D5 Rumors - 4K, 15fps, native ISO 100k

[runnah]

I do believe the bell and whistle factories will be working overtime to keep up with these "specs".

 

[runnah]

these higher ISO settings, as he said, allow you to shoot at high ISO settings at f/stops that give useful, workable depth of field on a full-frame camera.

Yup, they day-to-night thing is a bit gimicky but being able to shoot video at f/8 in a dim room is a life saver. Trying to keep a subject in focus at 2.0 and below is a nightmare.

I rented the a7s and shot a ton of video with it and liked it as a video only option. The photo side of things is where it really falls flat. You really notice the 12mp.

 

[jaomul]

You could probably do it with a massive card and small jpeg basics. But in reality maybe not

 

[Solarflare]

Hmmmmmm.

Well if you want to have a card that holds 400,000 pictures, obviously you need an external disk. Assuming that the D5 has USB3 (max 625 MB/s) and supports using an external disk instead of a memory card, it might actually be doable. Its 20 Megapixel at 14 Bit per Pixel, so thats about 35 Megabyte raw pixeldata, with compression maybe 20 Megabyte, and times 15 is approx 300 Megabyte, so even RAW is possible. You'll also need a disk that can hold 8 Terabyte.

 

[Bebulamar]

Too high native ISO is a very bad thing. You can boost ISO but if you reduce ISO you will hurt quality a lot more. I don't think you can reduce ISO by more than 2 stops without seriously hurt quality.

??? I'd rather have 102,400 ISO native than extended.

your statement is very confusing, you're saying too high is bad, then talk about low ISO.

Native ISO should be around ISO100 or 200 to be useful. With high native ISO you can only shoot at high ISO and can not lower the ISO. Most camera can only lower the ISO 1 stop below native before quality is becoming a problem. If you have native ISO of 400,000 do you shoot at 400,000 all the time? I don't think even most of time.

 

[Braineack]

Too high native ISO is a very bad thing. You can boost ISO but if you reduce ISO you will hurt quality a lot more. I don't think you can reduce ISO by more than 2 stops without seriously hurt quality.

??? I'd rather have 102,400 ISO native than extended.

your statement is very confusing, you're saying too high is bad, then talk about low ISO.

Native ISO should be around ISO100 or 200 to be useful. With high native ISO you can only shoot at high ISO and can not lower the ISO. Most camera can only lower the ISO 1 stop below native before quality is becoming a problem. If you have native ISO of 400,000 do you shoot at 400,000 all the time? I don't think even most of time.

We're talking about the native high -- or the highest ISO in which the camera amplifies the analog gain, rather than using digital exposure compensation.

You're talking about the native base iso -- or the iso level determined to be the highest signal-to-noise. In the case of the D810 it's ISO 64 (IIRC that's the best on the market), with a native range of 64 - 12,800.

This D5 is rumored to shoot natively (camera amplifies the signal gain) from XYZ all the way up to 102,400 ISO.

For the D810 to do this, you would have to take a shot at 12,800 ISO, then apply +3EV exposure push on the image after it's been recorded. Or you could shoot at 51,200 extended and add +1EV exposure, ultimately resulting in the same final image because all three stops of light were added after the image was recorded. The SNR here will be incredibly low.

 

[Bebulamar]

There is only one single native ISO rating for any given sensor.

 

[Braineack]

There is only one single native ISO rating for any given sensor.

If you define native as only the value with the best SNR, then sure.

However most of us define native as being the entire ISO range where camera is amplifying the signal to the sensor, in camera -- or naively.
The ISO with the highest ISO would then be referred to as the Base ISO.
Anything outside that range and done in software processing after the image has been captured is extended/expanded.

If you understand what the definition of the word native means, then this makes most sense.

It's semantics at this point -- You know damn right they weren't suggesting that 102,400 was the native/base/best iso rating, but the highest iso the point of analog amplification.

 

[PaulWog]

This would have to be a major leap for a native ISO of 102,400 (if it's just as good as the rated 12800 on the D4s, D750, DF). Basically 3 stops of performance over the best performing Nikon full frame DSLR's currently. That would be nuts.

Is there anything truly supporting the rumor about the ISO performance?

 

[Solarflare]

There is only one single native ISO rating for any given sensor.

A native ISO is an ISO the sensor gives you without any digital trickery after the deal. There are only very few sensors without an amplifier before the A/D converter.

What you talk about is base ISO, of which of course there is indeed only one.

This would have to be a major leap for a native ISO of 102,400 (if it's just as good as the rated 12800 on the D4s, D750, DF). Basically 3 stops of performance over the best performing Nikon full frame DSLR's currently. That would be nuts.

No such thing.

The Sony A7s for example has native 100k, and its no different than an ordinary, say D600 sensor, up to about ISO 6400.

After that though it keeps up a lot longer.

If you expect substantly higher performance on lower ISOs then you'll be disappointed.

 

[Braineack]

I'm assuming the performance at 100 iso will be about ~15EV.