,600

Nikon D4:
Nikon D4 ISO 25600

Nikon D5:
Nikon D5 ISO 25600

ISO 51,200

D4:
Nikon D4 ISO 51200

Nikon D5:
Nikon D5 ISO 51200

ISO 102,400

Nikon D4:
Nikon D4 ISO 102400

Nikon D5:
Nikon D5 ISO 102400

ISO 204,800

Nikon D4:
Nikon D4 ISO 204800

Nikon D5:
Nikon D5 ISO 204800

ISO 409,600 (only D5)

Nikon D5 ISO 409600

ISO 819,200 (only D5)

Nikon D5 ISO 819200

ISO 1,638,400 (only D5)

Nikon D5 ISO 1638400

ISO 3,276,800 (only D5)

Nikon D5 ISO 3276800

Dpreview also posted their Nikon D5 studio test online.

More Nikon D5 sample photos from Jared Polin can be found here (the NEF files can be downloaded here and here). The D5 at 81,275 ISO is insane:

The Nikon D5 is currently out of stock in all major US retailers, pre-orders are open at B&H | Adorama | Amazon | BestBuy | WEX Photographic | Jessops.

This entry was posted in Nikon D4, Nikon D5. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.
  • Eric Calabros

    Somebody told us here that Nikon lacks a technology Sony has already used in A7R2, which lets you have high DR at base and clean shadows at high ISO, or simply best of both worlds. Where is that tech?

    • Horshack

      That would be me. Does either ISO 51,200 image look useable to you? What your image demonstrates is that Nikon has improved the read-noise (deep shadow) noise performance for ISOs that are already unusable for all but a very small subset of imagery, and did so at a significant cost to low ISO performance. The D5 lags the A7rII by a full 2EV at base ISO and gains nearly zero for usable High ISO imagery through 12,800.

      • Eric Calabros

        The difference is that for a pro, the cap for A7R2 is 3200, but it can be high as 8000 with D5. Its not “nearly zero” gain. Unless for someone who try to justify his priority.

        • Horshack

          Not sure what you mean by cap. If you view the dpreview comparison the D5 shows very little advantage over the A7rII through ISO 12,800.

          • Eric Calabros

            Downscaled? Oh yea, but people who use these machines dont want to waste their time downscalng thousands of images they take everyday. They want pixel level improvement.

            • Horshack

              Nearly every image produced is downscaled, usually implicitly when rendered for screen or print for a given reproduction size. This doesn’t require any effort by the photographer. If this weren’t the case then print magazines would have gotten bigger every time a higher megapixel camera was released.

            • Eric Calabros

              Sorry, but with your logic Sony could never sell even a single A7S2 body, because their own A7R2 does the same job downscaled with bonus of 1 full stop more DR at base.

            • Horshack

              A7S2 is primarily marketed as a video camera, where its lower pixel count allows for full-FX sensor sampling for 4K video, something no other FX-based camera solution can currently accomplish.

            • Eric Calabros

              Oh, suddenly “different tools for different jobs” became rational.

            • Horshack

              If you can get by with 12MP then the A7S2 offers better High ISO stills performance than the D5 while also offering industry-leading 4K performance. But then again I’m not sure many would classify a video-oriented camera in the same tool category as a high-speed flagship sports body.

            • Eric Calabros

              You advocate downscaling as a promising solution to have cleaner images than what low MP optimized-for-high-gain sensors are capable to make, and somewhere else you talk about advantage of native 4k recording over downscaled one! Ok, I cant change your mind and cant fix your contradicting words, but back to your first statement where you said Nikon lacks the tech, seems even yourself admit that it was wrong. Its not about a particular tech, its about strategy, or approach. You can dislike that approach. I dont.

            • Pragmatic_NYC

              Better? It wouldn’t appear so. And the Nikon can focus, which is a bonus.

            • EvilTed

              @Eric Calabros
              I owned A7r II and A7s II and thoroughly tested them side by side with Zeiss Loxia and Batis glass.
              I down sampled the A7r II images to 12 MP and could not detect ANY advantage in the RAW images for the A7s II. I consequently traded it for a second A7r II body…

            • HF

              No, they use them twofold. Excellent DR and IQ around base ISO for landscape or whatever and downsized at high ISO for very good performance there, too, providing a quality on par with their peers. Bill Claffs ISO value, you call it “cap” is pretty high, too, for the A7rii, his values (ISO at a PDR of 6.5, his good enough value):

            • Eric Calabros

              You guys just want a A7R2 in a DSLR body. Ok I understand your needs (or emotions), but many serious action shooters out there prefer D4/D5 style of sensors. They got what they wanted, and maybe Sony give you what you want, in near feature.

            • HF

              I want both. But why not keep similar or even better D4s DR at base ISO and use dual gain technology to get better high ISO DR like in an A7s? Such a 20MP sensor in the D5 would have been the best compromise in my opinion. However, I don’t know whether Nikon possesses this technology or got it licensed by Sony.

            • EvilTed

              @HF The D5 does everything the Sony cameras do not.
              Fast AF, fast frame rate, large buffer that doesn’t lock up the camera, long battery life, excellent weather proofing, dual card slots etc, etc. Take the D5 for what it is an excellent pro camera… I keep the A7r II for what it’s good at. Hand held, travel, portraits, landscapes etc etc.

            • HF

              I was only talking about sensor performance, not the rest. You are right in the rest of course.

            • Captain Insane-O

              You sound like an upset fanboy. I’m sure those pros would take an a7rii sensor in their d5 if current tech would allow all that data to be used at 14fps.

            • Eric Calabros

              My bashing-Nikon comments are more than your total comments here in NR. Nikon should be worried about having fanboys like me.

            • Originaru

              CRYMOAR.

            • Captain Insane-O

              You have to downscale. The a7rii produces twice the mp.

              Compare the same image, not one half the size. If you “must” use a specific resolution, then the d5 will be terrible getting expanded to the same size as the a7rii. If you must use a specific size, like most people who aren’t pixel perverts, then you will be down scaling the image.

              This is why dxo stresses print over screen.

      • I’ll answer your rhetorical question… no, the ISO 51,200’s don’t look usable. Maybe… maybe, in well-lit environments where you’re trying to eek out an extra stop of shutter speed… the ISO 25,600’s could be used. But usually when I need to go to ISO 25,600, the environments aren’t that well lit.

        But good gravy, compare the the D5 ISO100 +6ev to the D810 ISO100 +6ev and even the D750 ISO100 +6ev … even at +5ev …. even at +4ev!

        It depends on what you wanted out of the D5. I was hoping they would slam the D4s and the D810 together… normalize all the specs right down the middle, and bam… there’s the flagship camera for the next 4 years. Make the sensor stack less wide, use BSI, use Kryptonite wiring, do something new… anything new… to improve the sensor.

        The D5 does lack new “sensor” tech… it features sensor and software tweaking, nothing more.

        What we have in the D5 is some kind of new third mutant camera… with great focusing and color retention abilities at high ISO… at the expense of possibly being a bit worse everywhere else. I can’t take two D5’s with me, I still need to take a D4s and a D810 if I want the best photos when shooting in unknown situations.

        • Syncope14

          Your last sentence shows that marketing won ;), since you need to buy two cameras. It would not make sense for Nikon to create a single great camera, when they can justify the need to buy two (or more). Also, making one camera that is the best under every aspect is impossible. That’s why they have many FX and DX cameras, each one with its strengths (you cannot have the 12 fps of the D5, 14 EV of DR of the D810, 50 mpx of the canon D5s and 4K video recording of the sony A7SII for 6500$). And this is actually good because every single individual has different needs.
          I think a little bit of marketing strategies (and good sense) would answer the majority of the comments/complainings on this new camera.

          • Dave_D69

            Instead of one d4s and one d810. Given he already owns those and the d810 is far less expensive your argument is flawed.

          • EvilTed

            @Syncope14 Nikon and Canon are just following Sony with the specialist cameras in a family. Why make one to rule them all when you can have two or three and convince everyone they need them all?

            • Syncope14

              Totally agree.

        • akkual

          Where, in practice, you need to push +4EV of your shot? Do you even realize how much more light that is? It means you have shot almost completely dark frame and then push it to perfect exposure. Yeah shadows? Well, if you push +4EV of shadows, you’ll get a completely flat picture. I recently shot very dark frame at ISO50 (exploring flashes) with my d750. I pushed it 3EVs in LR and it got to the point that highlights were about to blow out (and also some fine detail like hair visibly suffered, because I had not got the light of them stored in the 1st place). Only place where +4EVs of headroom is necessity is when you try to do single shot HDR crap. And if you do single shot HDR, I am going to laugh at you in any case.

          • 24×36

            Quote – “Do you even realize how much more light that is?”

            Since you’re talking about ISO value being pushed 4 stops, NO MORE light. ISO doesn’t increase the amount of light, just makes an image look brighter with the SAME amount of light. ISO NEVER adds “more light.” So unless you can retroactively add ACTUAL light, retroactively make the shutter time longer, or retroactively increase the lens opening in your shot, the answer is NO MORE “light.”

            Maybe this all sounds pedantic to you, but the notion that you can change the “amount of light” is simply ridiculous. You captured the light you captured when you pressed the shutter – it can’t be changed after that. You can manipulate image brightness, shadows, etc. etc. after the fact, but none of that constitutes “adding more light.” Neither does setting “ISO” differently in camera before pressing the shutter button, assuming all else is equal.

            The amount of light captured has nothing to do with “ISO,” it depends only on the available light, how long the shutter is open, and how big the lens opening is.

      • akkual

        Show me the display or printer that can reproduce 14 EVs of DR? I can reveal you a secret that 99.9% of those are not able to show you over 5-6 EVs of DR. 10-14 EVs of DR is only significant factor in post processing and even there the requirement would mean you made a mistake while taking the photo by not exposing it correctly. By far more photographers will benefit of 1 EV more headroom on high ISOs than 2 EVs of headroom at base ISO. Like I can push my D750 base ISO files +5EVs.. that’s going from almost full darkness to blown hilights in most of the cases. I don’t need that much headroom ever. I would take 1 EV more DR at ISO25600 or ISO51k any day and let the base ISO have 1-2 EVs less, if it requires so.

        • Horshack

          You don’t need 14EV of DR at base ISO and I don’t need 1EV more of DR at ISO 25,600 or 51,200.

    • Horshack
      • Eric Calabros

        Yes, its the most Canonish sensor Nikon ever made. and since images taken by Canon shooters are all crap and no one see them on NatGeo, we can say D5 is DOA.

        • Horshack

          DOA no, $6.5k DOA, yes, at least in terms of IQ improvement over used D4s’s selling for almost half that.

          • Eric Calabros

            You assume used body as a reliable option for serious shooters. Its not.

            • silmasan

              1) Depends on how shrewd you are when hunting at the used market.

              2) Especially useful when looking for a 2nd and 3rd body and so on.

              3) Unless you are a top-priority NPS member, it might be wiser to backup with two good used bodies rather than a single new one.

          • JJ168

            Why DOA for $6.5? It is designed for certain use. Can the A7RII track Usan Bolt doing the 100m sprint from start to finish line? It does not matter if the body have the best sensor if it can’t take the shot!

    • true

      Eric is right. D5 has not only has less noise on high numbers, but it’s also showing much more detail than A7S2 or A7R2

      http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=nikon_d810&attr13_1=nikon_d5&attr13_2=sony_a7sii&attr13_3=sony_a7rii&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=51200&attr16_1=51200&attr16_2=51200&attr16_3=51200&attr171_3=off&normalization=compare&widget=1&x=-0.5890871718209848&y=-0.8458127029367472

      This whole “downscaling” bla bla bla is only useful for getting rid some of the noise, but it wont A) get rid all of it and B) you will lose in detail significantly, and you will C) lose to a camera with native good noise performance. The downscaling arguement is old, as it assumes you will have to assume some “viewing size” at what distance / size the image will be used, and this is something that will differ from person to person (like some will prefer big prints, I prefer to see a image on full scren of a 23″ monitor @1080p , simply because thats what I currently have) .. the downscaling arguement doesn’t hold up as people will have different preferences.

    • ITN

      Well the D5 is a fast camera and one with an optical viewfinder. This limits the time the camera has to read the sensor. Fast read => limited dynamic range at low ISO.

      The A7RII should be compared with its nearest Nikon equivalent i.e. the D810. If Sony makes a high fps capable 35mm full frame camera, then the quality of the files from the D5 can be compared with that.

  • Eric Calabros

    Aldo should be happy, finally can show official evidence that his D750 is not that bad compared to new flagship.

    • Aldo

      LOL … I’m not happy… I’m pro nikon.. but people build such hype and start swearing that it is omg soooo much better *3-4 stops better.. and all they have is lcd screen shots… I mean it’s ridiculous. This is far more realistic. If it was indeed that great as people speculated nikon would be marketing the sensor more than anything as someone pointed out…. I predict the same for the d500 vs d7200… a tad better though since they went down on resolution.

      • Eric Calabros

        Not sure about you, but generally it makes people happy, because they realize their gear is not far behind. 2 stop improvement over D750 would be like a psychological bomb.

        • Aldo

          I suppose there is a tad of that in peoples minds… but we paid 2k for the d750 and the ‘flagship’ is worth three times that much. Of course it should be better… there are also folks speculating the d500 will be ‘just as good if not better’ than the d750 in low light… I mean come on?

          • BrainBeat

            I have not seen too many images out of D500’s yet but I think the ones I have seen seem to be fairly similar to what I have seen on my D750 at least at 12800. The D500 is also at least here a little more expensive than the current price of the D750 so I would not think it would be totally unreasonable to think it might be close in performance.
            In the tests above I would say there is at least 1 to 2 stops improvement in iso noise and between the D4 and D5 and so assuming the D500 is using the same technology then it should gain similar performance. That should then put is fairly close to the D750 is and justify the price.

            • HF

              It is very unlikely that you will get 1-2 stops improvement in performance for an APSC sensor. Nikon doesn’t seem to use dual gain technology and 1-2 stops would mean to have an APSC sensor overcoming the twice smaller light gathering area. Will not happen. The performance between D4s and D5 is much smaller, too. Look at B. Claffs measurements. You simply can’t judge D500 jpg files and compare them. It is simply a jpg engine comparison.

            • BrainBeat

              As I said I have not seen any proper raw photos to compare. jpg comparison also while true you can’t truly use as a ultimate comparison it can give a good indication of what is usable at least strait out of the camera. That said I am amazed that how “clean” the images I can get in jpg out of my Panasonic G7 and that is a m4/3 camera.

              One thing everyone seems to be forgetting about the d500 is that is has lost ~3.3mpx which I am sure would have to make a difference. I am not sure how much but I am sure it could be around 1/3 of a stop more light gathering. That added to whatever improvements they have made I am sure would have to be at least 1 stop better that current DX options.

              Anyway until there are proper raw photo comparisons we can’t know for sure either way. Either way I am sure it will be a camera worth buying even for FF shooters.

            • Aldo

              Im sure right now the d500 will not be close to the d750 or d610 in low light performance … as HF said the light gathering area is MUCH smaller… its not so much about technology as it is about physics in this case… its not like these ff cameras are old.

            • 24×36

              You still seem to be under the illusion that larger pixels = “more light gathering.” Light gathering is a sensor size issue, not a pixel size issue.

            • Mike

              Light gathering area, that’s a new one. LGA only works on film not digital sensors since the light density is the same on both sizes but film crystals are intertwined.

            • 24×36

              Light INTENSITY (fixed that for you) is the same on both sizes (with same settings) but (for example) FF gives you more than double the area to COLLECT that same light intensity. Hence, it gathers more light (more than twice as much).

              As for pixel size, fewer, but larger, pixels DON’T gather more light than smaller, but more numerous, pixels on the SAME size sensor, as suggested by BrainBeat above.

          • Paul H.

            Folks need to accept that the days of quantum leaps in sensor tech are behind us (at least until black silicone makes its way into cameras).

      • I will take that every day of the week as lons as they dont take away the DR on the lower isos on d500.D7200 has a great sensor, I will be a happy camper if its the same sensor in d500 with the better AF and 10fps plus the pro build.

        • Aldo

          Correct .. the d7200 has an amazing sensor already… sharper than the d750 in daylight. Anything better the 20mp sensor brings to the table is a bonus..

  • Stelios E.
  • CaMeRa QuEsT

    Is Nikon sourcing this sensor from Canon or something? Who stole my DR?

  • Marco

    The dude must be shocked for the loss of DR at low ISO unless he is planning to shoot bears at 3 million ISO. Just a hint: won’t be printable.

    • akkual

      You clearly have an idea of how much DR you actually use from your base ISO shots. I am able to do fine with my D750 up to ISO25.6k in DR wise. IIRC it’s about 6EVs. Which isn’t surprising as non of my displays are able to produce contrast ratio of 6EVs (EVs are logarithmic, 6EVs means 1:10^6 contrast ratio or 1:1000000, good luck finding one display with such.. (most are 3EVs or 1:1000))

  • The D5’s output at ISO 6400 (with those little cars above anyway), is looking a little pink to me. Less green, yes… but also too pink. Even when downloading the full size image and isolating the white bits… they’re pink. Much like comparing a D810 to a D810A.

  • bgbs

    I hope D5 DR does not trickle down to D760 and D820.

    • Ritvar Krum

      ahmen

    • D700s

      Because you don’t know what you’re talking about.

  • usa

    Nikon screwed it up! Cancel your orders!
    (So I can get mine sooner :-))

    • bgbs

      I don’t have to cancel my order since I didn’t order 🙂

  • saywhatuwill

    I’m revving up my checkbook for the DF2 with an improved D5 sensor with a microprism/split image rangefinder on the screen.

  • D700s

    Haters gona hate. I had a good time today and tonight shooting with my D5. Call it placebo if you like but I did feel comfortable shooting at 6400 and 12800 to keep shutter speed up. Did a little test tonight shooting from 100 to 25600. looks pretty good. Tried with the D4 and found a noticeable difference. Maybe a stop+ in some frames. Loving the new Auto WB. It’s very close to where I usually set Kelvin for night scenes.

  • Originaru

    Nikon gone back to non green images, thanks.

    • Duncan Dimanche

      hahahah
      i hate my d800’s greenish tint 🙁

  • RL

    This review of Ole Liodden is clearly subjective in favor of Nikon. What we want are objective reviews by independant people. What I mean is what most interests people, the low ISO improvement of a new camera. All comparisons of the D4/4s vs D5 show clearly less than one stop of improvement, and there are a few already, in truth we are talking about 2/3 of a stop improvement at high ISO, clearly not enough to buy this camera, if you have a D4/4s or even a D3s – if the high ISO improvement is what you are mainly looking for.

  • NicP

    Whats wrong with D5 at ISO6400 on the Flickr photos, Im I missing something? Is it a beta camera used?

    • NicP

      Replying to my post to add after seeing DPreview shows D5 cleaner image vs D4/D4s at ISO6400. Had enough Im more confused now, graphs and charts seems depends who’s or how is doing the tests, sold my two D4 to upgrade, I might stick with my D3 or get a D3s.

      • Federico Gallinari

        ? cleaner images?
        NEF are totally equal!! no way, just if you go over the limits, where even the D5 file is not usable for real use.
        Why they don’t use the d4s sensor? The results on DPR are very bad, DR vs…d750 are ridiculous..and even over some Canon; a lot of people think that this is not a camera for landscape (and many of them need to know that cartoons images done with last HDR are not photos but horrible painting images), but this is a sport camera….a lot of sports are done in hard light, sometimes you have backlight and you can’t use flash (not permitted), so the possibility to push shadows is very important..

        I like the new AF sensibility, I like the touch display too, and the new metering system (WB is very good)…but I’m thinking ….this is very bad news in nikon system.

  • bgbs

    Of course the sensor sounds disappointing both in DR and high ISO department. Yes, Nikon improved the ISO since it is not worse than D4s (D5 is 20mp compared to D4s’s 16mp). D5 also improved on color control at higher ISO settings.

    Don’t worry folks, as always it takes D5s to fix our gripes with D5

  • Wade Marks

    So Nikon releases one of the most incredible pieces of imaging equipment ever, and still most people on these internet comments complain. Amazing.

    Of course this is a fantastic camera, with class leading high ISO and AF performance. It adds 4k video for the photojournalist. It’s a pro tool, like all others in this line, and thus built like a tank.

    Now of course you’re not going to get massive breakthroughs with every generation of new products. That holds for every product line. Show me one product where literally every year a huge and game changing breakthrough occurs. We have gotten spoiled in our modern age such that if we don’t have our breath taken away with every product announcement we pronounce that product a disappointing failure.

    But never fear…this camera will still perform mightily, and those who use it will be delighted.

    • lefantome

      It would be a good camera, rather than a great camera (like what D3 did in its era). I’m kind of disappointed with the step back in low ISO DR performance, this is not usually seen today, especially considering the high ISO performance isn’t improved so much, and the 1DX II is said to improve what D5 decided to trade off for high ISO performance–the low ISO DR. Hope DXO data comes soon.

      Image quality (in terms of low ISO DR, bit depth, high ISO performance) are easy to measure and compare in numbers. However a camera is a combination of various performances. Hope there would be more thorough user reviews on them, especially the new AF module; still waiting to see more info from Thom about how the D5’s metering sensor performs comparing to previous flagships.
      As for now I’ll stay with my D3s for a little longer.

      • Federico Gallinari

        lefantome I have D3s and maybe it is the last real revolution camera in nikon, real step in iso declare, great body, a lot of usefull buttons…great.
        But the af sensibility was not so good…in one shot is near to be unusable…I can wait, maybe a good D4s (even if I prefer d3s files) can be a good choice now.

        • lefantome

          Totally agree with your opinion on the D3s, especially its not-so-good AF. I had been expecting to upgrade it to D5 generation but now I have to look at D4s just like you do.

          • outkasted

            Was the D3s autofocus an improvement over D3? I still think for my line of work Event photography that often takes place in low light and Sports in Day and lowlight and Concerts in low light …I think D5 might be the cats meow. Now if i do evey other Day light event or whatever I thing the D500 should suffice. Can’t wait to see what it brings to the table.

            • lefantome

              D3s was good in its era but not an obvious improvement from D3. The D5 would work much better in AF. And we basically would find it difficult to us D3/D5 at the same time as Nikon has changed so much of its button functions and designs…Only D5 and D500 would match each other.

            • outkasted

              I really dont see any difference between a D3/D4/ D4s,D3s for anything 800 iso and below

            • lefantome

              The color tendencies are different thanks to different AWB and sensor. Besides that there’s not much noticeable difference in high ISO performance. For low ISO there would some difference if you push exposure by stops or carefully look at the dark shadows because of the improved low ISO DR.The AF tracking is another story. It has been improving continuously. IMHO the biggest improvement from D3 to D4 generation is in the AF and scene recognition sensor. And this time from D4 to D5, the biggest positive change is possibly that, too.

            • outkasted

              Totally agree. I could say that AWB can be a challenge sometimes but I shoot nothing but RAW for everything. I do have challenges with highlights during some Events but only really bad if I was not paying attention to what I may have been doing. Seeing the 4 stop push at ISO 100 is a bit disturbing but not a deal breaker per se as I have every intent of keeping my D700 for as long as possible along with my D3 . Both work wonders with 70-200/2.8 VR1 and my 35mm Sigma|ART and 16-35mm|f4 which brings home the bacon…not a 24-70mm, however in the zoom range um to 35mm I find the lens awesome during daylight shooting

    • I cant remember a time when people didnt complain about not getting a camera that shoots in total darkness at an ISO of a gazillion with no noise, 16K video at 120/fps, unlimited files sizes not even limited by your card, ….. and they want to still use a writeable CD as the media storage, ….. with wireless 4G connectivity, …. that also self edits, and sends the take to the client, with an invoice, ….. What I always remember is that the 4 is better than the 3S, 4S is better than the 4, and the 5 is better than the 4S, … the ISO on the 4S is pretty insane, as well as the focus, and the 5 is better than both, …. I’ll take it, ….. you will always hear more complaints than compliments because the people that are loving it are probably more likely to be out making money with the D5 with no time to comment in the middle of the day on the NikonRumors forum. Gotta take off, have a job to do with my new D5!
      😉

      • Ray Justice

        Well said, completely agree. If you do not like what Nikon has offered in the new D5, then don’t buy it. No one is forcing you to upgrade. Heck if you don’t like the direction Nikon is going, then sell all your Nikon gear and purchase another brand and be happy.

      • Syncope14

        You naked it!

        • silmasan

          You naked it!

          Whaaattt??

          • Syncope14

            Typo.
            “You nailed it!”

            • silmasan

              Naah, the first one’s better. 🙂

  • navogel

    I read in a history book that photographers actually took pictures with the D1 back in the day… 2.7 megapixels and 1600 max iso?!? That must have been the 70s… Or 80s… I don’t know. But to work with that kind of stone age tech must have taken some serious skill and perspective.

    • nwcs

      Heck, some people used a QuickTake at 0.3MP and were happy.

    • ZoetMB

      You know what? I go back to images I took with the D70 – which was 6.1MP and a pretty low top ISO (I don’t remember what it was) and so many of those images look as good or better than what I’m shooting today with my D800. That camera really had wonderful color.

      And recently on here, a photographer posted his photos taken with a D7xxx body and they were wonderful.

      And in the film era, shooting with ASA 400 Tri-X, somehow we managed to make it work.

      • bgbs

        People managed with horses and boogies too.

        • nwcs

          People still have boogies 🙂

          • CERO

            clearly we’re defective products. We should have been improved and corrected the boogie issue in humans a longtime ago!

      • Mike

        It’s not necessarily about being able to go back. The D70 was a CCD. 6mp CCD. And lower ISOs all CCDs are great. Back then people were worried the world would end when APS-C CCDs got to 12mp based on the noise performance of 6 mp. My old D80 was barely, I mean barely usable at ISO 1250. What’s impressive today is that ISO 6000 is far far cleaner (and attainable(!)) on a D810 vs ISO 1000 on a D40/50/70. So while, yes, images from a D70 still look nice, they never didn’t. But technology marches on and we get better looking images from pixel levels that were once thought to be harbingers of the IQ apocalypse. 🙂

      • outkasted

        The D70 was a BEAST!! (I like that word i know) but with an ability to use 1/500th sec. shutter sync with flash really made it the cat’s meow. Day time shots looked a little like David La Chapelle 🙂

        • outkasted

          To be Honest I wonder If there is a niche market for CCD still? Especially if you geared it towards low light

          • 24×36

            Too expensive I think is the issue, in particular for FF – CMOS is easier/cheaper to make.

          • silmasan

            Leica left it for the new M… Phase One 60 and 80MP still good. 🙂

    • silmasan

      Must be pre-film…

  • Ritvar Krum

    so my 2 cents (after comparing this and dpreview D5 results): 1) d750 for same output is BETTER at lower isos (till 1600), but on same level at hiher iso; 2) canon must have “helped” with this D5 sensors DR… thx, Canon – NEVER do it again!; 3) 3 billion izzo (or whatever) – a thing for fanboys to boast a bout…. and they love it.

  • neversink

    I have concluded very little about IQ and DR from this and other reviews so far.
    I am concerned about the low ISO DR, but I would like to see more samples. When I return to the states I will test it, but that might be awhile. Sacrificing low ISO for higher ISO makes absolutely no sense. Nikon should have worked harder if this is the case to keep the low ISO quality.
    We all want better performance, but not compromised performance.
    Beyond this, the AF is incredibly improved, and that is a big deal. So is 4K video for those who care. I don’t. I still say get a dedicated video camera for video. It’s designed to take video, and is more comfortable for video. DSLRs and video are just awkward to use, particularly handholding.

    • akkual

      Ask yourself a question: “How often do I move the “Exposure” slider all the way to right (+4EVs) in LR?”.. if you say “Never”, you’ll be completely OK / won’t notice difference with the DR that any modern DSLR produces at base ISO. Yet, with D5 you can actually touch that slider even on ISO51.2k shots and give it +1EV nudge and still get good quality, where as on many cameras you can’t.

      • silmasan

        That is fine and all. But just because you don’t need it, doesn’t mean that everybody else has to agree with you, ‘k? For example, I’m glad for D810’s highlight-weighted metering mode, because I often care more about the upper tones rather than the shadows. According to you that’s probably closer to “crap” than “correct”.

        Btw, there is this thing called “curve”, that’s IMO a more sophisticated tool than “slider”. But I’m sure you already know it.

      • Curtis

        You don’t need 4 stop pushes to notice the extra dynamic range. As someone who came from Canon, the extra low ISO dynamic range is noticeable in you every day processing. You end up with cleaner images when you need to push the shadows or pull back on your highlights. There is also a noticeable difference when you switch from a D3s and the D4, so it’s disappointing to see the D5 revert back to D3s levels.

      • It’s a base system of measurement that can be applied evenly and quicly to all sensors of a common size to visualize dynamic range… and not something you would do in real-life.

        Not to put too fine a point on it, but I have yet to see an ISO 51.2k shot from the D5 that comes close to what I would call “good quality”.

    • silmasan

      Of course, “hybrid” video/DSLR makes a whole lot more sense in a smaller, lighter form like D750. I mean, vertical grip? Really… 🙂

      • neversink

        I can see using some DSLR video for a few shots, but for a full documentary or show or film, you are much better with that dedicated Arriflex….

  • PabloNY

    409600 ISO shows 65535 ISO on fliker?

    • nwcs

      They may only use a 2 bit unsigned integer in which case it would be overflow to show 409600 so they revert to a max unsigned 2 bit value which is 65535. An understandable issue as before a 2 bit int would cover every possible ISO until recently. It does make a difference in optimizing databases as that space gets used very quickly. They’ll probably increase the field size to 4 bit and forever eliminate the issue.

  • outkasted

    Irfanview has always been an industry standard Beast of a program. Done Well.

  • outkasted

    Mercy not gonna lie i’m wondering why Nikon even went with this ultimate hi -iso chase and sacrificing on the low iso end. I wonder if this is Nikon tech sensor (Rensas) or another brand. I dunno since the D3/D3s I have not been that impressed…although D4s definitely is a worthwhile upgrade from say a D3. But like i stated before that for this camera to sell like gangbusters that there had to be a clear separation over the D4s but in no way be worse than it. The D3s did that to the D4 and it was the main reason I lost interest in a D4. I would like to see what the low iso comparison is like over a D3/D3s vs D4, D5. I will stay tuned. I mean the angry photographer guy (Theolopi…) cancelled his order of the D5.

  • Back to top