Traveling and paragliding is what I used to love. But now it's my boy.
Would have been the absolute perfect travel camera for both video and stills if it had a tilting LCD and ND filter.
Bill Ferris: Meanwhile back in the real world, photographers who actually use cameras and lenses to make pictures they sell to earn a living are blown away by the D5.
@arbux. You really don't seem to understand the concept of subconscious bias and conflict of interest do you? Why do you think medical trails are all double blind studies where the observer and the subject are both unaware of the treatment? No matter how "professional" or "objective" someone is, there is always the potential of bias toward the hand that feeds you.
There's always the potential for conflict of interest in any paid for trips. But the extent of bias has a lot to do with who has the most to lose or gain.
In DPR's case, since you guys have built a reputation for being fair and objective and have the largest user base of any photog site, it's in Nikon's interest to continue giving you access to these cameras and trips no matter what kind of review you write.
OTOH someone without the same financial resources or user base is more dependent on these paid for trips and therefore can't afford to write a very negative review as it would jeopardize similar trips in the future.
Wow, kudos to Panasonic. Their performance for price is unparalleled. We are getting so close to the ideal m4/3 camera.
If it a higher res EVF and mic input this would be the perfect camera.
raztec: Historically, in terms of image quality, the D5 will mark the beginning of the end of the DSLR. I don't see a HUGE advantage to the D3s, D4s, DF etc.
Now let's see what the AF performance is like as that could jolt this dying breed back to life.
It wasn't meant to be cryptic. Just an observation and a prediction.As for the DF, I haven't looked through that viewfinder, but I can't imagine it's significantly better than that of the D810 nor anywhere close to the viewfinder of an FM2. Next time I'm in a camera store, I'll check it out though.
Bill3R: "Yellows and skin tones tend to be greenish". Not one portrait in the sample gallery to demonstrate this "con".
Look at the image quality page and the model's face in jpg.
Finally a RX100iv competitor. Now it's just a matter of choosing zoom range vs. a faster lens.
But it would be nice to have a feature for feature, head to head comparison.
No fanboy here. I still use my D300s and LX7 the most. I prefer optical viewfinders, but of the FM2 variety, which is far bigger and brighter than anything with AF.
I'm not biased one way or the other. It's just obvious to me that with each generation of camera, DSLRs are offering less and less compared mirrorless when you take into consideration the cost and size penalty. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to see the writing on the wall...unless of course, the AF is significantly better. But then the Nikon 1 shows that it won't be long before DSLRs lose their advantage there as well.
Now if manufacturers gave us a manual focus digital FM2 like DSLR, with the huge split prism optical viewfinder, I'd be all over it! The engaging experience of framing a shot through one of those is worth the size and weight in my opinion.
Historically, in terms of image quality, the D5 will mark the beginning of the end of the DSLR. I don't see a HUGE advantage to the D3s, D4s, DF etc.
Alphoid: I am distinctly underimpressed, albeit unsurprised -- there's a tradeoff between zoom range and IQ. I kind of hoped Sony got around it, given the spectacular IQ of the RX100 series, but it doesn't seem to be the case.
I don't care much about sharpness, and actually not even as much about ISO. For me, it's about overall aesthetic. None of the images were actually all that pleasant. It's hard to tell all the reasons why, but certainly unpleasant flare and bokeh have something to do with it.
In many of the images, but certainly not all, there are very harsh highlights. And the bokeh leaves a lot to be desired.
But what do you expect of a small sensor or superzoom lens?
raztec: Meh....It's still a 1" sensor. No getting around that. Sharpness is compromised as is high iso shooting.
Quality wise it's between a 1/1.7" and m43 sensor. Not even close to an APS-C sensor.
Even a cheap used Nikon D3300 + a superzoom 18-250 would be better by a significant margin up to 250mm. Beyond one could probably crop to get closer to 600mm of the 1" - if you even need that kind of reach very often.
@tbcass. I got more important things to do than to hate a company. Seriously man, get a grip. Just looking at the samples it's obvious that it's a 1" sensor. Better than 1/1.7 and worse than m43. The lens may be nice, but my point was for about the same size, why not get a Nikon D3300 and superzoom 16-300 lens and simply crop if you want to get in closer. For video, yes it makes sense, but then again who ever does video at 600mm? Just get a RX100iv or any other 4k camera.
I was speculating. But would love to see a comparison because these shots are definitely not very sharp compared to larger sensor cameras.
Biological_Viewfinder: EASILY WORTH $1500.
I took the Rx10 ii and a Nikon D7100 to an indoors event with low-lighting.I had to use a flash on the D7100. If I pumped up the ISO, the image got very noisy, very quickly.On the Rx10 ii, I pumped up the ISO to 2000 and I did not need a flash.Almost zero keepers from the Nikon.
Sunset and landscape with the Nikon is better. There is more definition in the details, and the Sony cannot handle the light of the sun. It makes a false ring around it that looks bad.
In Video, the Sony is better. No rolling shutter. It's easier to set, run; and has amazingly fun 1000 frames per second.
I would have paid $2000 for the RX10 or the RX10 ii.
Sony would not have made the RX10 iii or priced it at $1500 if their predecessors had not done well.
If you haven't used a Sony Rx10 series camera, then you literally don't know what you're talking about when you say it's too expensive. You must use the camera to make that assertion; Otherwise, you are speaking from ignorance.
You've gotta be kidding me when you say " I had to use a flash on the D7100. If I pumped up the ISO, the image got very noisy, very quickly. On the Rx10 ii, I pumped up the ISO to 2000 and I did not need a flash. Almost zero keepers from the Nikon."
This is a very bizarre comment since high iso on the D7100 far exceeds that of the RX10ii in the sample images I've seen, as does sharpness and tonality. Check for yourself here on DPR. They aren't even close.
Can you please elaborate or provide images for comparison to validate your claim?
Meh....It's still a 1" sensor. No getting around that. Sharpness is compromised as is high iso shooting.
No review, no future trips paid by Nikon. It's called conflict of interest. Psychology 101.
High iso could have been achieved by D750.
It seems like the AF is what you're paying for in the D5. If it's critical for sports and wildlife , then it's the camera to get. Waiting for that review from DPR.
The guy was given an all inclusive trip paid by Nikon to "test" their gear. What kind of review do you think he'll write?
HBowman: Because photography is all about DR... Today cameras are made for utter lazy hobbyists. PPL who buy the D5 do not freaking care about 20 stops of DR (and useless articles on DPR).
Nikon fanboys unite! We can't have any criticism of our flagship product! How dare they!
raztec: You forgot to ask "Why did it take so long to come out with a D300s replacement?"
"Because we didn't want to cut into our sales of the D7000 series ...or we didn't think there was a market for a ProDX despite the repeated calls one....we don't really care what our customers want, they have to settle for what we give them based on how we can maximize our profits...."
I could go on, but wouldn't want to speculate. What is your impression if you were to read between the lines?
You forgot to ask "Why did it take so long to come out with a D300s replacement?"
raztec: Pardon my ignorance, but what can these cameras and lens combination do that a Nikon D810 with a pro lens can't for 1/4 the price?
What kind of photography work pays $5000/day?