SenScore posted their Nikon D5 test results

SenScore posted their Nikon D5 camera test results. The D5 got a top score of 1170. Here are the best performing cameras for comparison:

SenScore's conclusion:

"Nikon's latest full frame low-light sensor cannot match the previous generation's excellent noise performance, but in every other aspect, it manages to improve on its predecessor. However, the moderate improvements are somewhat disappointing for a new generation flagship camera. Obviously, a camera is much more than just sensor performance, but the fact that this is the best sensor Nikon can offer 4 years after the launch of the D4 is worrying all the same. Still, the D5 is a great camera and the new #1 in the database."

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

    Canon is pretty behind… but thought D800 was better than D4 in dynamic range, resolving etc… Am just waiting on D900…

  • Guy Swarbrick

    So how worried should Nikon be, given that it has six cameras about Canon’s latest flagship – one of them four years old…?

    • Chris

      I dunno. I am heavy Nikon user but from time to time I think as long as Canon’s 5d4 is practically usable, I am willing to switch due to cheaper and better lens.

      • Spy Black

        What “cheaper and better” lens are you referring to, the 24-105?

        • Lan Jay

          I agree with Chris. I am at the same condition. Canon makes better lens than Nikon in almost every focal length. The only reason I won’t choose Canon is infamous Dynamic range. Now the 1DX2 seems to catch up in DR. So if the 5D4/7D3 get fair DR performance, I’ll shift to Canon system for sure. Also, you can get the he best landscape performance with the best lens when using a7r2 with Canon lenses. So the only point I’m waiting for is the update of 7D3 , ’cause 7D2 is far behind the D500 in bird photography.

          • Eledeuh

            > I agree with Chris. I am at the same condition. Canon makes better lens than Nikon in almost every focal length.

            But you didn’t answer @spy_black:disqus’s question either. What lenses exactly ?

            Nikkor f/1.8 primes are stellar *and* cheap, recent telephotos are all outstanding, even recent zoom additions are at the very least on comparable level to Canon’s equivalent offerings (and AFAIK, the 24-70 f/2.8E is better than its Canon counterpart if you consider the whole frame, not just center performance).

            • Chris

              24-70/L II, 70-200/L II, 100 macro, 85L , 135 L.

              I can keep going. L lens are made in Japan with lower price tag than Nikon’s. Some even have fluorite element.

            • Derryck Welas

              The 20/f1.8 and the more recent 24/f1.8 are stellar full stop!
              i dont know if nano coating is what gets you this level of exellence. i think the decision to add NC correlates more to “the basics” of the design beeing worth it in the 1e place.

              It is true most gold ringed Nikkors have NC but i dont know , it’s hard to believe Nano Coating contributes more then 1 % for the final result dont you think?

            • Eledeuh

              24-70, 70-200 and 85 don’t really fit in there. If that f/1.2 is so important to you just switch, the Nikon F mount won’t handle it (however it handles decades old lenses).

              The other two are a matter of opinion, I seriously contest the idea that the difference is worth a system switch.

              f/1.8 primes are a balance between affordability and performance. The nano coated ones are pretty much competitive/superior to the 1.4 versions, while the non-coated ones trade a bit of IQ for a lower price. “Not too impressive”.. ? I mean, yeah ? At that price point ? It can’t compete with a Zeiss Otus or the like, and that’s by design.

              It looks like you get hyped a bit too easily if those are your actual examples.
              At this point both systems are very solid and any difference in performance for one lens will be offset by other parameters in the big picture. Jumping ship “because better lenses” is really bullshit, as of 2016.

            • Brett A. Wheeler

              D4s is still a full stop or more, better than anything Canon can offer. Nikon 1.8 at ISO 6400 = Canon 1.2 at 3200. The D5 is of course even better than that!

            • NicP

              here we go again, how the above mentioned Newer lenses are better than Nikon, better sharpness Yes but better overall quality in image Nah…

            • Lan Jay

              Seriously, there’s no other example that’s worse than 24-70E when it comes to sharpness.
              Just go and look at the DXO profile filed test.
              The 24-70E VR is no way better than 24-70Lii at corner and center at ALL focal length. It’s not even better than the Tamron counterpart………………
              Also, It has been rated as the worst lens in 2015.
              Canon lens, Cheaper, NO. Better, Yes.
              I agree that Nikon’s recent prime were pretty good. But for telephotos 200-500, dont forget Canon has already got a decent 100-400 several years ago. 200-500 is just a “catch up”. And Nikon doesn’t have 85 F1.2, 16-35 f2.8 which can use UV with beautiful sunstar.

            • Eledeuh

              I’m not going to waste my time with this post, it’s so out there it’s really not worth it.

              Half or your examples are either cherry-picking (thus irrelevant in the big picture), inadequate (100-400), or at least completely opposite to what I’ve seen (24-70).

            • Thom Hogan

              Well, if you only accept tests on 36″ flat charts at close distances, I might agree with some of what you wrote. But frankly, I suspect that most of those telling us how bad the new 24-70mm E is have never used one.

            • Brett A. Wheeler

              DxO is garbage, don’t waste your time.

            • lobo33

              DXO, garbage ? Don’t waste our time Brett !

          • BlueBomberTurbo

            The 1DX II can barely hold its own against Nikon and Sony’s crop sensors. Don’t get your hopes up.

          • waterengineer

            Canon making better lenses. That is funny.

        • Cheaper no, better yes.

          • Spy Black

            I freelance in a studio where they shoot with Mk IIs and IIIs and mostly 24-105 and 100mm macro. While the macro is a nice lens, the 24-105 reminds me, in a different fashion of course, to the 24-85 Nikkor. Both are lenses that have no business being called lenses.

            I also occasionally retouch various other projects, mostly shot on Canons, with a variety of lenses. I fail to see this “better” image quality that you speak of.

            The reality is that Canons and Nikons are 6 of one, half a dozen of another. They’ll be some great Canon lenses here, they’ll be some great Nikon lenses there.

            It’s a fantasy that one manufacturer has all better lenses than any other.

            • Mark Bernhardt

              Hey you just hurt my feelings. I like my 24-85 and while it has limitations, it only cost my $140 used and is great as a walk around lens. I wouldn’t say it should be used for paid work and it certainly shouldn’t be compared to flagship lenses.

            • Spy Black

              At $140, you don’t have to feel hurt. πŸ˜‰

            • “It’s a fantasy that one manufacturer has all better lenses than any other” That is very true. But the new nikkors generally are heavily reliant on in camera or post processing to correct the lens faults. Also new canons are overall all rounders which is more to my taste than center performance like nikon is designing most of their lenses recently. I just hope they design more lenses like new 24-70 vr which is more of a uniform performer compared to the older one. Come to think of it, D5 follows the same idea.

            • Nikon1isAwesome!

              Kinda’ weird agreeing with Spy Black…..

            • nostatic

              Pssh. Both the 24-105 and 24-85mm are very good lenses. Reviews support this, so I don’t know where you get off claiming they’re crap. Maybe you judge lens quality by price tag.

            • Spy Black

              I judge a lens by the image they produce, not because “reviews support this”.

            • nostatic

              Right. And in doing so you should say so, because what you see is not necessarily fact.

            • Spy Black

              I work with these lenses all the time in a production environment, I see exactly what they can and, more importantly, what they can’t do.

      • Brian Siu

        Canon glasses have a age old problem-the color fringing
        Even though the top of the line

  • TheMeckMan

    These results contradict DxoMark especially on DR. Not saying the D5 isn’t a top contender, but the D750 is not that far behind the Df in sensor performance but this would have you believe that it’s in a league of it’s own by comparison. You certainly don’t get that from the DXO results. Yet another meaningless sensor benchmark; I’ll stick with DxO given their scientific basis.

    • LMAO

    • Spy Black

      Because neither Senscore nor DxO clearly outline their testing criteria, you’re simply being the pot calling the kettle. We’re simply used to seeing DxO’s numbers a on a regular basis, so they may appear to be more reliable. They are certainly a useful guide, but I think you need to look at a variety of test scores to get a decent overall perspective on a given piece of gear.

      • You could try taking a picture with one of them as well.

        • Spy Black

          Well, I’m referring to research done for a given product. The proof is always in the pudding.

          • Well, I’m just a f*&%in’ smart a$$, you know…

    • BlueBomberTurbo

      DXO is terrible. They mainly base their “scores” on the top chart numbers in each category, and give significant weight to resolution. What happens in the rest of the chart doesn’t have much effect. The D810 has better IQ (DR + high ISO noise) than the Sony A7R II, but DXO still ranks the A7R II above because of resolution. Little things like that heavily skew the results in an unrealistic manner.

      • El Aura

        I am not sure what you are if you think that DxO is giving weight to resolution (unless you think cameras should be all compared at 100%).

        • BlueBomberTurbo

          Why would you give weight to resolution? The big deal about high MP sensors is that you can print bigger and crop smaller. 100% viewing is just as relevant as it has ever been.

          • David

            You can give weight to resolution because for a given output size, more pixels masks noise. I don’t think 42 vs 36 is enough for it to apply, but 36 vs 16 (D810 vs D4/Df) does (and possibly even 36 vs 20).

    • ITN

      Senscore give equal weighting to the whole ISO range whereas dxomark score is to a large extent (2/3) based on the base ISO image quality. IMO dxomark results contain a lot of errors lately, results that are largely inconsistent with user results and inconsistent with their own data as well; hopefully they will soon retest and correct their results.

  • brian valente

    I’m confused by senscore – they list D810 as #1 studio camera with score of 1039 in 2014, and then they list Canon 5DS R as #1 studio camera in 2015 with a LOWER score of 1008… a year later!

    • Eric Calabros

      We cant even be sure what they mean when they use simple words like Number and One! let alone their score system.

      • Zenettii

        It is not particularly difficult to work out if you spend 30 seconds viewing their score table. Just consider what a camera mostly used in a studio requires. does ISO matter so much compared to resolving power… Nope. The tonal range scores higher in the canon too. Just need to look at the badges and it even tells you what that badge requires to be claimed.

        • Eric Calabros

          aha.. “color range” is not that important for studio then

    • Spy Black

      …and where do they get that noise figure?

  • AlphaT

    But the Canon has more FPS !!! Oh wait …

  • DLynch

    Clearly a Nikon board and I guess since the D5 flopped on DXO Nikon needed to publish this. FYI- I shoot Nikon.

    • Eric Calabros

      Nikon board and yet say this? “the fact that this is the best sensor Nikon can offer 4 years after the launch of the D4 is worrying all”

  • Max

    I’m completely confused now. I thought that the d5 sensor compromised dynamic range in favour of better noise performance. Now senscore says the opposite.

    • Glen

      DXO tests DR at base ISO. I assume Senscore must use some other metric that takes into account the DR at higher ISOs, in which case the D5 does increasingly better compared to other cameras as ISO is raised.

      • Captain Megaton

        DxO measures DR at all ISOs. But I guess the weighting must such that the DR score depends more or perhaps entirely on the low ISO result. (This seems sensible to me…)

  • ShaoLynx

    Hey, Canon is way behind.
    What? No DXO-bashing on SenScore? πŸ˜‰

    • jstevez

      Nikon user here and I don’t give a f$%# about these scores, if one needs this info to choose a system better get a new hobby.

      • ShaoLynx

        Just for the record: I’m a Nikon shooter myself.
        I like it that Nikon has good scores all over.
        As for me: when deciding on a new camera I like to look at these scoring systems to see whether they find some flows.
        I waited for the DXO score on the D800 (back in the day) before buying it, and I’m quite happy with my Df as well.

  • Andoz Krishnadas

    actually they arent so contradictory to dxo …. they kind of say the same thing but in a more simple way (that appears contradictory at first glance) – let me explain… in dxo there is a detailed sensor test … the scores like 97 for the d 810 or 88 for the d5 are the results at the base iso… when u look at them in detail u see that the d5 beats the d810 past iso 600 in terms of dynamic range so the scores in dxo mark are ideal scores at base iso for which they are absolutely correct … and sescore is a more average figure over the native iso range of the sensors. – maybe this graph illustrates better than my explanation – have a great weekend nr πŸ™‚

    • Jonathan

      The problem with SenScore, is DxO. People simply don’t understand enough about how DxO rates cameras. They look at the (absolutely worthless) scores which, as you correctly stated, are the BEST for a particular metric. For instance, if measuring an f/1.4 lens, the number they report for Pmpx is (not only sensor dependent, but also) certainly no average across the aperture range, and it may also not be wide open. It could be at f/2. Then compare another 50/1.4 on the same camera, and it’s highest “score” for Pmpx may be at f/1.8.
      So, while DxO provides incredibly valuable data, their “scores” are absolutely f’ing worthless. It makes me want to cry when I see websites (this one included) citing scores from DxO. Especially an overall score (bleh!!!!).
      Thanks Andoz for the VERY CLEAR explanation!

      • Andoz Krishnadas

        ur absolutely correct especially with lenses , but as it stands dxo is incredibly popular and unfortunately its upto them to take the initiative to make a more representative scoring system …. but they probably wont – since most consumers myself included (until a few years ) just take these values as absolute … and keep jumping systems and changing lenses when we save up – which after all is what they all want (most of my canon buddies moved to nikon…).
        but for the more geeky they do provide detailed graphs and data that explains their score for each attribute at different values …. but their overall scores its really worthless coz no one is going to stick to f2 iso64

      • El Aura

        You are right, the problem is that people don’t understand enough how DxO is rating things … and this includes yourself (which apparently doesn’t stop you from expressing an opinion on them).

        It really isn’t rocket science to look up the definition DxO provides for their scores. The P-Mpix score is a weighed 2D (ie, over the area) integration of the full MTF curve at the f-stop where this values is highest, ie, it shows the best effort a lens can achieve.

        Then there is the DxOMark [lens] Score which is grading lenses on a scale: For example, an f/1.4 lens that achieves wide-open the same resolution as a f/1.8 lens will get a higher DxOMark Score (because achieving the same resolution at f/1.4 is a greater feat). But a f/1.4 lens could also be lousy at f/1.4 but great at f/1.8 (and beat an f/1.8 lens there). It might then achieve its DxOMark Score at f/1.8. Said differently, DxO has created a ‘resolution’ target value for every f-stop and focal length (and sensor) and then compares every lens at every measured f-stop against that target and depending on how much better (or worse) it is at every f-stop it gets a DxOMark Score assigned at every f-stop. And the f-stop where it exceeds the respective target the most is the one that is listed as: ‘Best at …’.

        • Jonathan

          so… because I didn’t bother to go into detail, I don’t understand it? Got it.

          • El Aura

            You seem to criticise people that express an opinion about DxO scores without fully understanding them. And then you turn around and do the same. That was my point (not that you don’t understand DxO in general).

    • Herman Au

      your reply explained nothing but Thanks for the graph which explains everything πŸ™‚

      • Andoz Krishnadas

        ha ha , graphs and photos what would i do without them πŸ™‚

      • Duncan Dimanche

        he explained it fine… maybe you just didn’t understand what he said… you could be a bit nicer I would say. have a good day

        • Herman

          Relax Duncan. It’s meant lightly as a joke and he understood it’s meant to be a joke.

          • Fox sweN Lies

            There’re persons from all over the world reading this website, the ‘light joke’ is a pathetic excuse on your part, also you have NO idea OP understood it to be a joke.

    • Captain Megaton

      Broadly there are two kinds of sensors used in Nikon dSLRs recently, the “straight line” D6x0/750/8×0 type which have really good low ISO performance and “rolling off” D4,D4s,Df,D5 type which have really good high ISO performance.

      A site like Senscore that only provides aggregate scores taken over the full range of ISOs obscures that important detail. You’d get the impression that the D4 sensor is better than the D600 in every way for example, when, at ISO below 6400 the reverse is generally true.

      • Andoz Krishnadas

        you are absolutely correct but i would say the performance threshold is about iso 2000-3200 depending on light range in the particular scene or even lower if colored lights are involved (800-1600) . but in lower iso your straight line sensors ( ** i love ur terminology – reminds me of a straight six ** πŸ™‚ )are better and generally make superior studio and landscape cameras at a lower price point. // reference cameras are the d610 and the d4s

        • Captain Megaton

          By the way I agree with your assessment that the exact crossover point is not well defined. All I wanted to highlight was that there is such a crossover and senscore isn’t very useful because of that.

  • Looks like they went for better performance at high ISOs, which makes sense considering the target audience is people shooting action that have to accommodate fast shutter speeds. I don’t imagine many people are putting these on tripods and shooting landscapes at ISO 100 with these.

  • Aldo

    One thing is for sure… people have no idea what they really want in a camera.

    • Perfectly stated.

    • TO-DOUG

      There are 7.4 billion people on this planet. Could you be more specific? That is, are you talking about all of those people? Or maybe you mean all photographers? Or possibly just those who use advanced cameras? Or could people just mean you?

      • Duncan Dimanche

        hahha well put To-doug

    • Fox sweN Lies

      BS. people DO know what they want, they buy, plan on keeping it a long time or sell it and get the latest one. I already have what I want and happy as all sheet for my primary subject matter using Nikon FF. The newer ones are not that much better then the model I decided to be plenty good enough. Also I got an ‘older’ gen at pretty good price. IMHO Small incremental increases are the new norm at this point in the game.

  • sickheadache

    All dez computations …my head hurts.. I need to lie down, I really got a sick headache coming on..Frank…More Vodka.

  • catinhat

    They are all good IQ wise. Hardly makes any difference anymore, it is all about other features and personal preferences now. And about good glass.

  • Lindayzz

    couple of things you can take form these “tests” that are so lets say random summer weather in UK… 1) D5 is no sunshine – there is been lot of compromises to back up that “3million iso” – “thx” nikon we really needed that 3 million; 2) these tests must conclude on a good note, even thou their own metedology hows avarage at best – they will prais a product no matter what – because they are kind of paid – they are not paid, but if they start to give out negative or mediocre reviews, then manufacturers wont send them products to review next time – so they will be jobless – so kind of paid after all; 3) there is so many variables in these tests that no metodology can determine what camera is better at all… one thing I am disapointed about all these tests D5 in 2016 – is that none of these test do not provide any realistic measurement even for one metric – lets say only ISO – this table all over the place – D800 better than D750; 1D mark II on a 5DSR level D5 like 25% worse than D4S… I stopped there… you know what – I will be better of to just walk in store, hold in hands few cameras and ask a sales person (a 19 year old underpaid dlsr noob) what he thinks I should take

  • Tommy Brown

    I like my D4s. Its is good to me. My test are the results after settings are in place. So many test, so little time…stop the madness! lol

  • Brett A. Wheeler

    ??? The D5 spanks both Canon and Sony’s flagship cameras in almost every category but it’s not good enough… reminds me of the 1980s when Bill Walsh used to berate the 49ers if they only won by two touchdowns.

  • MattfromNikon

    Great results and on par with the scores from DPreview, Imaging Resource and even also DXOMark to some extent.
    Senscore and the PhD team does a fantastic job.
    The ISO performance list makes actually a lot of sense in terms of high ISO print quality at any reproduction size.
    The Nikon pro bodies have the best high ISO print quality performance
    and the top-8 list is as follows:
    1. D4S
    2. Df
    3. D4
    4. D3S
    5. D5
    6. D810
    7. D800E
    8. D800

  • Back to top