Nikon D5 : Tests and Reviews
Nikon D5 side by side comparisons
Nikon D5 versus predecessor
Nikon D5 versus Canon model
Nikon D5 versus rival model with similar score
Try our side-by-side camera comparison tool
Further readings for the Nikon D5
To provide photographers with a broader perspective about mobiles, lenses and cameras, here are links to articles, reviews, and analyses of photographic equipment produced by DxOMark, renown websites, magazines or blogs.
 |
The Sony a9 is the Japanese manufacturer’s latest flagship mirrorless offering, boasting a raft of high-performance features for action photographers. The 24.2Mp stacked CMOS sensor offers up to 20x faster sensor readout times, with an electronic shutter capable of impressively quick 1/32,000-second shutter speed, and blackout-free continuous shooting. |
 |
Announced in February 2016, the $749 Tamron SP 85mm f/1.8 Di VC USD (Tamron 85mm f/1.8) is a fast, short telephoto prime lens available in Canon, Nikon, and Sony lens mounts. This review considers the performance of the Nikon version. |
 |
If you’ve invested in Nikon’s D500 APS-C DSLR, you’re no doubt delighted with its excellent build, tilting touch-screen LCD, new joystick control, chunky ergonomic handgrip, and large viewfinder. It’s a high-performance APS-C option, too, that includes the 153-point improved tracking autofocus system and Expeed 5 processing engine from Nikon’s flagship D5, as well as 10fps burst shooting of up to 200 14-bit RAW files. |
 |
In part 2 of our “best lenses for the Nikon D500” review, we look at some of the highest-scoring DX-format zoom lenses. There are many more DX zoom lenses available for the D500 compared to primes. Zooms are a more popular lens choice for many APS-C shooters who are often looking for a more convenient and versatile multi-purpose lens. |
 |
Nikon’s latest flagship FX-mount, full-frame DSLR — the D5 — is a performance powerhouse, featuring a new 153-point autofocus system and 12 fps burst shooting of up to 200 14-bit RAW files. Designed for the traditional customer base of sports, press and wildlife pros demanding top performance, the D5’s increased 20.8Mp resolution and enhanced low-light capabilities has further broadened the D5’s appeal. As well as boasting enough pixels for advertising, magazine, and even landscape photography, the D5’s image quality improvements at the mid-ISO 1600–12,800 range will interest a range of professionals looking for great results in low light. |
 |
We summarize the scores and analyses of multi-purpose zoom lenses in this second part of our review of the best lenses for the Nikon D5. More versatile than primes, zoom lenses are often a more convenient choice for shooting in fast-paced environments when you don’t always have time to switch lenses. Although primes generally deliver better image quality, with noticeably improved edge sharpness and transmission, zoom performance has steadily improved, and now some come close to rivalling the performance of a prime. |
 |
With an all-new 20.2-Mpix full-frame CMOS sensor featuring dual DIGIC 6 processors, a native ISO range up to 51,200, and continuous shooting at up to 14fps, the Canon EOS-1D X Mark II is the latest top-of-the-range model in the maker’s lineup. Read on to find out how well this new sensor performs. |
 |
With an all-new 20.9-Mpix APS-C CMOS sensor achieving a native ISO up to 51200, and capable of 10 fps in RAW with a 200-shot buffer, the D500 is the latest semipro-oriented crop camera model from Nikon. Read on to find out how well its sensor performs. |
 |
 |
Following Nikon’s announcement in November 2015 about having developed of a new flagship FX-format DSLR, rumors about its specifications have abounded. Well, speculation can now cease, as the Japanese manufacturer has officially launched the new Nikon D5 with some mouth-watering performance capabilities for the professional photographer. |
Comments
|
Added by Green Flash |
November 12 , 2016
Lens Ratings
It might be useful for DXO to give a little more explanation of its lens and sensor rating criteria. I have the impression that the overall rating is a reflection of the sub-ratings stitched together but clearly it's more than that. I am comparing the phenomenal Sigma F 1.4 Art 35 mm lens, on the Nikon D-5 (Rating 39, D5300(Rating 31) and Canon 5D MkIII (Rating 34), to make my point.
This is a big difference in rating. The pmp for these three lenses is 18 mp, 17 mp and 19 mp. respectively. What is interesting is that the distortion, vignetting and chromatic abberation ratings are all better for the D5300 than either of the other two cameras. The transmission rating is only a little lower. More, As between the D-5 and the 5DMkIII, the latter has more PMP and better transmission, is a little worse on vignetting, but equal on Chromatic aberration and distortion. So as between these cameras, it looks as though this lens delivers its best performance on the Canon 5dMkIII, followed closely by the D5300. Now the Nikon D750 matches rather closely except it has 22pmp, significantly better, so that explains it's higher rating with this lens. My guess is that low light plays a significant role in the ultimate lens+camera ratings. On the sensor rating side, we have similar issues. For example, you rate the D-810 way higher than the D-5, and in fact you even give it a much better low light rating. But experienced photographers know that in low light the D-5 is better. More, you apparently base your entire dynamic range rating on the DR at the lowest ISO, because the D-5 is actually better from ISO 600 up. Consider an averaged ISO performance like from 100 to 3200 or 6400. What I am also suggesting is that maybe you could give us a rather longish article telling us in rather detail how these factors interplay in your rating systems. It would help especially those of us who are less experienced to use your ratings as intelligently as possible. Reply |
|
|
Added by Sheik_it_up |
May 30 , 2016
Manufacturer's claimed ISO
Claimed: ISO 3.2M vs Measured: ISO 1.3M (1.3Ev discrepancy)
Claimed: ISO 102k vs Measured: ISO 57k (0.84Ev discrepancy) How much do you think is an acceptable amount of overstating. As camera settings are typically adjustable in 1/3 of a stop increments, I assume 75-80% accuracy is a reasonable expectation. Reply | Read all replies for this comment |
First replies for this comment
|
|
Added by ahsanford |
May 31 , 2016
Re: Manufacturer's claimed ISO
Precisely zero people took their marketed D5 & D500 ISO limits seriously. Even if the camera allows that setting, few would argue that either camera was even two stops better in high ISO than their immediate predecessors, let alone the 7-8 stops they were marketing its limits to imply.
It's shameful marketing to be sure, but it was such a farcical jump in limits that I doubt anyone took it seriously. - A Reply |
|
|
Added by Sheik_it_up |
May 31 , 2016
Re: Manufacturer's claimed ISO
I wonder if the D500 ISO numbers are similarly overstated. It may go some way to explaining the low light performance that many people are raving about. It goes without saying that I eagerly await actual ISO measurements in the D500 review.
Reply |
|
|
Added by ahsanford |
May 31 , 2016
Re: Manufacturer's claimed ISODPR's test setup already posted their IQ comparison work on the D500: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikon-d500/7 Clearly the best for crop, but we're talking a stop or two better than the 7D2, not ISO 1.6 million. The D500 seems to be a great rig, but shame on Nikon for pulling a parlour trick like the ISO 1.6M limit. Reply |
|
|
Added by Bilbo |
June 01 , 2016
Re: Manufacturer's claimed ISO
>How much do you think is an acceptable amount of overstating.
In my opinion overstating by 2, 3, 4 EVs is fine - because the camera neither looses highlights nor looses something particular for shadows. Overstating ISO does not matter much at all because it is not ISO which defines the noise level after all. Assume that sensor A has 12 dB SNR at some ISO setting, exposure value and object luminousity and sensor B with same resolution has 18 dB SNR ni exactly same conditions. Now, sensor A has a higher ISO setting at which it has same SNR while sensor B hasn't. So, is the sensor A any better than sensor B if it has lower SNR even at higher ISO setting? Of course no. A user of sensor B will achieve better result by using manual underexposure. Only understating ISO value is bad because highlights are lost. Reply |
|
|
Added by Sheik_it_up |
June 02 , 2016
Re: Manufacturer's claimed ISO
In my opinion, overstating by a 0.3Ev seems okay as that is the typical exposure adjustment increment, and provides some highlight protection. For me claiming that performance is twice as good (1Ev) or four times as good (2Ev) or 8 times as good (3Ev) seems extremely dishonest. Also, is average SNR the full story? If a camera has a fixed pattern noise problem then won't raising exposure cause problems?
Reply |
|
|
Added by prl105 |
June 03 , 2016
Re: Manufacturer's claimed ISO
Oh wow, the D5 ISO goes up to 3+ million something. Having seen the noise on the DPR review, no one in their right mind is seriously going to use it. After all we're photographers and the prospect of taking images that resemble a Persian carpet is just ridiculous right?
I have a D3. An amazing camera, produces really smooth files from the in-spec ISO range, its ISO H2 range is 25,600, and nobody in their right mind, myself included, is seriously going to take images that resemble a Persian carpet, correct? But wait, that bodies sensor tech is 10-years old. My colleague shoots a D7200, it has double the mpix of the D3 and can shoot 25,600 with ease, no Persian carpet effect there! I've just acquired the D500, and OMG it shoots 51,200 in-spec, produces incredible usable images from the light of a TV in the corner of the room. It also has ISO H5 to 1.6 million too, but as photographers, we're not carpet salesmen, correct. In case my point is being obscured here, perhaps by the time we see a D6, or D7, from Nikon, or a 1Dxyz MKxxvii from Canon, it remains a possibility, that 1.6 to 3.2 million ISO will be in-spec and we'll be commenting on the stupid announcement of ISO Hn hitting nBillion, and this being an slight overstatement. 10-years ago, we couldn't have imagined having this discussion, 'don't be stupid, the ISO H2 from the D3 produces images that resemble a Persian carpet'. For me, I'm so looking forward to the next 10-years of technology development, while wishing the film manufacturers had had the good sense to protect their market in the way the camera manufacturers appear to be doing now. For the record, I shoot two of the top three Nikon bodies, D810 & D500. The D3 is backup, can you imagine? Yes! My hobby camera is a Nikon F6, arguably the best film SLR in the world, which is certainly challenging as I'm limited to ISO range 50-3200, all black+white of course. To everyone out there, enjoy your photography. :D PRL. Reply |
|
|
Added by Sheik_it_up |
June 04 , 2016
Re: Manufacturer's claimed ISO
I don't think you understand where I'm coming from. The DXO measured ISO indicates how bright an image is actually produced by a camera and makes note of what the manufacturer claims the ISO value is.
Say you are shooting with a hypothetical camera called the Lamadingdong X3000. When you set the camera to ISO 51,200 it should produce an image 32 times (5-stops) brighter than ISO 1600 on camera A/B/C/D. however, Lamadingdong company overstates their ISO sensitivity, what they claim is ISO 51,200 is only bright as ISO 3200. Studio X now takes sample shots with flash and shows the Lamadingdong X3000 shows incredible high ISO performance at ISO 51,200 this is so far beyond what other camera manufacturers look like at ISO 51,200. Wow Lamadingding's high ISO performance is the best, I mean it's so far beyond the competition right ;) Reply |
|
|
Added by parrysights |
May 29 , 2016
Editors and Critics
I don't know what I enjoy reading more, the reviews or the comments. Let's put on our thinking caps and work through a few ideas:
1. Nikon has been doing this camera thing for a few decades now and probably has a pretty good idea about what professional photographers want. They don't always get it perfect, but they are pretty good at what they do and what they produce. It's plainly obvious that they weren't trying to appeal to people who like to look at numbers and who will never put their money where their mouth is. It's a bit like worrying about people who criticize a new Lamborghini and who will never be able to buy one. 2. If you want higher resolution, go buy a Nikon D810, or a Sony Alpha 7R II or a Canon EOS 5DS. Better yet get a 100 MP Hasselblad. One has to believe that Nikon was thinking along a different line that the Pixel Race with the D5. 3. If sensor scores were that important all the pros would have tossed out their Canon cameras and bought Nikon over the past 4 years. But they didn't - it seems that sensor scores aren't that important. 4. What were the pros shooting 5 and 10 year ago? Those cameras must have just been garbage based on their scores when compared to today's cameras. Obviously the photos from even a few years ago must have been pretty terrible. Good thing we have these new higher resolution cameras to save the pros. 5. I believe the folks at DxOMark understand that their assessments provide insight to only a part of a camera's overall performance. It would be like solely judging the performance of a car by measuring the horsepower of the engine. Important, but certainly not the definitive answer as to how it actually drives. I am not likely to ever buy a Nikon single-digit camera. They exceed my needs. I am happy with a D750 and D7200, and the 'crummy' images they produce. Call me an underachiever. I do enjoy reading the comments and the typos pointed out by the intrepid readers of this website. They provide another smile for the day. Reply | Read all replies for this comment |
First replies for this comment
|
|
Added by ahsanford |
May 31 , 2016
Re: Editors and Critics
Everything you just said was common sense (and most of us would agree with you). The D5 is a formidable camera and few are doubting that.
We're just indicting DXO for (a) their nonpublished aggregate score formula and (b) their glowing accolades for a product that does not excel in their own chosen three metrics. In short: what DXO is measuring and what DXO concludes those measurements to mean seems to vary by the day. Without full transparency to their aggregate scoring methods, they can love/hate a product at their own whim, and it makes it very hard to take them seriously as a credible reviewer of products. - A Reply |
|
|
Added by ag08025 |
May 27 , 2016
Big Sensor
A big step forward
Reply |
|
|
Added by Sheik_it_up |
May 26 , 2016
Conclusion: 1Ds Mark-II???
"In terms of sensor resolution, the Nikon D5 now matches the admittedly aging Canon EOS 1Ds Mk II, a camera still widely used for magazine features (think double-page spreads) as well as commercial photography."
Curiously the hyperlink associated with "1Ds Mk II" which you referred to links to your 1D X Mark II page. The 1D X Mark II is a brand new camera, which is by no means an ageing camera, as it's hardly hit the market. Did you perhaps mean 1Ds Mk III? Reply | Read all replies for this comment |
First replies for this comment
|
|
Added by ahsanford |
May 26 , 2016
Re: Conclusion: 1Ds Mark-II???
20-22 MP has been very common resolution for the brand. They could have meant about 5 different Canon FF cameras: 1Ds3, 1DX2, 6D, 5D2, 5D3, etc.
Reply |
|
|
Added by Bilbo |
May 25 , 2016
645Z
Please.
Reply |
|
|
Added by Terrixy |
May 25 , 2016
A dumb question
Comparing D5 and some of the latest Sony FF sensors (D810 for example) at print size: at ISO 100, SNR_18%_D810 is 45 dB, and SNR_18%_D5 is 44.8 dB. So their mid range SNRs (shot noise) are similar. On the other hand, the D810 excels in shadow noise by 2.1 EV at ISO 100, indicating much lower readout noise. From these 2 comparisons, one might roughly deduce that the D810 should have better tonal range at ISO 100. However, the result says otherwise.
So is there a region where the D5 performs exceptionally better than the D810 at ISO 100? Or my assumption and reasoning are simply too linear? Many thanks! Reply |
|
|
Added by artmaltman |
May 24 , 2016
NICHE PRODUCT
It is rugged and has phenomenal burst rate, autofocus and buffer.
Reply |
|
|
Added by fran_cois123 |
May 24 , 2016
What is worthy in all this ?
You're being very unclear... What in your measurement is a good performance ? Except for color depth (really not the first thing you're looking for), it's the same or worse than a... 3Ds !!?!
I like your data, your comments are a complete mystery to me... Reply |
|
|
Added by BTJ1969 |
May 24 , 2016
D5
Maybe there will be a D5x soon since this camera is a wet fart from nikon.
Reply |