In the thick of the action: Nikon D5 real world samples gallery

Actually there was one of the D3S. But yes, now we have more reviewers, it's our intention that there will be a full review of this camera.

Apr 20, 2016permalink

kaiguy

Will you guys be doing a full review of the D500 as well? Seems like you guys are slow or simply don't review Nikon DSLRs compared with other manufacturers when reviews are up at launch or shortly thereafter. Is this a DPreview decision or is Nikon not providing you all review units?

Apr 22, 2016permalink

Nikon announced the D500 a long time before production examples were available. Any 'reviews' you've seen up until now are likely to have been written based on pre-production models or have been written without access to the camera.

The first units are arriving in the US at the moment and yes, Nikon provides us with review units.

Apr 22, 2016permalink

Barney Britton

Our D500 arrives on Monday.

Apr 22, 2016permalink

kaiguy

@Richard, yes I'm aware production units didn't ship from retailers until yesterday :)

I guess what I'm trying to understand better is how DPReview prioritizes its reviews and if it's driven by what you think is important for readership or if there's some element of manufacturer involvement as well. For example, you all got a full review out of the a6300 within a few weeks of release, but never reviewed the D4/D4s/D810...flagship/top tier cameras from one of the most important manufacturers in the digital photograph industry.

So what's the deal? Is Nikon not sending you production cameras early, or is DPReview just focusing on different segments of the market these days? Even if Nikon is remiss in its PR/marketing and not sending you review units, I'd think that given you guys are owned by Amazon, you would have had a D500 in hand yesterday along with everyone else?

EDIT: Just read all of Richard's reply, guess it's on Nikon they're not getting stuff to reviewers sooner.

Apr 22, 2016*permalink

I think if you look back across the whole history of DPReview, it's possible we've not reviewed more pro/sports bodies than we've reviewed. However, it is our intention to review the D5.

The D810 is an anomaly, and an unfortunate one. The Canon EOS 5DS and SR, and the Sony a7R II were released just as we thought the end was in sight for the D810 review. And, once a camera has fallen behind in the review schedule, it's very hard to go back and catch up (because there's always something newer that needs reviewing, too).

There will be a D810 review.

Apr 22, 2016permalink

I think it's more than simply falling behind, the fact is cameras have gotten smaller, more capable and easier and more fun for staff to carry around on hiking trips. Sometimes sooner rather than later the energy barrier will simply become too high for these hunky dslr.

Apr 23, 2016permalink

Reilly Diefenbach

Nice camera, I'm sure, but the D800 has ruined me for filtered 20MP.

Apr 20, 2016permalink

I'll admit to not being the best photographer on earth. But, I have to say that you folks at dpreview need to get better with these "real world" galleries. For all the extensive and reasonably high quality reviewing you do, along with the championship job of bringing us the latest from the world of cameras and photography, these galleries are generally very poor. As one example, you have a shot of a bride on some sort of concrete structure framed against a natural wood paneled wall and doors. It's an attractive setting. But then you shoot it at f/1.4 at 1/8000. What do settings like that show us about the D5? IMHO...zero. The shortcomings of the lens and the photog's ability to find the proper plane of focus for this kind of shot overwhelms whatever it might be that we could tell about this cameras sensor performance in soft light. Sorry to rag on you guys, but you're a popular site that does a lot of things just fine...taking useful evaluation pictures should be one of them.

Apr 20, 2016*permalink

F1.4 tends to require high shutter speeds - what is your problem with the exposure used? I just worked up the photo and it only needed about a stop to a stop and a half boost in exposure - nothing unreasonable, and in fact quite typical, as wedding photographers are wont to slightly underexpose to keep the bride's dress from blowing.

Focus is almost spot-on, but the old 135mm DC isn't the sharpest off-center. 'Find the proper plane of focus'? What's ironic is that you complain about a 'real world gallery' being short of technical perfection, and yet technical perfection is the realm of a lab test, not 'real world'. A wedding photographer doesn't tend to sit there manually focusing in live view for perfect focus. You either get the moment, or you miss it. The particular shot you reference would be more than perfectly acceptable to deliver to a client.

If you want careful controlled comparisons, wait for our review, or visit our already published studio work on the camera.

Apr 20, 2016permalink

fatdeeman

You are aware that shutter speed is influenced by aperture and ISO, right?

Maybe, just maybe, that 1/8000 was a consequence of using F/1.4 rather than 1/8000 being the aim....

Apr 20, 2016permalink

Not sure what your problem is with the samples. Sure, it would have been good putting the bride on the motorcycle but other than that the pics have the classic tonality and feel that you find on printed media.

Apr 20, 2016permalink

"If you want careful controlled comparisons, wait for our review, or visit our already published studio work on the camera."

What I want are GOOD real world examples. I'll stand by my criticisms, which I felt were constructive. I gave you one example, but there are too many to describe with the limited space we're allowed here. I'll continue to value DP Review as a source of news.

Apr 20, 2016*permalink

Tazz93

Odd comment... with regards to the bride photo, wide open with fast glass is a wedding photog's bread and butter. Remember we are talking about photographing people, 90% of the time you don't want to see 100% of the detail a 20, 36 or 50 megapixel camera can show in a person's face.

I get what your saying, but why are you looking for award winning photos for free use? I think this is exactly as advertised, real world photos... not high cost and high effort contest winning photography. Sorry if this comes off harsh as well (it was not meant to), but I wouldn't expect anymore of the editors/photogs in this context.

Apr 20, 2016permalink

@Tazz93 I just feel that on the whole, not just this article, there is a haphazard approach to doing these that could be easily improved. I get your point about shooting a sensitive portrait with the lens wide open. Doing that is revealing of the quality of the lens and secondarily the camera. It would be more useful to work these shots at f/4 so we're not distracted by the skill of the photographer or lack thereof. In this case, though, it was shot with a 35mm lens from probably ten feet away. I'm not sure f/1.4 did much for this composition other than make it difficult for this photographer to nail the focus. If you're going to do it, get it right. Very few images shot wide open are in focus where they need to be on this site as a general rule. I know it's hard to do...but this is a photography blog and these folks are getting paid, so...

Apr 20, 2016permalink

Tazz93

Again, I do understand your complaint... but for me... the content isn't a concern. I'll wait for the controlled studio test to judge absolute quality (relative to other bodies). But it was interesting to see the weaknesses and strengths Nikon decided to compromise on.

Apr 20, 2016permalink

@Rishi Sanyal I don't think you follow what I'm saying. First, it's the shot done with the 35mm lens, not the 135mm. Second, I'm not complaining about the poor choice of exposure, I'm complaining about the poor choice of lens aperture. Third, your explanation that wedding photographers don't "sit there manually focusing in Live View" seems a bit snarky considering that I'm sincerely trying to urge you folks to up your game and doing it in a constructive way. If you want to take my remarks personally, that's up to you. I just think you can do better by making a plan that addresses things that your readership would really like to see before you go out with the camera, then execute it with reasonable care.

Apr 20, 2016permalink

I understood you just fine. I just disagree with your ostensible request to now shoot all galleries at F4 or smaller, something many here would disagree with.

There's only so much a 'real world' gallery with no context can tell you. In fact, if we manually focused every camera in Live View and always shot at F4, we'd just be approaching our studio tests, wouldn't we? A real-world gallery is just that - what do we get from real-world use of the camera, trying to avoid as much user error as possible, of course.

In this case, there was an artistic choice made to shoot that image at 35/1.4. You can disagree with that artistic choice. But using it as some general indication that our galleries are useless to you is, well, odd.

Apr 20, 2016permalink

Well, I never said anything about focusing manually in Live View, you did. I also never implied that you need to shoot everything at f/4 or higher, you did. I didn't say that your galleries were useless, you did. I otherwise praised D P Review for a lot of its content. It seems that your defenses are up because you think I'm criticizing you, but I'm not. It's a shame you have to twist my words around and be somewhat snarky. I hope some maturity cures that for you.

Apr 21, 2016permalink

My objective response disagreeing with your underlying premise is me taking it personally?

Interesting. Also, not sure why I would take it personally when I didn't even take the photo you're referring to.

Apr 23, 2016permalink

r10k

Rishi, you should learn to say, "Thanks for the feedback." and consider what people to say to you. Reading your comments almost made me facepalm.

May 3, 2016permalink

r10k

I should say, I'm referring to the way you respect people and their opinions, as well as how badly you misread what people have written. Seriously, you did it about ten times. And, you nitpicked little things that weren't relevant to the point being made. For example, you said, "I didn't even take the photo you're referring to." but you could have felt defensive because it's your site.

In terms of your photos - I think I read that you were saying things are an artistic choice. That's true, but there is such a thing as results that flow from the hand of the amateur. That's what I see every time I look at DPReview's galleries. And yes, I'm referring to your photos as well. If one isn't clearly a master, I'd personally spend more time listening than opening my mouth in defence.

All the best to you.

May 3, 2016permalink

Terry Breedlove

Very good Camera. Thing is that now days the image quality from even the lowest Cameras is so damn good it is hard to do much better moving up the scale. The other areas like build quality, fast focusing, feature set etc are what this camera is all about now. Kind of like back in the film days. The Nikon F4 compared to the entry level cameras of the day. Film was film but you paid more for the Pro body.

Apr 19, 2016permalink

cmc1

Best reply yet!

Apr 20, 2016permalink

LJ - Eljot

F4, my favourite Nikon camera. Compare it to cheap rubbish like the F401 or F50! Oh, these were really awfull cameras! And the market segmentation was terrible. F50: matrix metiring: yes, spot metering no. F60: matrix metiring: yes, spot metering no. F70 matrix metiring: yes, spot metering yes, but worst user interface ever. F90: that was a good one! F801s: excellent.

Apr 21, 2016permalink

I found the camerastoreTV video review gives a very fair assessment of the camera.

IMO Manufacturers these days have decided they want to sell a bunch of more specialized cameras to the fewer people that still buy them.

Canon had a great idea in lowering the price of their new 1DxII.

Apr 19, 2016permalink

Advent1sam

The majority of action shots are either soft or blurry, for a low megapixel ff camera this is actually very poor and as the tracking involved is not particularly difficult, more anticipation than tracking in the main, I would say these look particularly average. As for high iso, is this for real?

Apr 19, 2016permalink

"and as the tracking involved is not particularly difficult"

It's probably the most stressful tracking one could ever imagine. I started on player 19 and it stuck to player 19 amidst many other players entering and leaving the frame, and my framing varying wildly b/c it was 300mm and I could barely hold the darn thing steady.

The D5 performed unbelievably well where I'm fairly certain any other camera - even a 1DX - would've struggled.

The a6300 actually performed admirably, but the fraction of a second more time it took to start subject tracking (not depth tracking, but tracking around the frame by selecting appropriate AF points to stay on your desired subject) often meant that it lost my subject b/c it had already moved as I was trying to designate it by placing my AF point over it an initiating AF.

The D5, OTOH, instantaneously starts subject tracking when you place your AF point over your subject & half-press the shutter (in 3D tracking). It's remarkable, really.

Apr 19, 2016permalink

pkcpga

Shocked you said the photos are soft, some are at shallow depth of fields making only the face sharp. Which I found the rugby shot where the player is in the air with the rugby ball in front of him to be amazing that the camera focused on the face that well instead of the ball blocking half his face. Same with the tennis player having a well focused face while her arm swings partly across it with a racquet. Nice sports shots.

Apr 20, 2016permalink

galone

@Rishi Sanyal
what would be the Canon camera more closer to the Nikon D5 in terms of focus tracking capabilities ?

Apr 20, 2016*permalink

@galone: We haven't seen a single Canon camera capable of subject tracking* with the accuracy and speed of a Nikon, something we've shown repeatedly in many videos/rollovers in many reviews at this point. There's a reason many Canon shooters tend to stick to single point AI Servo - because they don't trust the camera's ability to automatically select AF points to track the subject. Things are getting better with iTR, with the 1D X series being the best of any Canon at subject tracking.

If your subject is well isolated in distance, a 1DX will perform marvelously. Any time you get multiple objects in a complex scene though, Nikon's scene analysis for subject tracking with its metering sensor is 2nd to none in the DSLR realm. And the D4/5 series continue to subject track well even during bursts, where the otherwise excellent 3D tracking systems of the D750/D810 falter.

Note *subject tracking is very different from traditional (depth) 'tracking', where Canon DSLRs are as good as any.

Apr 20, 2016permalink

Clyde Thomas

Did I just notice the missing home button icon on these pages? Am I going blind? Has my vision been compromised? Am I having a senior moment? Has my browser gone bonkers?

Seriously, I can't find the DPR home icon at the top of this page. Please tell me where it is... without sending me to bottom of page.
_

Have you seen my car keys?

Apr 19, 2016permalink

lemonadedrinker

The noise from the photos taken at night of the motorcycle and the car crash seem pretty dreadful for a camera body costing £6000.
I could take pics that noisy with either of my Sony cameras which were one twentieth of the price.
Other than that, a great camera.
In fact, quite apart from my facetiousness, why haven't these been through some sort of in-camera process to de-noise them a bit? I think the Sonys can do that, so I'd be fairly certain Nikon do the same...or is this the best it gets?

Apr 19, 2016*permalink

I have seen D5 galleries, multiple ones, with very clean files up to the higher ISOs, even here on DPR. My guess is that these pictures have been pushed in postprocessing/processed with a crappy converter or you're just looking at the jpegs.

Apr 19, 2016permalink

D Gold

This reminds me of my old D200's image quality. Even at low ISO, the shadows are loaded with noise, not signal. I am not talking about the jpegs, I downloaded the RAW files and ran them through ACR.

Informative examples are DSC_2040, 4557, and 4661. All exhibit considerable shadow noise that you would not see in any of the D6xx, D750, or D8xx models. Again, using ACR and looking at the RAW files.

I also noticed that in the Rugby frames, even things in moderate shadow in high contrast scenes have chroma noise that again would not be seen in any other recent generation FX Nikon.

Apr 19, 2016permalink

I guess this isn't Nikon's best effort. Maybe they'll improve it with firmware.

Apr 19, 2016permalink

fatdeeman

The slight advantage in very high ISO IQ just doesn't seem to be worth the trade off in lower ISO IQ

Apr 20, 2016permalink

eltsdi

I also noticed strange image quality issues. Looking through some test photos available i've noticed some dynamic range issues. My guess is that D500 will also have DR issues. Hope that Nikon wont use their own sensors for D820.

Apr 21, 2016permalink

I'd just like to add a different opinion.

People usually see this camera as a wildlife, sports, photojournalism camera only. Never intended for fashion shooting.

Well, contrary to most opinions, personally I'd take a Nikon D5 before any of those D800 and 5ds series to a fashion shoot.

Stay with me:

Whenever people are illustrating a thought, they usually refer to broader examples, the "top of the mind" examples.

Like refering Steve McCurry whenever one talks about Nat Geo.

The thing is: reality is never that black or white.

Between light and darkness, there're lots of shades of grey.

Fashion photography is not all about Annie Leibovitz, Mario Testino or Steven Meisel.

There're small guys too, and I used to be one of them, shooting for many different small brands and magazines.

But when you're a small guy like I was, chances are that you're gonna get PITA clients most of the time.

Apr 19, 2016permalink

cont.

Contrary to Leibovitz's life, a low end fashion photographer like me used to have to complete 20 to 30 different looks on a single day. 25 looks was just about normal.

I'm talking about outdoor shoots on location, most of them combined with flashes.

To complete the 25 looks schedule, you don't usually have more than 15 minutes per look to move to a different spot (remember, it's oudoors), set up the lights again, compose again, etc.

15 minutes is all you've got before the model is back with a different look.

The client is watching you with impatient eyes.

Time is running, and there's no such thing as "bad light".

So 11:30 a.m. means harsh light? Don't complain, just shoot.

Sun is right behind the model's face, challenging the AF? Don't complain, fill in the shadows, and shoot.

The shooting got late, it's past 9 p.m. and there's still 5 looks to go? Don't complain, bump up the ISO and shoot.

Apr 19, 2016permalink

cont.

What I'm trying to say, is that beyond that notion we all have of big budget fashion shoots, out there in the real world, small fashion shoots are extremelly challenging situations that demand a camera up to the task.

I used to consider my D800 too slow for these shootings.

What's actually needed is a camera that has ultra reliable AF (for shooting backlit models all the time, with heavy ND filter to allow flash sync speed).

Really fast review time (no matter if you like chimping or not, the client always wanna take a look at what you're doing, and you don't wanna your camera to be slow).

Really fast shot to shot time.

Huge battery life.

Great High ISO (that "it's 9 p.m. and we're still shooting" example I mentioned? Happens all the time).

Best in class weather sealing (shoots happen a lot on beaches, under salt moisture, rain and dust).

Reasonable file sizes (not for me, but for the retouching people that will hate the extra hours retouching 36 to 50 mp files).

Apr 19, 2016permalink

cont.

So yeah, considering the D5 has reached a nice resolution standard of 20mp, I'd take it before D800 and 5ds series.

20 mp is more than I need, and the rest of the camera is simply a better match.

BTW, low ISO DR is not a problem. Lighting is always controlled on these shootings.

On a last note, you might remember me defending MF gear, and those are reaaaally slow, going against all that's said above.

But that's a whole different story.

I used DMF gear for slower paced jobs, when there was time to breathe, and to consider the extra quality.

But on fast paced jobs (the usual), I'd grab a D5 before my D800 anyday.

Apr 19, 2016permalink

Clyde Thomas

Our methods are so different.

Shooting model portfolios... sure... 12mp is more than enough. Probably cool for city magazine spreads too.

But brand clients want, need ultra high MP for extended media potential. An energetic producer and pre-pro meetings are essential. Stick to the shot list. Live easy.

You do work from a shot list... right?

Apr 19, 2016*permalink

Maybe different markets, different needs.

Those were not model portfolios. I used to shoot fashion catalogues for 600+ employees brands.

Not national or international level brands, but large clients either way.

12 mp was fine, at least for my market, up to 2014 when I retired.

Of course, there were a couple times when I actually needed more than that, but those were rarer than one often thinks.

Our markets probably have different needs, but I wasn't refering to model portfolios.

Apr 19, 2016*permalink

Clyde Thomas

All true Megan.

I'm fortunate that my clients appreciate the 135 style because I'm mostly location lifestyles, fashion, commercial people on the move. Still tied to the tether though.

Funny, they don't want instant transfer. The directors simply pull their cell phones and shoot my laptop screen... and each send to their individual buyers.

Apr 20, 2016permalink

I feel Nikon has walked back on the D-lighting and default image parameters over the last couple of years, so that we now have deeper shadows and more contrasty default images coming straight out of the camera.

This is good thing. D-lighting is good, but it was too heavy handed originally. On auto everything tended to look far too flat. (And far too many people didn't bother to increase the contrast in post.)

Just my opinion bro.

Apr 19, 2016permalink

Carey and I both like to add a lot of blacks/contrast back in to images, so make sure you're not just talking about our processing inclinations. :)

Apr 19, 2016permalink

There were a lot of ACR-processed images, but I based this on some of the from-camera jpegs you posted with D-lighting auto.

If you have already punched up contrast in-camera with Picture Controls then you don't leave me much to go on, except to say I have found the new NP2 profiles are more contrasty than the older NCP profile set.

Apr 19, 2016permalink

I believe we all left JPEG settings at default in 'standard' mode. To echo Rishi - I like some more 'punch' in my images, and I like the JPEGs out of this cam a lot more than I expected to!

Apr 19, 2016permalink

We should probably resuscitate our old JPEG DR test to address these sorts of things.

ADL in 'auto' never opts for much higher than 'normal' if I remember correctly, leaving High and Extra High 1 and Extra High 2 to the user to select if such drastic adjustments/compensations are desired.

What's ironic is that a camera like the D5, with far less DR than the D810, offers Extra High 2, when it shouldn't because of the amount of noise introduced from underexposure. Meanwhile, the D810 or D750 can easily tolerate the extra underexposure because, like, 0 read noise, so it's ironic that these cameras don't offer higher ADL modes.

Apr 19, 2016permalink

There is definitely a pleasing color and tone to those D5 jpegs. Vivid but not garish.

I just flipped back to the D750 samples gallery. Totally different look going on there, across the board. Going further back, D600 is more-or-less similar to the D750.

So sure, yeah, I would be interested to know if you could get comparable looking images out of the D750 for example. (or at least whether the default settings have been significantly tweaked or not)

[It's possible Nikon pulled a "it goes to 11" with the D5 and "extra high 2" is what "extra high" was on the D750, so "normal" is actually less strong than before.]

Apr 19, 2016*permalink

I think my D750 gallery was mostly Raw conversions though - so that would yield a very different rendering (ACR + my personal taste). The biggest difference I've noticed so far is the higher radius sharpening.

There are some color changes though as well: the D5 appears to have yellower yellows and brighter reds in our studio scene, and perhaps warmer greens - than the D750. Easier to tell in the real world though. The contrast curves don't look markedly different to me, but we did have a test that allowed you to overlay contrast curves. Did you really find those tests (JPEG DR) useful enough that you'd like to see us bring them back? Would be good to know, thanks.

Apr 19, 2016permalink

Honestly... probably not. There's only so much squinting I'm willing to put up with to find this stuff out.

You simply telling me "the D5 appears to have yellower yellows and brighter reds in our studio scene, and perhaps warmer greens - than the D750" is a far more pleasant way to obtain the same information.

I felt the jpeg DR curves prompted manufacturers to to try to "win" the test by having very flat default contrast curves. I think it was counterproductive.

Apr 19, 2016*permalink

SmilerGrogan

Please test the flash and fill-flash accuracy with this camera. I've seen several pros taking out their Speedlights again, they work with camera in one hand and their Speedlight the other using it to shape the scene, adding glow, or sparkle, or edge light to their subjects. It's kind of an everything-old-is-new-again situation.

Apr 19, 2016permalink

Good suggestion. I used an SB700 on the hot shoe for a number of the 'wedding' shots, but it was always in manual. We will give it a try in TTL for the full review.

Apr 19, 2016permalink

Looks like canon and nikon are taking turns to make cameras with crap dynamic range. Now is Nikon's turn.

Apr 19, 2016permalink

Ramjager

I think it's quite funny to read posts from guys who have never held a true "pro" camera about how "there" 800-1500 dollar camera could do as well.
Ok let's talk about this shall we.
Sure I'm sure your 1500 dollar kit camera could take at least one photo during a football game that could be usable.
However when you are shooting for a living it must be "the" photo of "the" moment.
Not a misfire or OOF image.
It must do it in the rain and snow after being dropped or hit by a protestor or when you fall over and not break.
There is a reason why you want and need 10-12Fps think show jumping, think incredibly fussy client think your out by a tenth of a second and no sale.
They make them strong because they get muddy, wet and hammered every day month after month year after year.
So There is a reason why it's called reliability and dependability that no cameras other than D5's, D4's, 1Dx's and 1DxMk2's can do.
That is why they are "the best" because they get "the shot" every time.

Apr 18, 2016permalink

zzzxtreme

U get that comment a lot from fuji fanboys

(I'm a fuji and nikon fan)

Apr 18, 2016permalink

"That is why they are "the best" because they get "the shot" every time."

Like when they miss because their AF systems need to be calibrated by the end-user for a specific subject distance, focal length, and lighting? Or when they don't offer the flexibility a lesser (in your opinion) camera offers due to Raw latitude?

You're simplifying a multi-variate problem, just like when you troll Sony articles.

They get some shots better (arguably many, given how jaw-dropping the D5 AF system is), while other cameras get other shots with more reliability. No camera gets every shot 'every time'. Saying otherwise is just a misleading attempt to simplify a more nuanced reality.

Suggesting a D5, or 1D X II, never misfires or gives you a OOF image is silly - we have many, many images that prove otherwise, in fact.

Apr 19, 2016permalink

Relying on a D5 to track your player amongst many distractions might actually work, even during bursts to capture the decisive moment, and I'd never even attempt this on an a7R II.

And yet in terms of hit-rate of nailing focus on an erratically moving model or baby's eye for a single shot, even at F1.4? a7R II will beat the D5 in hit-rate.

Why? Because the two scenarios place different demands on the AF systems, with neither being perfect. Knowing this allows you to better select, and use, your tool.

Apr 19, 2016permalink

Lea5

Umm, my A7RII must be a faulty one I guess. Hit rate on moving models are low. On the other hand hit rate of my D4 was high, even higher with my 1DX. I don't shoot anything else than stills or videos with my A7RII, but there it's great.

Apr 19, 2016permalink

Lea5 - using Eye AF in AF-C? Which lens(es)?

Apr 19, 2016permalink

mp0363

Thanks for sharing your images!

Turn out the light and this camera produces images that say "wow". AF tracking sounds amazing. Wish my D750 could do that well. But as a day to day camera (which is also what I wanted) this camera makes me cry inside. A truly specialized kit.

The only hope for enthusiasts who like to shoot things that move quickly - but also need a do it all camera - may lie in the D500. From what I've seen of images it's a question mark if they biased the sensor towards the dark?

Apr 18, 2016permalink

(unknown member)

It's a camera for pros to make money, and Nikon have delivered as usual.

One thought that struck me looking at these was, wouldn't wedding photography be a joy if brides were as beautiful and elegant as this one? In real life it's drunken Uncle Norm spilling beer on you while offering you photo tips, and wondering if the "Soft Focus" slider in Lightroom goes up to 11.

Apr 18, 2016permalink

NCB

Magical colours. That's what matters.

OK, it's good for action as well. Exceptionally good.

Apr 18, 2016permalink

AKH

Very nice gallery and the "low light gallery" is really impressive.

It is also a nice idea to have several photographers testing the camera in different areas.

Apr 18, 2016permalink

tom1234567

Nothing my D7200 can not do in these shots
in fact my D7200 would do better in some of those shots
my goodness nothing spectacular here
Tom G

Apr 18, 2016permalink

AKH

Your D7200 would "die" when the buffer runs full after 3 seconds of shooting 18 raw images and that will happen right before Roger Federers match ball for yet another Grand Slam victory. Just what a pro photographer would need :-)

Apr 18, 2016permalink

Ramjager

Sorry Tom but there is nothing that your 7200 can do the D5 can.
The buffer and the FPS alone are needed for a reason.
Oh does your 7200 work while it's pouring down with rain?
Sorry to rain on your 7200 but there are reasons why pros use cameras like D5's and 1Dx's and it's not because they have more money than sense.

Apr 18, 2016permalink

zodiacfml

I went through all the photos and the users appear to be having fun using the D5 based on the composition and settings. The image quality is a bit of letdown compared to existing High DR cameras. Going back, the images are entertaining and worth it.

Apr 18, 2016permalink

chipmaster

Interesting collection of pictures, clearly the review will reflect somewhat the pictures taking, LOL. Why am I not going to hold much water to what they say. Where are the pictures in the kind of situation that really push the focus and low light?

BTW we dont' need anymore posts about low DR, this is a camera built for high ISO and fast focus. I really wouldn't care much for reading about a sports car's performance on a snowy road either, duh.

Apr 18, 2016*permalink

Well we've already published a low light gallery and will be looking for a floodlit or indoor game of some sort to test it further, prior to the review being finished.

Apr 18, 2016permalink

Also, and I know we're not the AP or Ryan Brenizer, but rugby, tennis and a dimly lit wedding venue would seem to me to be the exact kinds of situations I'd expect to find this camera being used in.

Apr 18, 2016permalink

chipmaster

BTW D750 or D4s in the same situation described will do well, the devil will be in the details of "better." Indoor UW gymnastics, outdoor track and field, perhaps hook up with Marianne Oelund and do a little skating or ballroom, I think she shoots that stuff, that will really give the camera a go. Rumor is she has put a 10000x more shots already on her D5!

Apr 18, 2016*permalink

thejohnnerparty

To Richard & Carey: Overall, I'm sure we all appreciate what you do after all that's why we come here. But I would ask that if you do and post more test shots that you include more shots with greater DOF. I think one of the uncertainties for many of us is sharpness SOOC. Wide open shooting is in vogue these days but the DOF is so shallow it is hard to see if it is really in focus. (Admittedly my eyes are getting very bad, but I would like to see more sharpness OOC.) I don't want to PP every time to get that sharpness when I want it.

Apr 18, 2016*permalink

@thejohnnerparty - understood, and we appreciate the feedback. I'm personally planning on doing some testing with the D5 on some landscapes over the coming couple of weeks, so that at least will guarantee some deeper DOF to look over.

Apr 18, 2016*permalink

@thejohnnerparty: In my opinion, the sharpening's not great on OOC JPEGs. It appears to be a large radius sharpening that really doesn't preserve fine detail like Sony's latest engine does, and there's no better place to see this than in our controlled studio scene study. See here.

Now that I've had some time with the D5, I rarely zoom in 100% to an image and exclaim 'wow' at the detail in the eyelashes, or what have you, as I do with the a7R II. And even to a certain extent with the D810, despite its pretty soft JPEG engine. I don't think the large radius sharpening on the D5 is really helping it.

But the detail's there in the Raw!

Apr 19, 2016permalink

this is no landscape camera, that much is for sure.

Apr 19, 2016permalink

SmilerGrogan

You must not live in snow. Sports cars are MORE fun on snowy roads because it's a real test of your driving skills. Especially when you're still driving on your summer tires and haven't switched to snows yet.

Apr 19, 2016permalink

thejohnnerparty

@Rishi: Thanks for the input. I'm not sure because I didn't go back and look carefully, but it seem some of the daytime photos of the football photos looked sharper to me. Maybe not, but the shots of the girl in the wedding dress definitely look soft even without PPing. They are not bad, but as I think back about some earlier model cameras those types of shots seemed a little crisper to me.

Apr 19, 2016permalink

http://3.static.img-dpreview.com/files/p/TS5568x3712~sample_galleries/3180508572/5916729031.jpg

No JPEG I've taken on the D5 has jumped out at me screaming 'wow look at the sharpness!' when zoomed in at 100%. Not even one of the rugby shots, though there I don't expect it because it's a nightmare for the AF system, and I'm amazed at how well the D5 performed as it is.

The JPEG sharpening on the D5 just isn't sophisticated. Even for static portraits, the 'wow' factor in terms of detail isn't there - and we know why at this point: large radius sharpening just doesn't get you the level of detail smaller radius sharpening does. Instead, it gives you the impression of microcontrast when zoomed out.

Some like it, some don't, but large radius sharpening is also much harder to remove, which is why I don't like it. The RX100 III did it & we complained about it, and I'm glad Sony dialed it back. Note fewer halos around edges with the RX100 IV compared to the III, here.

Combine that w/ NR that obliterates detail, & I'd be working more w/ the Raws if I shot a D5.

Apr 19, 2016permalink

BobYIL

Shame! Shadow detail @ ISO 100 (and RAW!) from a camera costing $6.5K:

(Pls enlarge...)

Apr 18, 2016permalink

Lea5

I don't see anything.

Apr 18, 2016permalink

I don't get it it looks like iso 1600..must be something with the PP...

Apr 18, 2016permalink

Siobhan A

I bet they tried to pulled the shadows several stops. The lens hood and front of the lens look bad for a 20MP FF sensor at ISO 100, and they are in the direction of 'shade' - the sun is to the right.

Apr 18, 2016*permalink

Nick Brundle - Photography

It's only ISO 100 as in that's what the was taken at. You don't know how much the shadows were pulled up in post and/or D-lighting.

I mean, yeah, apparently there is less leeway in the D5 than the D750 etc, but don't don't jump to conclusions from one image.

Apr 19, 2016permalink

There is only you and your camera. The limitations in your photography are in yourself, for what we see is what we are.

Apr 18, 2016permalink

alcaher

i couldnt agree more. Its the photographer.

Apr 18, 2016permalink

108

I usually hate wedding shots but these are really special, beauty of the bride does help for sure . I like these Nikon colors and the lenses used are not disturbingly sharp

Apr 18, 2016permalink

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=sony_a7rii&attr13_1=nikon_d5&attr13_2=nikon_d4&attr13_3=canon_eos1dx&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=12800&attr16_1=25600&attr16_2=25600&attr16_3=25600&attr171_0=off&attr171_1=off&normalization=compare&widget=267&x=0.005475087777152213&y=0.22442379093907835

I was thinking the same thing. Unusually good lighting maybe?

Apr 19, 2016permalink

odpisan

If light is great - it is possible to make great photos almost with any camera.

Apr 18, 2016*permalink

new boyz

Not if the focus is off.

Apr 18, 2016permalink

falconeyes

I think the D5 is all about the kind of images you get, not the image quality of each. Don't forget, at daylight an RX100 easily matches the image quality of an DSLR. But the DSLR may catch images the RX100 will fail at.

In my German Nikon forum, the following image from the Bundesliga Bayern Munich game was posted (Player: Vidal) -> http://www.nikon-fotografie.de/vbulletin/picture.php?albumid=30124&pictureid=498687
Credit Michael Weber, IMAGEPOWER
D5 JPEG ooc, AF-S VR FL 600/4 + TC-14E III + strong crop at ISO 8000 f/5,6 1/1250s
Mr. Weber: "Image taken from across the playing ground, the opposite side of the goal and previously, I struggled with mild blur in similiar situations."
That's the kind of images which do actually sell!
Anything else, this DPR article included, can only give a weak impression of how the camera performs, or doesn't. In my German Nikon forum, Michael writes: "I am more than content (with the D5), the more the longer I work with it".

Apr 18, 2016*permalink

rhlpetrus

Impressive, it looks like ISO is not an issue any more.

Apr 18, 2016permalink

armandino

I really do not see being any better, but actually worse than existing cameras up to at least ISO10K. It might be better at really high iso, but not for 90% of normal use. I guess will be a great camera for Batman, it should come with his logo. The bride image at ISO 1600 is less than average (could not believe my eyes, given my camera expectations it thought I was missing a zero on the iso settings), my A7RII blows by that image, not to mention that with IBIS I could have shot it at ISO 400.

Apr 18, 2016*permalink

gonzalu

What Bridge Image at ISO 1600?

Apr 18, 2016permalink

PVCdroid

High ISO on the D5 looks similar to A7Rii and somewhat unusable over 10K without a lot of processing. For low ISO, I agree the A7Rii is much better but the D5 low ISO images aren't as bad as you've indicated.

Apr 18, 2016*permalink

TrojMacReady

Low ISO is fine, just relatively noisy in deep shadows, compared to other modern Nikon/ Sony FF cameras. About Nikon D5000 level in that specific area.

Apr 18, 2016permalink

Lea5

The images of my A7RII do not look similar and I won't use the Sony above 8000. I used my old D4 and 1DX at 25600 ISO at concerts when needed. I won't use my A7RII for it. Not only for the ISO performance, but simply for the poor AF in low light at moving subjects.

Apr 18, 2016*permalink

TrojMacReady

The AF part I can understand, but the D4, 1DX and even the D5 look quite a bit worse at ISO 25600 than the A7RII at ISO 12800, let alone ISO 8000.
http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison/fullscreen?attr18=lowlight&attr13_0=sony_a7rii&attr13_1=nikon_d4&attr13_2=nikon_d5&attr13_3=canon_eos1dx&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=raw&attr15_3=raw&attr16_0=12800&attr16_1=25600&attr16_2=25600&attr16_3=25600&attr171_0=off&attr171_1=off&normalization=compare&widget=267&x=-0.27045179129287733&y=-0.8296285508493879

Apr 18, 2016*permalink

gonzalu

@TrojMacReady, what does that mean? That's what's expected, higher ISO, worse performance. So why would you expect the D5 to be better at a higher ISO? .

Apr 18, 2016permalink

TrojMacReady

I replied to Lea5, read what he wrote and where he feels each camera tops out: he suggests the D4 and 1DX look better at ISO 25600 than the A7RII above ISO 8000.

The controlled studio tests show otherwise (less than half a stop difference in shadows at ISO 25600 compared to the D4 and 1DX, similar or better in midtones and highlights at the same ISO and display size).

Apr 19, 2016*permalink

Joel Benford

Meet the new boss, a bit better than the old boss.

Apr 18, 2016permalink

Some of the lenses used in this series need calibration. Some images are really noisy at kinda low ISO values (Jpeg).

Other than that, very nice gallery.

Apr 18, 2016permalink

Could you PM me with the images that you think need lens calibration? Some are my personal lenses, and we tried to be very careful to make sure images uploaded are as sharp as the lenses are capable of. Thanks!

Apr 18, 2016permalink

Sure thing.

Apr 18, 2016permalink

Thank you!

Apr 18, 2016permalink

Mediterranean light

True, to each his own. But when one needs to have all that capability, rain or shine, top speed in very low light, what are the options that can be trusted to perform?

Apr 18, 2016permalink

racin06

I suppose that if you are primarily a sports/action shooter, then the $6500 may be justfied. However, from a pure image quality standpoint, sorry...I just don't see it. The low-light image quality of the D5 is only slightly better than what the best APS-C and even Micro 4/3 cameras are producing with good glass attached. Under adequate lighting conditions, the difference is even more minuscule. Let the flamming begin! I have thick skin.

Apr 18, 2016permalink

Bhima78

Right, this camera is clearly designed for action/sports and wildlife.

Apr 18, 2016permalink

Angrymagpie

"The low-light image quality of the D5 is only slightly better than what the best APS-C and even Micro 4/3 cameras are producing with good glass attached."

Surely you and the 8 people who liked your comment so far are NOT SERIOUS?
I use both MFT, APSC and FF, and I can say with certainty that I wouldn't be using my MFT with premium glass attached for lowlight when I can use the A7Rii with a decent glass - the difference is tremendous! and D5 is even better than the A7Rii in high ISO.

Apr 18, 2016*permalink

bobbarber

Angrymagpie

"...the difference is tremendous!"

Define "tremendous." Anything a non-pixel peeper would notice in a print?

Color me suspicious, but I regularly read comments in these forums about cameras being in different leagues, no comparison, image quality 1,000x better, and so on, when the differences in photos are barely discernible pixel peeping and certainly nothing that 999 out of 1,000 people would notice in a print.

Apr 18, 2016*permalink

fakuryu

@Angrymagpie

Photo 11/80 the bride at ISO1600 has the similar grain and noise of the Pentax K5 at the same ISO but I could be wrong since I'm not exactly at home to compare it with some of my ISO 1600 shots

I'm not saying that the old K5 16mp APSC sensor si better than Nikon's latest and greatest. I'm just saying that they look similar at least on ISO 1600.

Apr 18, 2016*permalink

These images are very noisy for some unknown reason, this is not what I have seen the D5 do, and I have seen a lot of galleries with clean files even at 25.600.

Apr 19, 2016permalink

SharkManEXR

@nicolai

i noticed this too, there is an image of a dog at the end of a driveway that is very grainy taken at 12,800 and then right after a city street taken at 36,000 and its much sharper and less grainy. very odd.

Apr 19, 2016permalink

That's because noise depends on exposure, not just ISO, though the two are correlated in that you can't just give a high ISO a ton of exposure, because bright tones will blow due to the restricted saturation capacity of pixels from the extra analog amplification.

The dog shot was pushed some 2 or more stops, making it perhaps more equivalent to a 'traditional' ISO 51,200 shot, hence the extra noise.

This is why for noise comparisons, it's better to use our very controlled studio scene tests.

Apr 20, 2016permalink

Mediterranean light

In the thick of the action, we see the whole world through Nikon cameras: they are still the ones chosen in space missions, for a reason.

Apr 18, 2016permalink

photenth

They use Nikon because they started using Nikon in 1971. They had no reason to switch. As with most people don't have a reason to switch to Nikon/Canon. Both are perfectly fine camera manufacturers.

Apr 18, 2016permalink

lefantian

Yes. And the expense to transfer any photo gear to the space station would be far more than the gear's own price.

Apr 20, 2016permalink

Aroart

Awesome gallery, great balance of action and artistic images... This is a great year for gear gasm...

Apr 18, 2016permalink

Hugo808

Really excellent set of varied images that tell you exactly what you need to know: Weddings, sports, street, landscapes and ultra-low light work. It seems to cover them all extremely well. Just the small matter of carrying it around....

Apr 18, 2016permalink

LJ - Eljot

Several times you used the 35mm lens at 135mm. (the bride) How is that possible?

Apr 18, 2016permalink

It isn't! I made a mistake and tagged the wrong lens :) Should be fixed now.

Apr 18, 2016permalink

PVCdroid

Hmmm... How did that happen? Why is EXIF data being changed?

Apr 18, 2016permalink

(unknown member)

Interesting catch PVCdroid. Why when we upload pics the EXIF is automatically used but in DPReviews own images it isn't? That doesn't seem right.

I also noticed the thread calling Rishi out for being pro-Sony in these D5 comments has been deleted.

Said it before and will say it again - things that make you go 'hmmmmmm'.

Apr 18, 2016permalink

EXIF data is never changed. We have the ability to just 'tag' images with a specific lens, which ignores the metadata. That's why there were shots saying a 35mm lens was used, but the EXIF data indicates a 135mm focal length. The latter was correct, and I've updated the files in question to reflect that.

And yes, comments indicating that we are 'salespeople' for specific brands are usually deleted because a) they aren't true, and b) they usually aren't relevant or adding anything constructive.

Apr 18, 2016*permalink

Not to mention, I shot a bunch of the images in this gallery. And also wrote the words: "It's a purpose-built machine: we don't think there's a camera in the world that can keep erratically moving subjects in focus during fast bursts like the D5 can. But it's good at a lot else as well."

So, as Carey said, your comments were untrue, irrelevant, misleading, disrespectful, and as another member even pointed out, ironic given what I contributed to this gallery.

Apr 18, 2016permalink

(unknown member)

@Rishi - I stand corrected on the EXIF data.

However, you will never convince me that DPRevew isn't pro-Sony. Too much consideration & publicity is given to that brand - video's being deleted, people complained at how disappointing the A6300 gallery was and DPReview had an updated gallery 48 hours later, in the South Beach preview comments I asked simply in a non-antagonistic way if DPReview paid for their own way or was gifted the trip as the way I understand these things need to be disclosed & that thread got deleted, then there's the previews to the previews to the review (what was it, full review not much more than 8-10 days after release?) then following up on the review with an addendum to the review. What's on the Sony burner for this week? Now X70 & XC10 reviews before Canon 80D review? A *lot* of folks are saying how disappointing the quality (although they like the compositions) of pictures are in the D5 gallery, can we expect an updated gallery by Wednesday?

Apr 19, 2016permalink

No, (a) there aren't many complaining, & (b) they're complaining about actual perceived problems - like NR killing detail, unsophsticated sharpening not showing much detail, or low ISO DR causing more noise than expected in some shots. These are real world problems - why would we reshoot to, presumably, hide them? That'd be a disservice.

The reality is that image quality does have a bit of pro, and a lot of con.

But the bigger point here is the AF system, that allowed a sports n00b such as myself to even track players long enough to get a decent moment from within a 12-frame burst. With the camera understanding my player & tracking him for a good portion of the time. That's the story, and is the bulk of what's going into the review. We're trying to pour our hearts into this one, so all your talk of what content leads up to what and Sony this and Sony that really fall on deaf ears in the office - the only thing we're biased about is testing the next tech & framing it for our audience.

Apr 19, 2016permalink

fatdeeman

By this kind of logic 95% of the internet must be pro Sony due to the amount of interest their products generate.

The simple fact is that Sony are doing a lot of interesting things, they are thinking outside the box and innovating and this is naturally going to generate quite a lot of attention.

Canon just isn't doing all that much to draw attention to itself at the moment.

I use Canon and Sony, I have zero incentive to blindly favour one brand or the other.

The two most interesting Canon developments recently have been dual pixel AF which essentially is just to allow the camera to give a liveview experience that's competitive with decent mirrorless cameras and their new sensors that bring them closer to the ones made by Sony, Toshiba etc.

I'm not sure what Canon is doing at the moment that's worthy of making a song and dance about. It all screams evolution and not revolution.

Apr 20, 2016permalink

Stollen1234

good photos but really not impressive..i was expecting better from Nikon D5

Apr 18, 2016permalink

DukeCC

SOOC JPEG seems to be the way to go with the D5.

Apr 18, 2016permalink

(unknown member)

I wonder what the high ISO shots look like when DxO Optics Pro supports the D5. Can't wait.

Apr 18, 2016permalink

alcaher

Me too, I want to see some results with the d5 and d500 at high ISO and doing some noise reduction with dxo . You cant go wrong with those cameras and that editing software.

Apr 18, 2016permalink

(unknown member)

Although if the OOC JPEGs are so good then I could skip post-processing altogether. I just wish Nikon would enhance the Picture Controls.

Apr 18, 2016permalink

If DxO supports the camera, you can download some Raw files from our low light gallery and process them yourselves.

Apr 18, 2016permalink

villagranvicent

Excellent shots, agree with others, one of the best gallery so far. Thanks!

Apr 18, 2016permalink

mario GTI

Awesome jpegs, I like!

Apr 18, 2016permalink

cmc1

These are great sample images and Nikon seem to have done a great job with the D5.

Apr 18, 2016permalink

nua

Looking quite impressive so far - which was not what I have been hearing. I am loving the details in the shadows.

Apr 18, 2016permalink

daddyo

First, this is one of the best collections of images I've seen from DPR to display the capabilities of a camera -- good variety.

Second, I find it very interesting that there is such a vast difference in visible noise between the night shot of the dog/street scene @ ISO 12800 from Raw and the next street scene night shot @ ISO 36000 from OOC Jpeg -- the Jpeg image is just miles cleaner, and at any reasonable viewing size renders every bit as much detail -- and that at f/11 where diffraction should be starting to muddy the water.

Regardless, the D5 is clearly an impressive camera -- just way more size, weight, and cost than I would want to deal with.

Apr 18, 2016permalink

Appreciate the kind words. As far as the noise difference, that'll be down to the difference between default NR in the JPEG engine and default NR that Adobe Camera Raw applies. ACR's default settings are pretty weak in that regard, and it's our standard practice for sample galleries that we leave it at default.

Thanks for reading and taking the time to comment!

Apr 18, 2016permalink

To echo what Carey said, we specifically try to include both out-of-camera JPEGs and Raw conversions so you can see what detail is being left on the table (or not) in the camera JPEGs after noise reduction.

Apr 18, 2016permalink

pacnwhobbyist

Great set of photos. Love the retro gas station pic and the one with the cat on top of the car.

Apr 18, 2016permalink

Red G8R

I love the jpegs.

Apr 18, 2016permalink

Don't know what it is but not impressed,maybe the PP...and the high iso is not so special to..maybe i expect to much.i can imagine that when you shoot with a D4s you don't upgrade..
Lot's of wedding pics not sharp but that have nothing to do with the cam

Apr 18, 2016permalink

AlexCHStudio

Nikon should cease all operation activities immediately and sell itself to Canon or better Sony. Nikon failed completely. It is so obvious now because desaint is not impressed. Poor Nikon. All their efforts just vanished in vain..

Apr 18, 2016permalink

what a sad comment..i just give my honest opinion..like everybody else here..it's a review site..

Apr 18, 2016permalink

AlexCHStudio

I also gave my 'honest' opinion. Nikon failed to impress its loyal customer - what could be more sad. Only seppuku could save their honour now..

Apr 18, 2016*permalink