D5

Discussion in 'Nikon' started by pete_resetz, May 7, 2016.

  1. I was at Procam in Livonia, Michigan earlier today to pickup a replacement battery pack for my D2Hs,(George the owner gave me a deal on it I might add) and in the vestibule where they keep the product brochures, I grabbed one for the Nikon D5. In it is a comparison of the D5 to the D3 and D4. I thought that this kind of unusual that Nikon would want to downplay their older D's. From what I've read in the brochure and online postings and seen from Nikon's website, there isn't that much of a difference between the three cameras other than pixel count going up and a few other things. So apparently with such a small difference between them, Nikon felt the need to convince us that there is more than really is. Or is this in the words of Yogurt from the movie, Spaceballs, MAKITING !
    Any thoughts on this ?
    00dvIX-562851484.jpg
     
  2. I don't think there's anything new in companies playing up vanishingly small advances/differences in camera technology as a marketing tool Pete. After all, in the film era it didn't really matter which SLR camera body you used; they were all limited by the use of rubbishy 35mm film. To see any improvement in image quality you had to either use a larger format, or wait for Kodak or Fuji to invent a better emulsion - which you could then just as well use in your existing camera. T-Max 100 in the earliest Nikon F would still produce better IQ than Plus-X exposed in an F4.
    At least the technical advances in digital cameras are real and tangible, no matter how tiny.
     
  3. While IQ has not improved tremendously, it has improved over its predecessor none-the-less. There have been improvements in certain specific features which will appeal to many pros making the investment in the D5 worthwhile and a valuable upgrade.
    The bottom line is that there is more...
     
  4. Rodeo and Elliot; I get what you're saying, but I found this comparison odd. Usually a company will compare the improvement of their product against a competitor's. That's all.
    If you're interested, it's; D5-COMPARE-31-1/16 15-355
     
  5. Don't wish to come off too strong, but if one can't get things done with D3s or D4s, I'm fairly certain that one would have a problem getting it with D5 or even D6 :>), for that matter.
    Look, I have a friend who's drooling about D4s, tho he had D800 and had problems getting any decent images from it (no left focus issues, either). Anyhoo, no amount of convincing from Nikon or sales staff will make things better.....or comparing it to competition. If your images are great from D2Hs, then you'll have similar results with X (anything from D700 and up), tho I'm purposely not including the D5....urr, and perhaps slicky D600 :>).
    Les
     
  6. there isn't that much of a difference between the three cameras other than pixel count going up and a few other things​
    'a few other things' include an all-new AF system and 4k video. for sports/action shooters, AF is one of the most prioritized things, so this is a pretty big deal. also the D4 has much better low-light performance than the D3, and the D5 has better low-light performance than the D4.
    If you're interested, it's; D5-COMPARE-31-1/16 15-355​
    what is this? it's not an active link, and plugging it into a URL does nothing.
     
  7. Leszek; I don't have any interest in acquiring anything more than a D3X, which for me will in all likelihood will be my end game DSLR. I'm not interested in video. Just waiting for the used prices on them to come down, and this is so I can use my Nikkor 15mm f/3.5 AI-S lens again to it's full effect.
    Also I'm a brochure junky. Like to keep abreast on what's new like what Lamborghini latest offering is. Will all likelihood never own one, but it's still interesting for me know about.
     
  8. Marketing pro-level DSLRs has to be a two-pronged attack Pete. As well as trying to reach new customers, you need to convince existing users to upgrade to the latest model. So a web page devoted to comparison with previous models makes perfect sense. In fact I imagine most of the sales of D5 will come from the existing customer-base of Nikon users; either replacing or upgrading a camera nearly worn out by heavy pro use, or by someone with a prosumer level Nikon looking to upgrade.
     
  9. Erik; It's the brochures catalog number. And the whole point was, that this is one of the few times I have seen a company compare its former products. That's all. I'm not knocking the D5's advancements.
     
  10. Personally, I loathe advertising where company A shows how they're better than Company B. It shows that you feel threatened by them and that you feel you need to convince people you actually are the best. If you want to be really convinving, you just state you are the best, and you made you best just a bit better again. That, to me, shows faith and confidence. Doesn't quite matter whether it is justified, it's marketing after all. Probably also a way to avoid legal battles on false claims.
     
  11. Companies always present new models in a way to make older versions seem obsolete. The Ford Edsel advertised gear shift buttons in the center of the steering wheel as an earth shaking innovation (the "surprised" look of the grill design served to reinforce that impression).
    That didn't work out so well for Ford. I suspect Nikon will be more successful. Who wouldn't jump at the chance for 14 fps instead of a measly 12? 20.5 MP instead of 16 (a 13% improvement in resolution)? Three whole minutes of 4K video at a time?
     
  12. Leszek; I don't have any interest in acquiring anything more than a D3X, which for me will in all likelihood will be my end game DSLR.​

    'til it breaks and there aren't replacement parts available... jus' sayin'...

    Also, the top end products like D5 are really designed for pros who probably wear out a camera much faster than amateurs like me. Such folks are NOT going to replace a dead D3s in 2016 with a used D3s, they are probably going to the D5.
     
  13. I don't have any interest in acquiring anything more than a D3X, which for me will in all likelihood will be my end game DSLR.​
    well, i suppose if you've made it all this way with a D2H, a D3x would be a fairly significant upgrade. But unless you really really want a big-body full-frame DSLR, a D3x seems a little obsoleted at this point. Its main claim to fame was boasting the highest resolution of any DSLR, but that mark has been long eclipsed by newer bodies. in retrospect, the D3x's retail price of $8000 USD seems rather exorbitant, though at the time, perhaps justifiable by commercial and fashion photographers. It's nostalgic to read this 2009 D3x review from Luminous Landscape, which points out that the main difference between a D3 and D3x was 12mp and $4000; nowadays, you can get a Nikon 24mp FF sensor body for as low as $1000, or 1/8th the cost of a D3x at full retail. if you do want a D3x, i'd get it sooner rather than later, as they are not getting any younger. Honestly, for my money, spending $2100 on a used D3x (as per B&H) makes less sense to me than spending that same amount (or less) and getting a D750 + 24-120/4 kit, or spending 1/2 as much and getting a D610.

    The idea of an "end game DSLR" doesnt completely hold water to me, either, since technology doesn't stand still. i remember when i got a D300 and thought at the time it was all the camera I'd ever want. After using it for a couple years, I scooped up a D3s for the better low-light performance. Now that camera is starting to feel old and a little underpowered in terms of resolution. I may just replace the shutter when it finally dies, but it's also likely i would buy a newer model. I don't necessarily need the weight and bulk of a big body DSLR, though it does balance well with heavier lenses, but things like more AF coverage and better AF-C performance would be appealing, as well as more room for cropping.
    the top end products like D5 are really designed for pros who probably wear out a camera much faster than amateurs like me. Such folks are NOT going to replace a dead D3s in 2016 with a used D3s, they are probably going to the D5.​
    Nikon full-frame has basically followed two or three divergent paths. Essentially, the D3x begat the D8XX series, which concentrated on resolution. The D3 led to the D3s, D4/D4s, and now D5, a more performance-attenuated model with a modest megapixel count and speed enhancements. The third path is consumer full-frame, with entry-level (D6xx) and mid-range (D7xx) models. I dont see anything wrong with getting one of those if all you want to do is use legacy lenses at native focal lengths and have reasonably-high resolution, although one might have to overlook the ignominy of included scene and auto modes.
     
  14. The progress in image quality after the D3X has been considerable; I would not dismiss those improvements as anything subtle.
     
  15. The progress in image quality after the D3X has been considerable; I would not dismiss those improvements as anything subtle.​
    True, but when does Nikon get on board?
    The D5 is designed to capture hundreds of images so that one or two can be reproduced four columns wide at 80 dpi. If that's how you make your living, it's the right tool for the job.
     
  16. The D810 is the current version of the high res line (D3X -> D800/D800E -> D810). The D5 is in a different product line (D3 -> D3S -> D4 -> D4s -> D5) intended for action, photojournalism, wildlife etc. Sony doesn't make the latter type of camera at all. Canon's 1D X series are similar to the D4/D5 series (high speed, integral vertical grip). Canon's 5Ds R is the D810's nearest competitor (both have a more compact construction without the integrated vertical grip). I'm not sure what you mean about Nikon "getting on board", the Sony A7R came out in late 2013 (the D800 about 1.5 years earlier in spring 2012), and Canon 5Ds came out in 2015, so for a while there Nikon had the best image quality in 35mm full frame sensor sized cameras and the D810 is still excellent put against any other camera in its price class. The integral vertical grip high res models (if that's what you mean, a "D5X" type camera) would lose so badly against the 5D/D8x0 series in popularity that I suspect no manufacturer is ever going to introduce another camera of that type.
     
  17. Image quality involves a lot more than megapixels, and Nikon is barely competitive even in that way. In this context, frames per second and battery life are irrelevant. The need to design lenses around a bulky mirror box involves compromises that can't be easily or cheaply eliminated. The most significant improvements in the last two years have been in mirrorless cameras and especially lenses, similar to rangefinder lenses, designed to accommodate that configuration. Design efforts can be devoted to improving the image quality, instead of maintaining 2" between the end of the lens and the image plane.
    Nikon is certainly capable of developing a professional level mirrorless system, but is slow out of the gate. Perhaps they think it is a passing fad. Kodak felt that way about digital, even while making others successful with that technology.
     
  18. Edward, I'm so surprised to see you say that... (come on... laugh a little...)
     
  19. I would like to see Nikon succeed. They have the resources, reputation and service organization nearly unmatched in the industry. Perhaps they need their cage rattled a bit. Too often, large corporations achieve innovation only by purchasing a smaller company with breakthrough technology. That way the parent company can concentrate on endless meetings, complete with coffee and pastries, while training the new employees to fit into that culture too. (Whoops, you said "lighten up." I guess too many years in a large company and too many interactions with marketing types have me jaded.)
     
  20. the D810 is still excellent put against any other camera in its price class.
    Nikon is barely competitive even in that way.​
    This seems to be a matter of subjective opinion. most people would argue the Nikon line is still quite competitive top to bottom, in terms of performance metrics as well as image quality. In fact, let's see what happens when we visit DXO Mark's camera ratings, shall we? For overall score, here we find their top camera, the A7RII, beating the D810 by... exactly 1 point, with the Nikon ranking higher for "landscape." If that's "barely" competitive, I'm Annie Leibowitz. Going down the rest of the top ten, we find 4 Sony cameras and 6 Nikon cameras. That sounds a lot better than "barely competitive" to me. Just for kicks, we can see that the ancient D3x, introduced way back in 2008, outscores more recent bodies like the Leica Q, Canon 5DS, Leica M typ 240, Phase One P40, and Sony A7s and A7sII, while tieing the brand-new Leica SL. Not to belabor the point, but the notion that an eight-year old body can hold its own in 2016 is the very definition of competitiveness.
    The most significant improvements in the last two years have been in mirrorless cameras and especially lenses, similar to rangefinder lenses, designed to accommodate that configuration.​
    This is also a subjective argument, and one extremely biased in favor of Sony. One could easily counter-argue that Phase One's 80mp digital medium format body represents a more significant development than a line of mirrorless full-frame bodies. Just as one could easily argue that Sony's biggest innovations isn't their lenses, but their proprietary technology, such as a back-illuminated sensor for faster data transmission, the 5-axis stabilization, and integrated 4k video. Where the Sonys tend to get dinged, though, is in sports performance, an area where many Nikons excel, including the just-released D500.
    I would like to see Nikon succeed. They have the resources, reputation and service organization nearly unmatched in the industry. Perhaps they need their cage rattled a bit.​

    I dont want to turn this thread into another Nikon vs. Sony pissing contest, or a 'when will Nikon commit to a mirrorless line' thread, as both are way off-topic. But it's clearly premature to declare the superiority of mirrorless vs. DSLRs, at least as far as sales are concerned. DSLRs still outsell mirrorless by more than 2 to 1 worldwide, and Sony's overall sales are down, while profit margin is up -- a result of pushing fewer, but more expensive, products. To some extent, that marketing philosophy is shared throughout the industry, because basic compact sales lost to smart phones aren't coming back. That's probably the biggest factor driving market strategy, which explains the glut of mid-end products as well as the desired expansion into high-end enthusiast products.
     
  21. Who said anything about Sony besides you, Eric? "Mirrorless" is a generic term, and in most respects represents the cutting edge of image quality. Besides, Fuji makes mirrorless cameras and excellent lenses, and I thought you liked Fuji. The consensus is that the D5 is an highly specialized camera for sports and journalism, and other cameras would make a better choice for pictorialists.
    What the thread turns into is not your right to dictate. As long as the discourse evolves in a logical and civil manner, it's a conversation, not a catechism. I'm surprised you waited so long to break that pattern.
     
  22. sorry, but im still wondering how a company with six of the top ten cameras tested for overall quality can be considered "barely competitive."
     
  23. Who said anything about Sony...​

    Edward, you didn't... yet... but given time...
     
  24. sorry, Edward, but with all your comments about high-resolution mirrorless full frame cameras, i naturally assumed you were talking about Pentax. ;)
     
  25. Everything you need to know or ask about mirrorless cameras is discussed in that forum, along with Eric's endless advocacy for optical viewfinders, which includes the Pentax mentioned above.
     
  26. From the D3 to the D5 there have been four incremental improvements. I have the D3s, and, although it does what it does very well, I have to concede that the D5 is no mere incremental improvement over the D3 or D3s. Four increments have made for a very substantial improvement over about eight years.
    Here is a recent thread in which we discussed at least one or two ways that the D5 has definitely turned some corners.
    The D3s is too much camera for my needs, I admit, but it is a joy to shoot. The D5 is pretty much where action cameras ought to be, in my opinion--and it would make a whale of a portrait camera as well. If I had the money I might buy it myself. I don't, and so I won't.
    --Lannie
     
  27. Along with the D5|D4x|D3s comparison sheet there's a bigger brochure for the D5|D500. It said "I AM THE DAWN OF A NEW ERA". I laughed when I read that thinking to myself that I'll wait for lunchtime of the new era. Anyway I think it's a fair comparison - especially for D3s or D4 (&s) owners who might wonder about the new D5. When the D4s came out some said it should be the D5 since it was so much better than the D4. Having used all three at the Indianapolis 500 I find they all work great. Disclaimer? I also shoot with a D3200. When I go thru my photographs I usually have to look to see which images were shot with which camera. Most sports is single-frame. There's one decisive bit of action. Not even 12 fps will always get it. Timing is everything. As one who over-anticipates action (and shoots early) the motor can be a life saver though. Good photographing out there all.
     
  28. Eric's endless advocacy for optical viewfinders​
    identifying irony is not your strong suit, Edward. just a few comments ago you were noting my affinity for Fuji's mirrorless bodies. now you've moved on to accusing me of being a shill for OVFs. Yet if we are talking about infinite regurgitation of fanboyish marketing drivel ad nauseum, a certain Sony enthusiast comes to mind. It's not enough for you to oversaturate the Mirrorless forum with your pedantic, and often false, statements. Now you have to infect the Nikon forum with more completely-unsupported opinions, such as "Nikon barely competes" in image quality. if you're going to make those ridiculous claims, you should at least acknowledge when evidence to the contrary is presented.
     
  29. Gosh I didn't realize, when I posted (or I wasn't paying attention), that this post seems to have little to do with the D5. Silly me. Carry on with your conversation.
    Good photographing out there all.
     

Share This Page