Setting new standards: Nikon D5 Review

Nikon listens to its customers. If there was a large outcry to get those childish flippy screens they'd be there already. There may come a time when even the Pro cameras end up sporting this useless junk but for now I'm happy that Nikon isn't putting them on everything so I don't have to pay for something I won't use. To B Marsh: Useless and unwanted(by the majority of Photographers) features like video, flippy screens, and built-in wi-fi are the reason why you and I have to pay so much for our equipment. Camera manufacturers are trying to cater to the youngsters with all this junk and serious photographers are the ones who have to pay for it.

@bartnoel
so defensive, D5 is the flagship camera and advertised to be ubiquitous, yet with base ISO DR and iso invariance inferior to the D3300.

Nikon D5 has best dynamic range above 1600 ISO. Lowest noise. AF is best on the market. Metering is outstanding. Results are stunning. Photographers are raving.

But Nikon has no defences against the source of most measured noise—that of tireless squabbling fanboys on photographic forums.

I'm sure everyone would wish that the low iso dynamic range of the D5 is as good as other Nikon line up. But, i'm also very sure nikon know what they are doing here to chose high iso performance over low iso DR. It seems like with today's sensor technology, there are still compromise that we have to live with for a while, it's such ashame. However, consider the application of the camera (all about speed), this could be the right decision for the targeted user. If speed don't matter in the type of photo that a person do, then getting this camera is a waste.

@Alex Velasco
Rave as much as you like, yesterday I took this random picture with my A7RII:
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/7479542344/photos/3461309/dsc00780
and the D5 would have sucked at it. I take pictures every day that the D5 would suck at.
Facts are fact. Stop being a fanboy. Nobody questions how good the D5 is good is in virtually everything. Yet not acknowledging some basic limitations is childish.
As a fact the days of such cameras are over for anyone bur hardcore sport photographers. I shot a full wedding last weekend with a 1Dx and a A7RII side by side and 1% of the pictures submitted were from the 1DX. If I had a D5 instead of the 1DX odds are it would have been more or less the same ratio.

Then it is clear the D5 is not for you. No hard feelings. Let's move on.

@armandino: I have the A7rii, too, but I know its limits. It is perfect for landscape pictures, for example, but that's not the target market for the D5. If you are as smart as you try to imply, you should know that. The A7rii performance is nowhere close in responsiveness and speed to the D4s I used a few times for weddings, too. Use the right tool for the right job. Knowing the performance a 1dx delivers, my feeling is you need some practice mastering it?

@RamboTan
@HFLM
Oh boy, the toughest part seems to convey opinions, here. I never implied that the A7RII competes with the D5. I have only been bringing up the D5 Achilles' heel. I have owned all Canon 1D series so far so I do appreciate the qualities of a pro body.
However, it is a fact that if the D5 construction, speed, and extreme iso performance, are not needed, the A7RII is likely to surpass the D5, because of the IQ, IBIS, EVF, light weight, silent shutter, tilt screen, wifi, discreteness. That is why I generally have the A7RII in my bag with the 1DX, which I have as a backup for the toughest situations, but, honestly, unless I am shooting sports, it stays in the bag.
HFLM, maybe you need to master the A7RII capabilities instead? A7RII is nowhere close in responsiveness as you say, however it is is plenty responsive for most situations. While Nikon/Canon pro bodies, honestly, it is all they have to offer, the A7RII has all the above to work more creatively and less intrusively.

you do not need a Ferrari to drive on the highway

@Lea5
ISO variance worse than any other current sensor, even the 80D. If you do not care that is fine, but you would expect more from the flagship. ISO invariance is one more feature that can make the difference in many situations. But you probably do not even know what I am talking about. Inform yourself before making arrogance fireworks.

ISO variance at base ISO. these machines built for high ISO.

"FOR AN AVERAGE CAMERA" that shoots 12fps with the world's best AF system.

Nikon puts its best sensors in the D5500 and the Df, neither of which are flagship cameras. At the high end, other stuff comes into play.

ISO invariance is, in essence, "expose to the left". It's the latest fad of the same people who were espousing "expose to the right" two years ago.

@Lea5
"Only pixelpeepers, brickwallshooters and gearheads look at DXO. Professionals do not care about measurebating, they are generating money with their tools." In all other professions, people aim for the best tools for the job. Or the best tools for the money. But a photographer who cares about the performance of his tools is "a measurebating gearhead amateur"? You make less than zero sense.

The NX1 and Fuji X-Pro 2 are both great cameras, and I very much enjoy them both, but I can guarantee you with almost 100% certainty that people are not cross shopping those cameras with the D5. And has been covered in the review, pushing many stops on the D5 is going to result in noisier images than getting your exposure correct in the first place.

Cross-shopping with the D500? Maybe, but that depends on what you're shooting. In low light, the D5 handily beats it and the other cameras you're referenced as well. That's one reason why this camera exists.

" Ppl won't consider nx1 as an alternative to d5. They should, but they won't."

You're joking, right?

Of course not. You pay 5x less and you have a great camera for 15fps shooting at 28mp with the above exposure pulling capabilities. And much better 4k video, of course.

Try the nx1.

Your comparison is obviously ridicolous.

Just as a curiosity what lenses would the high end sport and nature shooters the target market of the D5 be using on the NX1 { a near dead system I might add} Nikon have lenses covering from 14mm – 800mm along with a selection of teleconvertors. There are also numerous options available from third party manufacturers. The only fast telephoto in the NX system is I believe the 50-150mm lens with an effective focal length of just 225mm.

If you were a low ISO only shooter and did not mind joining a dead system the NX1 is a damn good camera but even for you this post is beyond silly.

@tecnoworld: Amazing, how relentless you are defending the NX1 and implying it to be an alternative to a D5. Both have totally different design goals in mind. Pulling shadows 6 stops is not a design goal for a D5 at all, especially if images (often jpgs instead of raws for sport shooters) are send to the client within half an hour. It makes of course sense to shoot thousands of images and pull 6 stops from base ISO? Stupid idea if you are at 1/2000s-1/4000s and use f4 to f5.6 tele lenses indoors or in dim light. Your base ISO will certainly not be ISO 100. And then the D5 will be class leading in DR at those ISOs (http://www.photonstophotos.net/Charts/PDR.htm#Nikon%20D5,Nikon%20D500,Samsung%20NX1
). Not to mention the AF, which will certainly not come close in a NX1.

I've looked into face recognition in order to try to catalogue my pictures. With the current crop of softwares, the person has to practically be facing the camera straight on (approx 30° left or right, 15° up or down) in order to correctly identify a person and the lighting must be good. So this was a no go for my dance photography.

Sony cameras already do that more or less. Indeed if you have multiple faces you can register the face priority on that. Additionally Sony cameras have eye detection, so rather than picking the tip of the nose or other facial features it is very successful in tracking and focusing on the eyes. Unfortunately the AF is not as fast in tracking fast moving subjects, especially if moving toward or away from the camera, but for general use it is very fast and accurate.

Clearly, you have no clue.

I wouldn't take this DXO thingy too serious anyway.

If one is going to use measures to complain about low DR at lower ISOs, then one should acknowledge high DR at higher ISOs.

I know people dismiss DXO, but at least it is a quantitative measure. It's a starting point, so long as you don't get lost in the numbers. Which is where people are going wrong by ignoring the D5 sensor's tremendous performance above its baseline ISO.

Heavy sigh

Armandino and Peter62:

Even clearer: A photograph taken ABOVE ISO 1600 with the Nikon D5 will give the BEST RESULT of any camera tested by DXO to date. The best noise AND the best dynamic range. You get: 14 bit images with FAITHFUL and SUBTLE COLOURS, deeper shadows and brighter highlights acquired under difficult lighting conditions.

Nikon engineers, in this instance, clearly knew what they were doing by making prudent choices within the constraints of the technology.

@ Carey Rose

Don't let them break you. I have to remind myself in this day and age of digital photography non-creators rest their laurels on specs, rather than a body that's capable. Especially if none of their photos are printed.

In this instance the D5 is a more than a camera, it is a tool to fit a Artisans needs that works to a particular standard. That isn't to say it isn't for the general public(last I checked GREEN is good everywhere), but it truly is designed for a working professional.

@Alex Velasco

As I stated above:
"One of the main objectives of ISO invariance is to shoot at low ISO and to apply a strong nonlinear tonal curve in post with (non linear and local amplification rather than a uniform and global amplification via ISO number) :
1) Much increased DR
2) Lower noise in highlights and midtones as they are amplified to a lesser degree.
For instance, assume you have a scene you are going to shoot at ISO 3K.
Instead you can shoot it at ISO100 or, to say ISO400, depending on the circumstances. When applying a tonal curve and local adjustments only the shadow and darker midtones will see a ISO 3K signal boost, while the brighter areas will have a 100-1000 ISO noise range, and you are also protecting your highlights"
The D5 is a very powerful tool, yet I would not pick it myself for this very reason. Unless for shear speed in sport photography. Shooting Canon for years I am well aware of the limitations of an ISO variant sensor.

Armandino. That is new a technique that few professional photographers use because VERY few cameras have ISO invariance (including your Canons.) Pro photographers will occasionally underexpose by 1 or 2 stops to avoid clipping highlights. Taking photographs that are so underexposed that you cannot visually verify the exposure is too risky. Imagine, you cannot even check focus! Therefore experienced photographers will always set the ISO and exposure that is appropriate to the scene, and visually verify the image. It's faster downstream, there is less post-processing and more certainty.

Make it a best picture challenge, most pros love a good challenge. Have the Nikon pro use the Canon and the Canon pro use the Nikon for the challenge. Both will want to win so I'm sure they'll come away with great photos and have different take always on what they liked and didn't. In all honestly they are not that different that someone that is that well versed in a dslr wouldn't be able to use well after 15-20 minutes of tinkering with setting up buttons and menus the way they like. Even if I grabbed someone else's D4s I would still need a few minutes to set things up or at least check how that camera is set up and adjust.

I agree with Carey's thinking.

@pkcpga, do you doubt any of the two cameras is able to perform on pro-level?
Your idea wouldn't prove anything but the two cameras taking superb images in the hands of professional photographers.

I agree with you.

As I hinted at, I think people will be surprised how similar the two cameras really are minus a few company quirks that someone might like or dislike. But the test will hopefully stop people from claiming one system is so much better than the other. And that it's easily possible to take great shots with either system as a pro.

I partly agree with Carey that having pros shoot for comparison, will probably yield some results on their personal preferences. But this is also very valuable stuff to take in - the pros have their shooting preferences but they also have experience what makes an excellent all-round pro body.

It should not be about creating conflict between the two top-notch makes but rather comprehensive comparative real-life exercise and feedback sharing from the ones who shoot action on regular basis. I would love to know from firsthand why some pro picked Nikon and other one Canon? What do they like/loathe about their current cameras? What do they think after shooting with other brand for some time? It would be more personal blog-interview style post than minute measurement of DR of some other technical stuff. We know now what is in the clock, and now we want to know how is to wear them and what time is? :)

Lower DR at lower ISO values, yes. The real story here, and indeed the purpose of this camera, comes into play at a minimum of four-digit ISO values.

@Peter62

No it isn't.
Low ISO DR is not as good as D750 but high ISO DR is reference, probably the best available for any FF body.
Add 5D MK3 and Ideal FX (reference) to your chart and then come back and tell me it's a joke.

I've owned the 5D MK3 and the D750 and hated the D750.
From it's dinky plastic body to it's tiny buffer to it's 1/4000s max shutter speed to it slow FPS, need I go on?
I didn't even like the IQ out of it :(

The 5D MK3 is probably the most used body by professional photographers World Wide and you are telling me that they cannot make a living with this camera because it's DR is a joke?

Think of the D5 as having the IQ of the 5D MK3 with blazing fast speed, unlimited buffer depth and the best AF around and you would be better.

I LOVE mine and can speak from real experience, not from reading charts or listening to Internet BS.

Ted the d750 does 6.5 fps has a buffer size of 15 raws and the 5d mk3 does 6 and has a buffer size of 13 so you should hate the Canon in these regards
So It's good to read the Internet BS

Quality photography is made at low ISO! And here, the D5 is 2 EV (!) worse than the D750. From ISO 1200 and up the D5 is better.

But shouldn't a flagship camera be good at every ISO, especially (!) at low ISO?

So, it is a joke (and a disaster)!

@Peter62 - Calling the D5 a 'disaster' is a bit over-the-top, as is implying that low ISO values are required for 'quality photography.' You're definitely entitled to your opinion, but asserting your preferences as objective facts when it comes to a subjective medium such as photography seems a little unnecessary.

Also, Nikon's recent flagships have all lagged behind D750-level models in this vein, at least according to these measurements. The real takeaway here, I think, is that for a lot of people's photography, 12-13 stops of dynamic range is probably enough. And for those that need more, the market has options.

Here's another link to your earlier graph with other flagships added.

Not sure it's as necessary today since the NBA and NHL both switched to LED lighting and outdoor stadium lighting is either halide or LED now. Even my children's school switched to LED, so strobing or blinking lighting with high shutter speeds is not as common today as a decade ago.

Take note Nikon ^ ! Run-of-the-mill portrait photographer needs better DR on a 12fps camera!

Sometimes a book "How do I improve my skills in photography" are a better and cheaper solution than a expensive 12 fps "portrait" camera. It won't give you that skills. If you have talent and passion, a simple D300 or 7D does the job. I do not understand this DR fetish. No I don't.

@Teila Day - You can care if you want to, but most people buying this camera are buying it for a specific purpose and know its limitations. This isn't meant to be an all-round general purpose camera.

Futurewah, I know what these cameras are used for. I own/been shooting the pro-brick digital bodies for over a decade. It's meant to be well-rounded fast shooting body that has attributes that can be used professionally in many facets of photography. People like me buy camera's for an intended purpose narrow in scope, however quickly learned that attributes such as DR and *video* make differences that affect time in post & increased revenue.

Lea5, "skill" is a wonderful thing, however it doesn't trump "business" and doesn't address limitations that increase processing time and lesson one's ability to reduce steps in post. What required 2-3 steps and or compositing in post using a 5D3 requires nothing of the sort when I'm using a MF CMOS back. Likewise, the time to get the shot using daisy chained packs-n-strobes and a 1Dx is an entire world apart from using slower bodies. 1-2 takes vs. 3-5 and multiply that by multiple clients and my slower bodies often cost me money.

FastGlassLover, DR benefits me whether I'm shooting single frames, or 3 fps using a MF CMOS, or if I'm shooting a gymnast action portrait at xx fps using strobes / hot lights + ambient. There's an irrefutable benefit to having more DR irrespective of what camera is being used. DR is an added attribute that does what "correct exposure" often can't. Save me time in post whether I'm shooting a client's 15 y/o son playing soccer or the daughter gymnast (portrait in motion to be printed on canvas).

We shot with cameras with much much lower DR and the images got printed for advertisements, or got published somewhere. DR is just one little part. There is more in creating an image.

@Lea5 - Yes I know, but this is a new flagship model with a clean sheet sensor design by Nikon, the DR should of been class leading like it is on the D500.

They are class leading where it matters. When you look at the pros from this review, anything whats on the left from the conclusion is, what buyers from a D5 need. DR is still good enough. My 1DX is good in pulling up shadows, but not very good in bringing back highlights. My D4 was they way around. Any Nikon I had was not very good in pulling up shadows (got noisy), but excellent in bringing back highlights. I expose different with my Nikons and different with my 1DX and even with my A7RII.
I wished my D4 or 1DX could be better on very high ISO, for shooting at concerts for example, where sometimes I have to go at 25600 to shoot with a higher shutterspeed. When the singer or guitarplayer jumps around the stage in dim light. The D5 can do it brilliantly and I think the 1DXII too.

Not sure that's a founded comment for the 1d and d5 since DCN reports about equal sales for both cameras. Canon certainly sells many more non pro apsc dslr than Nikon but at the top of the range they are pretty equal.

I know you're making a joke, but i'm pretty sure the lenses are white because white reflects the sun while black absorbs it, making the lens easier to handle when you are in a situation that requires you to be out in the sun for long periods.

Spot on.

Why did DPR take 2 years to review the D810? There's bias!

Our EOS-1D X Mark II review is being worked on as I speak - the D5 was done earlier because Nikon sent us a camera earlier. No bias here, but let me know if you have any questions about our scoring system. I'm also assuming you've thoroughly read the review before commenting, of course.

Because people buy a D5 for DR. XD

You must be a very successful Product Development Manager.

this is the first Pro FX Nikon we've reviewed since 2010 too. Not sure how that fits your narrative but I'm sure you'll find a way.

I thought DPR was meant to be pathologically Sony-biased. Maybe they're just anti-Canon?

It's a cliche (because i've said it so many times): we are biased towards good cameras and against bad ones.

Useful limit or no, I don't think there are lower noise shots at ISO 25,600 out there. I'm very impressed by the high ISO performance.

According to the comparison chart, the D5 tied the 1D MK IV at 89%, not bad for a 6 year old Canon. Maybe there isn't any bias?

@johnschafer - actually we never did a full review on the D4s (a 'first impressions review' is exactly that - it's what we used to call a 'preview' with a bit of analysis, but far from a full review). We tried to do the same thing with the 1DX when it came out (in 2011) but Canon wouldn't let us keep it for more than a few days.

Anyone who decides to buy a D5 over a 1Dx Mark II only because of this review (coming out first) is pretty much a fool for doing so. Both the D5 and 1DxII will not disappoint though, but which one you would choose would likely not hinge on a DPR review.

If there was a big bias towards Nikon vs. Canon you wouldn't have had Barney's cool 80D video (sponsored by Canon).

I'd like Nikon to release a new 'D900' prosumer FF with all the added capabilities of the excellent D500...that would be my perfect DSLR!