4 replies to this topic

[DocPit]

I was wondering if anyone owns a D750 and a D5 and has had a chance to compare the two?

 

I decided I was ready to upgrade from the D3200 I bought to “get my feet wet” in digital. (Actually, for $400, the D3200 is an incredibly capable little machine.) Anyway, I preordered a D5, which was delivered last week. I figured that if, as reported, the D5 could deliver very usable results at astronomical ISOs, then, within the more moderate ISO range that I would like to access (perhaps to 10,000), images would be very clean if not noise free. If so, the camera would be worth the money.

 

My own tests show that—not surprisingly—the $6500 D5 outperforms my $400 D3200. At ISO 6400, the D5 certainly does a better job than the D3200, but—given both the FX/DX and the price differences--it doesn't “blow it away.” At ISO 9000 with a predominantly mid-tone image, I can crop out about 1/3 of the .NEF file, resample, and, if I display it at Print View (in CS6), a 12”x16” print at 300 ppi looks pretty good. Not noise free, but not bad.

 

Reviews such as this one (Photographic Dynamic Range versus ISO Setting) seem to suggest that, vs. a much lower priced camera like the D750, the D5 actually performs worse (smaller PDR) in the ISO 100-800 range, similar at ISO 800-1200, and better as ISO moves into the higher ranges. As a practical matter, both my D3200 and my D5 perform well in the lower ISO range (comparing apples with oranges); however, it may be that the “comparison tool” provided in this article ( Studio report: Nikon D5 has lowest base ISO dynamic range of any current FF Nikon DSLR: Digital Photography Review) provides some sense of what “worse” means in that range. They compare D5 and D750 RAW files shot at ISO 100, underexposed, then pushed to the “correct brightness” in ACR. Once they get to +3EV, there is substantially more noise in the corrected D5 RAWs vs. the D750s. (Moral of the story, get your exposure right?) However, that same Image Comparison Tool seems to suggest that, when D5 and D750 images correctly exposed at ISO 6400 are compared, the D5 images appear to show substantially less noise.

 

At any rate, if anyone owns both a D5 and a D750 and has been playing around, I'd be interested in knowing it you see a substantial performance difference given the very substantial price difference.

[OTRTexan]

So here's my take on tests and reviews of that nature. By the way, I've had my D5 for a little over a week now, and my other bodies include the 810 and 3200. Tests like these don't apply to my shooting style. The D5 for me will be used for sports and low light situations, and will rarely be set to ISO 100. Even if I'm shooting a soccer game in the middle of the day where I am at lower ISOs, am I really going to care if it has a little less dynamic range? Nope. Any landscape or street shooting I do where DR matters, I'll be using the 810.

From the little bit I've shot with mine, the improvements I wanted over my 810 are there in spades. Much faster shutter speed. Much better low light capabilities, and a faster AF system for action. I'm tickled to death with my investment.

As far as comparing it to the 3200, you can absolutely get fantastic images from it in non challenging situations. However, take it into a high school gym and stack it up against the D5... I loved my 3200 for a long time, it's a very capable camera. But since I bought my 810, it's seen very little use. Once you get used to shooting with a pro body, it's hard to go back. At least it is for me. My bodies are like my lenses, they are there for different situations depending on what I'm shooting.

This is probably not the kind of response you were looking for, especially since I don't have a 750, but to me trying to compare the two is very much, like you said, comparing apples to oranges.

[Merco_61]

To put things into perspective, Fuji Reala had slightly under 8 stops of DR. This was enough to get full detail in both the bride's dress and a black morning coat in full sun. That was the widest gamut available in the analog days, and it was a ISO 100 film. The D4s is over 8 stops still at ISO 25600 when downsampled for a 45x30 cm print in pixelpeeper quality according to DxOmark. The D5 is markedly better.

 

The dpreview test is flawed IMO as it tests how ACR interprets the NEF as much as it tests the sensor output itself. Another flaw is that you always introduce massive noise when shooting to the left and raising exposure in post, this makes the method questionable.

 

The three current FX bodies are very different from each other. The D810 is made for studio and landscape shooting where every bit of DR and every pixel counts. The D750 isn't the best at anything, but it can be used with good results for any task and the D5 is a tool for PJ, sports and documentary shooting in low light and at high speed. 

[TBonz]

I have to agree with OTR!  I can compare "older versions" of each having had the D600 and now having a D4.  I've also had / shot earlier bodies, but the D600 and the D4 or effectively earlier versions of the D750 and the D5 respectively.  Oh - and don't forget the upcoming D500 unless there is some reason you specifically want FX over DX.  If it is as advertised, the D500 will probably be the next body I purchase...

 

Of course, Merco said things much better than I could have.  The reality is that it comes down to what you primarily intend to shoot and what will do that best within your budget.  In my case I chose a second D4 body over a D750 body for a few reasons - one of which was having identical bodies to work with.  That also tells you that I am pretty happy with my original choice of a D4.  But, I mostly shoot sports and quite a number of the sports are on poorly lit fields.  

 

I had my hands on a D5 for a few minutes and it is amazing.  I'm not ready to sell my D4 bodies but I was happy to see it and feel it...maybe down the road!

[DocPit]

Thanks very much for the insights.  I figured the ISO range between 100-400/800 usually is not particularly problematic with respect to noise.  However, I sometimes photograph in aquarium and reptile exhibits; ie. relatively low light + subject in motion.  So, 1600-6400 is fairly common for me, and, with my D3200, noise has been a problem.  The D5 brochure suggests that the camera is optimized to produce excellent results in the ISO 3200 to 12800 range.  That's why I went to the D5.  When I read some of the most recent reports, I wondered whether I was paying +$4,500 for a camera that, in practical terms, isn't going to deliver any more than what I could get from a D750.  But, I think that's not the case and the D5 really is worth the $$$.  I haven't had time to do anything more than a little "get acquainted" testing with the camera at home.  I started in photography in the late 70s/early 80s when everything was manual and all controls are on the camera or lens.  What I do love about the D5 is that I can access most controls manually (as opposed to menus).  Feels like old times!  Again, thanks for the insights.