Nikon D5. DR thrown under a bus. But what reason?

On Fri, 1 Apr 2016 22:32:30 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1421475

Has Sony f------ Nikon by providing second-rate sensors? Or did Nikon choose to do this?



Yes, DR at the BASE ISO is a little lower. But given that it's a
PJ/Action cam the shooters will more than likely be concerned with
higher ISO performance. Which has been shown to be stellar.

On 06/04/2016 05:36, wrote:
On Fri, 1 Apr 2016 22:32:30 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

http://www.fredmiranda.com/forum/topic/1421475

Has Sony f------ Nikon by providing second-rate sensors? Or did Nikon choose to do this?



Yes, DR at the BASE ISO is a little lower. But given that it's a
PJ/Action cam the shooters will more than likely be concerned with
higher ISO performance. Which has been shown to be stellar.

I doubt the D5 sensor is a "Sony" design, even if fabricated by Sony,
it's likely to be a Nikon design, as per D3/3s/4/4s.
Bill Claff's analysis of raw files "photographic dynamic range" shows
the same as shown in the link above for the 1DX/D5 comparison (second
chart down) - that sensor performance was more-or-less identical.

I trust opinion I'd read that Canon had hit a bit of a brick wall with
their sensor fabrication a few years ago. Tech experts like Chipworks
had done full teardowns of Canon FX sensors, leading some support to
those claims about Canon's sensor fabrication limitations at the time.
They've apparently made some changes - the 5DS/R have better base ISO DR
than the 5DIII - but the opinion/analysis (probably correct IMO)
suggested that with Canon's old sensor fab, production of an FX 50mp
sensor wasn't even viable, as their steppers couldn't do an FX sized die
in one hit and didn't have the accuracy to stitch at the required
circuit density let alone if they were going to include on-sensor ADC etc.

If that data posted in the link above is accurate, then base ISO DR of
the 1DXII is at the levels of other Nikon/Sony FX sensors all of which
are well ahead of Nikon's "own" FX sensors (D3/4/5 DF) at base ISO.
In other words - Canon have caught up - and in the case of Nikon's
flagship model - surpassed. Good thing.

Me wrote:

Has Sony f------ Nikon by providing second-rate sensors? Or did Nikon choose to do this?



Yes, DR at the BASE ISO is a little lower. But given that it's a
PJ/Action cam the shooters will more than likely be concerned with
higher ISO performance. Which has been shown to be stellar.

I doubt the D5 sensor is a "Sony" design, even if
fabricated by Sony, it's likely to be a Nikon design, as
per D3/3s/4/4s.
Bill Claff's analysis of raw files "photographic dynamic
range" shows the same as shown in the link above for the
1DX/D5 comparison (second chart down) - that sensor
performance was more-or-less identical.

Look closely at the data graphed by Bill Claff, and add
in data for an "Ideal FX" sensor to give it perspective.
The D5 sensor is NOT "more-or-less identical" to any
previous sensor. It is an astounding sensor, and from
ISO 3200 on up it is *essentially* *perfect*.

Claff has not graphed the Canon 1DX2 yet, so I've
included the Nikon D4S and the Canon 1DX in this chart:

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Chart... S,Nikon%20D5

The Nikon D5 is targeted at high ISO and fast frame rates,
for sports and wildlife. The D5 sensor is clearly the best
that has ever been seen for those genres.

It is not the best studio portrait camera! Don't buy a
D5 expecting a very high dynamic range at the base ISO.
But that was also true of all Nikon and Canon
professional flagship DSLR models for the past decade!

If that data posted in the link above is accurate, then
base ISO DR of the 1DXII is at the levels of other
Nikon/Sony FX sensors all of which are well ahead of
Nikon's "own" FX sensors (D3/4/5 DF) at base ISO.

Which is a meaningless comparison. None of those
cameras are targeting use at ISO 100. All that matters
is what you get at ISO 3200 and higher. Canon
unfortunately is still significantly behind both Sony
and Nikon.

In other words - Canon have caught up - and in the case
of Nikon's flagship model - surpassed. Good thing.

But they haven't. Look at the graph in the first URL,
and compare the two at ISO 25,600. Nikon is better by
more than 1/2 an fstop. And because the actual dynamic
range at that point is less than that of either a print
or a JPEG, the Nikon image is going to be visibly better
than the Canon image. There is no way to escape the
effect.

From about ISO 3200 on down it makes little difference
(for a competent photographer) because the dynamic range
recorded is greater than a print or a JPEG image can
display. If exposure even near to close, all of the
images will be the same. For the less than competent
photographer it does mean there is less leeway for
incorrect exposure with the flagship models than with
even the entry level models!

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)

On 06/04/2016 10:36, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Me wrote:

Has Sony f------ Nikon by providing second-rate sensors? Or did Nikon choose to do this?



Yes, DR at the BASE ISO is a little lower. But given that it's a
PJ/Action cam the shooters will more than likely be concerned with
higher ISO performance. Which has been shown to be stellar.

I doubt the D5 sensor is a "Sony" design, even if
fabricated by Sony, it's likely to be a Nikon design, as
per D3/3s/4/4s.
Bill Claff's analysis of raw files "photographic dynamic
range" shows the same as shown in the link above for the
1DX/D5 comparison (second chart down) - that sensor
performance was more-or-less identical.

Look closely at the data graphed by Bill Claff, and add
in data for an "Ideal FX" sensor to give it perspective.
The D5 sensor is NOT "more-or-less identical" to any
previous sensor. It is an astounding sensor, and from
ISO 3200 on up it is *essentially* *perfect*.
Fair enough - but *I don't get too excited about differences of a
fraction of a stop at high ISO, ie D5 @ ISO 3200, PDR 7.55, D4s PDR 7.1.
Yes it's a measurable difference, and yes it's getting very close to
"ideal FX" (subject to correction of claimed ISO), but it's not as
massive as the base ISO differences seen, ie D5 @ISO 100 with PDR about
2 stops lower than say the D810.

Claff has not graphed the Canon 1DX2 yet, so I've
included the Nikon D4S and the Canon 1DX in this chart:

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Chart... S,Nikon%20D5

The Nikon D5 is targeted at high ISO and fast frame rates,
for sports and wildlife. The D5 sensor is clearly the best
that has ever been seen for those genres.

It is not the best studio portrait camera! Don't buy a
D5 expecting a very high dynamic range at the base ISO.
But that was also true of all Nikon and Canon
professional flagship DSLR models for the past decade!

Except the D3x- or has a decade flown by faster than I thought?

If that data posted in the link above is accurate, then
base ISO DR of the 1DXII is at the levels of other
Nikon/Sony FX sensors all of which are well ahead of
Nikon's "own" FX sensors (D3/4/5 DF) at base ISO.

Which is a meaningless comparison. None of those
cameras are targeting use at ISO 100. All that matters
is what you get at ISO 3200 and higher. Canon
unfortunately is still significantly behind both Sony
and Nikon.

In other words - Canon have caught up - and in the case
of Nikon's flagship model - surpassed. Good thing.

But they haven't. Look at the graph in the first URL,
and compare the two at ISO 25,600. Nikon is better by
more than 1/2 an fstop. And because the actual dynamic
range at that point is less than that of either a print
or a JPEG, the Nikon image is going to be visibly better
than the Canon image. There is no way to escape the
effect.

From about ISO 3200 on down it makes little difference
(for a competent photographer) because the dynamic range
recorded is greater than a print or a JPEG image can
display. If exposure even near to close, all of the
images will be the same. For the less than competent
photographer it does mean there is less leeway for
incorrect exposure with the flagship models than with
even the entry level models!

* I put that asterisk in to link to the comment you made about the
purpose of the D5/1Dx class cameras WRT DR at low ISO not being so
important.
Now you're telling me that high DR available at base ISO is only
important for "less than competent" photographers who can't expose
correctly? That's almost like saying that those photographers using
high ISO on a D5 are incompetent because they can't hold a camera steady
enough. High DR and good high ISO performance could be a crutch to poor
technique due to poor exposure in the first case - or shaky hands in the
second, but it's not correct to argue that's the only reason you might
want both.

High base ISO DR is a massive advantage to me in my landscape
photography for print - not for "leeway in case of incorrect exposure",
but for post-processing. By that I don't mean producing what are (IMO)
unnatural looking HDR effects, but exposing to preserve highlights and
PP to lift shadows in a "natural" looking way to produce an image of
what the mind sees - as opposed to what the camera /seems/ to record.
That most pronounced in difficult light, and landscape photography is
(IMO) all about light, and it's almost always challenging.
I care not for comments that such PP is "cheating" and have no respect
for opinions that "as shot - out of camera" has any kind of moral purity
to it. I don't know if your opinion varies from mine on that, if it
does, then too bad - we have different opinions.

Me wrote:
On 06/04/2016 10:36, Floyd L. Davidson wrote:
Me wrote:
Bill Claff's analysis of raw files "photographic dynamic
range" shows the same as shown in the link above for the
1DX/D5 comparison (second chart down) - that sensor
performance was more-or-less identical.

Look closely at the data graphed by Bill Claff, and add
in data for an "Ideal FX" sensor to give it perspective.
The D5 sensor is NOT "more-or-less identical" to any
previous sensor. It is an astounding sensor, and from
ISO 3200 on up it is *essentially* *perfect*.

Fair enough - but *I don't get too excited about
differences of a fraction of a stop at high ISO, ie D5 @
ISO 3200, PDR 7.55, D4s PDR 7.1. Yes it's a measurable
difference, and yes it's getting very close to "ideal
FX" (subject to correction of claimed ISO), but it's not
as massive as the base ISO differences seen, ie D5 @ISO
100 with PDR about 2 stops lower than say the D810.

You should not care about fractions of a stop a *LOW* ISO
values. At any point where the PDR is greater than about
6.5 fstops it makes little difference. Such as at ISO 100.

At ISO's higher than about 4000 it makes a *visible* difference,
not just a measureable difference.

That "massive" difference at base ISO can't be seen in the
image! It does mean that at those ISO's one can miss the
exact exposure by 1 or 2 fstops and still produce a print
that looks the same as one where the ISO was nailed. At ISO
6400 the difference in being 1 stop off with the exposure is
seen as 1 fstop lost to either blocking of blacks if it was
under exposed or clipping of whites if it was over exposed.

Claff has not graphed the Canon 1DX2 yet, so I've
included the Nikon D4S and the Canon 1DX in this chart:

http://www.photonstophotos.net/Chart... S,Nikon%20D5

The Nikon D5 is targeted at high ISO and fast frame rates,
for sports and wildlife. The D5 sensor is clearly the best
that has ever been seen for those genres.

It is not the best studio portrait camera! Don't buy a
D5 expecting a very high dynamic range at the base ISO.
But that was also true of all Nikon and Canon
professional flagship DSLR models for the past decade!

....

From about ISO 3200 on down it makes little difference
(for a competent photographer) because the dynamic range
recorded is greater than a print or a JPEG image can
display. If exposure even near to close, all of the
images will be the same. For the less than competent
photographer it does mean there is less leeway for
incorrect exposure with the flagship models than with
even the entry level models!

* I put that asterisk in to link to the comment you made
about the purpose of the D5/1Dx class cameras WRT DR at
low ISO not being so important.
Now you're telling me that high DR available at base ISO
is only important for "less than competent"
photographers who can't expose correctly? That's almost

That is what you are saying, and not what I said. I did not
use the word "only". I am saying that for beginners, who
may not be able to nail the exposure every time, it is significant.
For competent professionals who can in fact nail it every time,
it's not nearly as important.

like saying that those photographers using high ISO on a
D5 are incompetent because they can't hold a camera
steady enough. High DR and good high ISO performance
could be a crutch to poor technique due to poor exposure
in the first case - or shaky hands in the second, but
it's not correct to argue that's the only reason you
might want both.

Absurdity is not a valid argument.

High base ISO DR is a massive advantage to me in my
landscape photography for print - not for "leeway in
case of incorrect exposure", but for post-processing.

I would suggest that you not even consider purchase of
the Nikon D4, D4S, D5 models, nor of any of the Canon
1DX versions. If you want a pickup truck, don't bother
visiting the Cadillac showroom. And if you do buy a
sedan, don't complain that it is not suitable to hauling
a load of plywood.

By that I don't mean producing what are (IMO) unnatural
looking HDR effects, but exposing to preserve highlights
and PP to lift shadows in a "natural" looking way to
produce an image of what the mind sees - as opposed to
what the camera /seems/ to record. That most pronounced
in difficult light, and landscape photography is (IMO)
all about light, and it's almost always challenging.
I care not for comments that such PP is "cheating" and
have no respect for opinions that "as shot - out of
camera" has any kind of moral purity to it. I don't
know if your opinion varies from mine on that, if it
does, then too bad - we have different opinions.

I see nothing wrong at all with your processing methods.

But it would be foolish to buy any of the Canon, Nikon,
or Sony models that target high speed sports and
photojournalism in some expectation of shooting optimal
landscapes!

Take your pick, buy a camera that produces the best
possible images for high school basketball, or pick a
camera that does the best for afternoon landscapes.
Whichever you buy, the other use will be seriously
compromised.

--
Floyd L. Davidson http://www.apaflo.com/
Ukpeagvik (Barrow, Alaska)