Nikon D5 detailed specifications: CF and XQD versions confirmed

Update: the D5 is now officially announced.

Here is a new, more detailed set of Nikon D5 specifications (the official announcement should be tonight around midnight EST):

  • Two D5 body types: D5 XQD-type and D5 CF-type
  • New 20.82 MP CMOS sensor
  • EXPEED 5
  • 4k video
  • 153 AF points, 99-point cross sensor, F8 corresponding 15 points
  • Continuous shooting (continuous shooting up to 200 frames in 14bit lossless compression RAW): 12 fps in the AF / AE tracking
  • Continuous shooting speed at the time of the mirror up to 14 fps (AE / AF fixed)
  • Highest ISO: 102,400
  • Extended sensitivity Hi5: ISO 3,280,000
  • 3.2-inch 2.36 million dots LCD touchscreen
  • Memory: card slots: D5 (XQD-Type) is double XQD, D5 (CF-Type): double CF
  • Shutter speed: 30 seconds to 1/8,000 sec
  • Finder coverage: 100% (FX), magnification: 0.72x
  • SuperSpeed ​​USB (USB3.0 Micro-B terminal)
  • Battery: EN-EL18a
  • Weight (battery and media included) D5 (XQD-Type): 1405g. D5 (CF-Type): 1415g
  • Shipping starts in March, 2016

Via Digicame-info

This entry was posted in Nikon D5 and tagged . Bookmark the permalink. Trackbacks are closed, but you can post a comment.
  • Moose1414

    So if i am understanding correctly: The D5 shoots 4k video but only for 3 minutes at a time. The D500 shoots 4k video for a useful 30 minutes but is a 2.2x crop.

    So you can’t get a decent wide angle view on the D500 but the D5 comes to the rescue by shooting 4k in the full 1.5x DX sensor crop, meaning you could use DX lenses on it to achieve wide fields of view.. but for 3 minutes only?

    Is video really that hard in 2016 that Nikon simply can’t do better than this mess? Are these compromises at least made in the name of realising better looking video?

  • Erwin McCormick

    How would the Nikon d5 or d500 low light capabilities compare to the sony a7sii low light performance?

  • psv

    yupiiiiiii, a 500 coments post 🙂

  • psv

    hum i wonder , how am i going to introduce a D500 at my home,
    i think i am going to put a sticker on saying that i refurbished my D7200

  • TheMeckMan

    So when they say Nikon developed sensor does this mean the same thing as “Apple developed” when it’s really a Samsung. More to the point is this still a Sony sensor. I ask because Sony sensors have proven their DR and exposure latitude capabilities. If this is a Nikon sensor I won’t preorder let alone replace my D810/D7200 until I’ve seen that it is on par with the “last generation”

    • PhilK

      It’s not a completely either/or scenario. Nikon seems to have had a hand in the design of a variety of the sensors used in their digicams over the years, though the only one that they may have actually participated to some extent in the actual production itself was the proprietary LBCAST sensor that was used in the old D2H/D2Hs models.

      Particularly on the higher-end flagship cameras, Nikon appear to always have some kind of hand in the design of the sensor used, if only in some cases making some relatively minor design changes to a standard part to accomodate their application and technical requirements. But I think their involvement typically is somewhat more than that. In fact I think it’s quite possible that some of their technical input during the design phase of future products actually contributes to the improvement of mainstream sensor parts sold by the sensor manufacturer to other customers.

      Regardless, I don’t think I can remember a time over the last 10 yrs or so that Nikon has not made truly useful sensor/camera performance improvements with each generation, and have consistently maintained the “Nikon look” from product to product and generation to generation. Surely that is no accident and not a simple thing to accomplish, especially when you do not control every aspect of sensor design/production.

    • Michiel953

      You do understand the difference between “developing” and “manufacturing”, and everything inbetween?

  • PhilK

    I think it’s very dangerous thinking for a company like Nikon to just assume that they “cannot change” something critical which may be hindering their competitiveness.

    This has gotten the company in trouble a number of times, in particular at times when Canon ended-up leapfrogging them in the professional photographer market. Canon’s willingness to “make the jump to new technology” put Nikon on their back foot in the pro market starting in 1987 when the EF mount was first released, and particularly after the EOS-1 appeared in 1989. I’d argue that Nikon has been on the defensive ever since, in the pro market. (Don’t get me wrong – I love the fact I can use my old AI lenses on new bodies without an adapter – but by the same token I think that also holds them back in some ways.)

    Something seems to have changed recently tho – perhaps the decline in the silicon lithography business (now dominated by a European company at the highest levels of that business) and the decline of the point-and-shoot market has lit a fire under Nikon management to charge hard on their core DSLR products and swallow a bit of pride in the pursuit of that. So they seem to have started to listen more to user demands, and have started copying a variety of tech that Canon has had for years, to stop the competitive gap from increasing. (Electronic diaphragms, fluorite telephoto elements, new silent stepper AF motors, better video functionality, adjustable LCD displays, diffractive optics, etc etc)

    • jenxrj

      I apologize for the length of this post, but here are my honest thoughts:
      Copying rivals? Well if that’s what needs to be done to keep their customers happy, then so be it. I for one see it as evolving with the market and adopting new technologies which better the experience of the end user.

      As far as the 24-70 VR is concerned, there are certain advantages to this design. Though max center resolution is slightly lower, it has VR and the image quality is better all round, lens handling is still excellent, its works better with the hood since its a reverse zoom ie. the hood effectively becomes smaller as we zoom out, the hood attaches to the main shell, so it won’t put strain on the zoom mechanisms when the camera is placed on a surface with the hood on. I’m sure pros who work in the field with bodies like the D4 would appreciate this more than you think. Since I am not someone like that, I too feel that it should have improved on center sharpness as well. But I also know that sharpness isn’t the be all and end all of lens design. I guess they’ll figure something out next time.

      As far as the mount is concerned, I really don’t think you understand. Nikon was primarily a glass manufacturer. The F-mount has so much glass made for it, that by the 21st century, more than a handful of manufacturers were using the F-mount including Canon.
      Here are a few others to name a few:
      Ricoh, RED, JVC, Kodak, Fujifilm, etc.

      Like I said, they were primarily a glass manufacturer, they must’ve done their research before they finalized the F-mount. I figure that’s how they could work around the constraints of the F-mount while designing lenses for different systems; either that or it must be that Nikon engineers were willing to face the challenges. Unlike Nikon, by the time the EFS mount was introduced in 1987, it was already their 4th mount. They also went ahead and introduced EFS, ditching inter compatibility for the 5th time, I mean you can’t use EFS in the EF mount, not that you’d want to or anything, its just that its not even an option due to the different flange distances and how it could damage the mirror. Dx lenses on the other hand work perfectly fine with Fx bodies. eg) 35mm 1.8g.

      If anything, I feel that its more dangerous for a company to ditch a mount because they didn’t plan on adding a different functionality in the future. They should have thought about it, and dealt with the difficulties instead of changing the mount every time something got difficult. It may have put them on the forefront of technologies initially, but Canon users could have enjoyed using a lot more glass especially those who cannot always afford the new lenses. A lot others who invested in Canon glass were also ditched along the way. If anything, I applaud Nikon for not ditching their customers. They also seem to have caught up perfectly well with the advancements made by Canon in this regard, which is nothing short of an amazement considering how old the F-mount is.

      Another practice I detest is the way Canon impairs bodies in order to put some distance between their products. Like how they hampered the AF and metering system in the 5D III when the 1Dx and 5D launched together[though the AF module was the same, it lacked the dedicated AF/AE processor in the 1Dx], and how they put a crappy 9pt focusing system in the 5D II when they had much better tech available and so on. Such decicisions kinda limit your ability to capture the perfect shot even though you paid more than a couple of thousand dollars. You can clearly see the difference in Nikon’s approach with launches like the D3 and D300 & D700, D4 and D800, and the D5 and D500. I feel that things are changing bit by bit though, I mean there would be no cheap Canon full frame, if it were not for all those D600 rumors. And the 7D II has got a some nicer features than usual. This would not be the case if it were not for Nikon, Canon clearly feels the need to protect its userbase and in doing so, it shows that it is willing to change these practices. Let’s hope this continues to the point where they are willing to change their current sensor tech to better compete with Nikon and other rivals.

  • Back to top