D5 -- What will it take to make you upgrade from a D3s, D4, or D4s to a D5?

donaldejose

I think the only reasonable thing to do now is to purchase both a D5 and a D500 so you have very similar body controls. The D5 will be for sports, low light, general purpose. The D500 will be for birding (increased reach and sharper feather details), indoor sports under flickering lights (D5 doesn't have this, maybe can be added with a software update later?), and general purpose. For the time being keep using the D800, 800e and 810 for landscapes. The replacement for the D810 will come out later this year with more than 50 megapixels and it will adopt the new focusing system in the D5. Get it when it comes out and you will have three bodies with the same user interface to cover all shooting situations. It is a "slam dunk" if you have about $13,000 you can spend.

I am also thinking that we are going to have a real gain of plus 1 to 2 stops improved image quality at high ISO with both the D5 and the D500 which will make DX as usable in low light as FX is in the current generation of FX bodies. By this I mean that existing FX sensors are good to about ISO 3,000 according to DXOMark and I expect the D500 to also rank up at ISO 3,000 on DXOMark's testing. Finally, I expect the new generation (D5, D500, D810 replacement) to crack the 100 sensor rating on DXOMark. We are living in very good times!

GenghisHotep

Only money preventing me upgrading from D4 because I'll have to keep the D4 too; great camera.

However! Has anyone noticed that the D5 is about a HALF A POUND heavier than a D4? D4 = 1,180g; D5 (XQD-Type): 1405g. D5 (CF-Type): 1415g (235g =0.51 lb) I'm bad at math, but this sure looks heavier.

There must be something else inside the D5 that's not in a D4, but what? Radio for the SB5000, or something else? I was very surprised to see this, really hoping for a lighter weight.

And I agree with Msmoto if the D5 came with no mirror, I'd probably upgrade instantly.

donaldejose

If the D5 came with no mirror lots of people buying it would complain about the electronic viewfinder lag time.

Lky

I would just like to chime in for the video end..

Andrews writeup at EOSHD explains why the D5\D500 will be subpar to everything we currently have in terms of options and likely whats to come in 2016.

http://www.eoshd.com/2016/01/nikon-d5-versus-canon-1d-c-cinematic-4k-video-wins/

To sum it up, Nikon chose to not go the extra yard in a few key aspects. If they had done the opposite, those interested in video may have flocked to at least the d500 at $2k, as the D5 sits in a price category with many more video camera options. It still would have made an impressive hybrid. The canon 1DC with 4k video still sells for $6k+, sold for $12k, it was released in 2012. The A7S II on the other hand, sells for $3k and does FF video quite well.

D5

- 3 minute video time limit at 4k
- 1.45x crop = no real FF video
- Same mp4 codec with low bit rate
- HDMI uncompressed does next to nothing, still advertising its "capabilities"
- 30fps max, 60fps would have been bold and quite attractive at 4k
- 4k UHD vs DCI (ads say its cinema ready)


D500

- 1.4x crop on DX sensor = 3x crop of 35mm.. (50mm = 150mm lens, I hope this is not the case but it sure looks like it! devastating if so, Nikons gh4..)

The D500 can do a 30 minute recording but includes all of the other caveats. Sensor crop is probably the sole reason I will likely not be touching either for video. Andrew explains further why a 1:1 pixel readout is good, i.e. the A7S does this beautifully, but a full sensor readout would have been preferable, imo necessary in this case, something which is very possible with new hardware, likely a bad decision that stuck. I'd suggest looking at Andrew's post if your interested in all of this.

Thanks!

-

Just to add I always have a wish on the photography end; i'd really like full 16bit pipeline\files like the medium format files I work with.. Bit depth does exist and its great when you need it ;D.

GenghisHotep

I've not used a mirror-less camera and didn't realize that viewfinder lag time was an issue. Thanks for the info. Hopefully they'll speed it up in the future. No mirror means lighter weight to me but it's got to respond instantly.

autofocus

Pre-Ordered (XQD)... Now the wait

haroldp

I use Nikon DSLR's for anything that is likely to move fast, and lately either Fuji, or Leica for subjects that don't.

I think the best Mirrorless (Sony, Fuji, and possibly Leica SL need 2 more generations (3-5 years) to close this gap.

The big current advantage to mirrorless is that wide (< 58mm for FX) lenses do not have to be retrofocus to clear a mirror and can be smaller, lighter, cheaper, and better than equivalent SLR lenses.

... H

haroldp

To the OP original question, the basis I use for upgrading is 'Do I have a mission that I actually do, where the upgrade materially improves my chances'.

In my case, I use a D810 for wildlife, the D5 would be a non starter and the D500 would improve some parameters (frame rate, buffer depth, ISO at the margins), better Autofocus is probably the most significant to me. It would detract in other parameters, as I usually shoot FF and often get a DX crop in PP, but not always centered. In balance I will likely wait for the improvements in the D500 to trickle to the D8nn/9nn before I begin a DX adventure, but might get excited and get one.

For weddings and events, I still use a D3x (with 2 cf slots) and have never missed a shot that I could blame on the camera. If I did more of that work I would invest in faster flash re-cycling before anything else as that causes an occasional miss. The D5 does nothing for me.

'Horses for Courses'.

... H

WestEndFoto

To the OP original question, the basis I use for upgrading is 'Do I have a mission that I actually do, where the upgrade materially improves my chances'.

In my case, I use a D810 for wildlife, the D5 would be a non starter and the D500 would improve some parameters (frame rate, buffer depth, ISO at the margins), better Autofocus is probably the most significant to me. It would detract in other parameters, as I usually shoot FF and often get a DX crop in PP, but not always centered. In balance I will likely wait for the improvements in the D500 to trickle to the D8nn/9nn before I begin a DX adventure, but might get excited and get one.

For weddings and events, I still use a D3x (with 2 cf slots) and have never missed a shot that I could blame on the camera. If I did more of that work I would invest in faster flash re-cycling before anything else as that causes an occasional miss. The D5 does nothing for me.

'Horses for Courses'.

... H

Then you might be interested in the SB-5000?

retread

We have the high speed twins now, D5 and D500. Thank you Nikon.
Now can we have the high megapixel twins? The D900 and the D9000 please.
We can call them the fabulous 4. (I think that was a movie or something.)

I am not sure which way to jump but when I find a money tree I shall jump somewhere.

donaldejose

Why a high megapixel DX sensor? Seems high megapixel sensors will all be FX.

PB_PM

The only camera that currently has snapbridge is the D500. The D7200 has NFC, which is a wifi protocol. Snapbridge is BLE. (Bluetooth low energy)

Just a FYI, NFC is not related to WIFI and actually predates WIFI.

NFC is a set of short-range wireless technologies, typically requiring a separation of 10 cm or less. NFC operates at 13.56 MHz on ISO/IEC 18000-3 air interface and at rates ranging from 106 kbit/s to 424 kbit/s.

The D7200 and D750 have NFC, which is only used as a quick means of establishing an automatic connection to WIFI on a smartphone.

Ironheart

Yes, I should have been more specific. In any event the data transfer takes place over wifi, as NFC is wicked slow.

haroldp

Sensor based VR would get me to upgrade immediately.

PB_PM

Sensor based VR would get me to upgrade immediately.

And degrade image quality while doing it... no thanks. In lens VR has proven to be superior in every scientific test I've seen done on the subject.

haroldp

Sensor based VR would get me to upgrade immediately.

And degrade image quality while doing it... no thanks. In lens VR has proven to be superior in every scientific test I've seen done on the subject.

That is dependent on sensor size, focal length and speed (f-stop) of the lens.

Longer lenses and larger sensors favor lens based VR as the VR lens group movement is axial in nature and small movements of the glass can be large image movements at the focal plane. Larger sensors have more mass and farther to move.

Shorter (wider) lenses and or smaller sensors begin to favor sensor based VR as less movement and mass is involved.

Lens based VR requires a larger image circle from the lens as well, almost like a PC lens.

Fast lenses, particularly if wide, are especially troublesome that way, which is why it took so long to produce a 24-70 / 2.8 VR, and it is huge. There are no F1.4 lenses with VR.

Sensor based VR is certainly better if needed, than no VR, which is what all of my non-VR Nikon lenses currently have.

Sensor based VR can also be turned off, we can turn off lens based VR but cannot remove the additional optical group from the light path.

I am using Sensor based VR with Leica lenses on a Sony A7II and the combo of a modern sensor, 50mm f1.4 asph Summilux (tack sharp wide open), and VR is completely out of anything in Nikon's capability at this time, even with Zeiss or Sigma glass.

If Sigma produces 'ART' lenses in Sony FE mount as they have said they would, we can add autofocus to that.

That will impact my photography more than going from 40 frame bursts (D810), to 150.

Regards ... H

Beso

Interesting discussion here including all the side conversations and technobabble. Despite my concern over QC (Nikon seems to be tripping more often than not these days) and previous thought to wait for production unit reviews, I went ahead and ordered the D5. Here are my reasons:
Autofocus - I am hoping this is as good as stated and superior to current cameras. Focus and focus tracking with moving subjects with D800 and D810 leaves much to be desired.
Improved low light capability - The D4/D4s have really good low light capability with minimal apparent noise. Nikon says this has been improved and that should be a real advantage in low light situations, dark sky/astrophotography, and indoor sporting events.
Improved frame rate and buffer - self explanatory.
Tonality - Nikon states they have improved skin tone rendition. If tonality has improved significantly that should constitute a reduction in post processing effort.
Memory card module - I appreciate Nikon's commitment to XQD, and their recognition that sometimes the best technology does not win the market in the long term. I ordered XQD for obvious reasons but it is nice to know that the memory card module can be changed to CF, or perhaps some other format if the future dictates. A nice bit of flexibility.

For those decrying video capability I totally understand the desire to have the best of both worlds in a DSLR. I don't shoot video with a DSLR so that is inconsequential for me.

I wish Nikon had opted for more MPs - like 24 or maybe more. Apparently that is not something the bulk of Nikon's projected D5 users desired. Certainly news media has little need for exceptionally detailed images and file size can be an issue, especially when speed of transfer from photographer to editors is critical. When I need or want exceptional detail I can still use the D810.

There is clear recognition of trade-offs necessary to achieve principle objectives. We would all like to have everything rolled up in one neat and tidy package but that is not reality. If the D5 is a good as advertised I think Nikon has a real winner. Time will tell.

donaldejose

The new 20mp sensor seems to be a surprise. However, many D4 users are perfectly happy with the current D4 16 mp and Expeed 5 only has so much processing it can achieve so you would have to sacrifice fps with a 24 or 36mp sensor. Also, Nikon has mentioned that the 20 mp sensor allows for better high ISO. So it is all a trade off. I believe later this year we will see a replacement for the D810 which will have more than 50mp, Expeed 5, the improved AF module, the improved skin tones, the improved high ISO and about 5 fps. The new Nikon "holy trinity" of bodies will be a D5 for speed and durability, a D500 for birding and indoor sports, and a D820 for landscape and studio work. 2016 will be a really great year for Nikon bodies.
I should mention that I read somewhere you cannot really see a difference with a mp increase until it increases about 25%. Note the increases from the D3 12mp to the D4 16mp is about 25% and the increase from the D4 16mp to the D5 20 mp is again about 25%. Thus, those moving from a D4 to a D5 should see about the same increase in detail as did those moving from a D3 to a D4. The D6 will be about 25mp.

WestEndFoto

Why would you use a D500 for indoor sports when you have a D5?

donaldejose

The D500 shoots through the flickering of indoor lights while the D5 lacks this feature, that's why it will be better for most indoor sports arenas. Generally, you are using mild telephoto for indoor sports, not wide angle so the relative lack of DX wide angle lenses isn't a limitation. A key issue will be whether or not a D500 can shoot cleanly at ISO 6,400 to 12,800. If so, you will be able to stop motion with an f2.8 lens. If you don't have to deal with flickering lights, the D5 would be better because it should be about one stop cleaner at high ISO.

haroldp

Hopefully, as indoor lights move to LED (which are a DC device) , flickering will go away.

WestEndFoto

Thanks Donaldjose.

Snowleopard

Ever since getting the SB-900 I have lost faith in Nikon Flashes, The SB-800 was the last good one because of the over heating non-sense. To make it worse, Nikon should have introduced an LED based Flash with the ability to adjust the color temp. of the LED's.

As far as the D5 goes... 20.x MP? I would not even be interested in it unless it was at least 24mp on the low end. 20mp seems like a sacrifice for the ISO that is only so/so at the expanded levels. We are talking about the flagship body that keeps going up $500 every time a new version comes out.

It seems like Nikon is trying to make up for not having an $8,000 body on the market like Canon...

donaldejose

"I'd forget Nikon's now obsolete D5, which was rendered obsolete by this 1DX Mk II even before the D5 shipped." Ken Rockwell Guess we all can stop lusting after an obsolete camera! LOL

kyoshinikon

Having only 16mpx was probably selling point #3 when I bought my D4s. It would be such a headache if I had to try to send 36mpx files in the media scramble. I actually wished they had a medium Raw option. 4mpx is too small and 16 mpx is kinda too big. 8-10mpx would be sweet but with the sensor performance, buffer, and Voice recording of the D4s (hence why my D200 isn't useful). The D5 looks to be right in line with what I need even tho they left out a few of the options I had hoped it would have.