Some people say the AF is dead accurate, you just need to learn to use the right mode.
Others say the AF is crap.
Some say the DR is crap. Others say the DR is just fine.
Some say the high-iso is the same as Nikon D810.
Others say the high-iso is on another level.
What if Nikon's cargo got stolen, and this thief replaced all the D5's with D3 rebranded as D5?
>>2827815
Fanboys, crappy testing methods, etc. etc.
The D810 has really been the dynamic range king of D-SLRs precisely because it uses a native base ISO of 64. It's a Sony sensor, but not even the A7r with the same sensor does quite as well (it still does excellent though). I don't even think the new 5DSR has base ISO below 100.
The D810 also has exceptional detail, even more so than more expensive ultra pro bodies like the 1Dx and D5. This is possibly what gives people the impression that it has equivalent ISO performance - but it definitely doesn't. The D810 does not do very well past 6400 and even then you'd better not have too many shadows, and you'd better plan on doing some NR and downscalling in post.
>>2827815
>accurate
lol this meme
Are people really still autofocusing in 2016? For real?
>>2827815
just buy an F5
>>2827826
>36MP
>you'd better plan on doing some downscaling in post
No shit Sherlock.
And if you need more than ISO 6400 to get an exposure, you need to get out of your fucking wardrobe, moron.
>>2828826
>if you need more than ISO 6400, you need to get out of your fucking wardrobe
First of all, what the fuck are you so angsty about?
Secondly, I can tell you from actual experience that ISO 6400 is not always enough. Even if your eyes can see just fine and you think you have enough light, your camera doesn't. You absolutely need to factor in ISO performance if you're shooting a lot in the dark, because things just aren't going to look so hot if everything is shot @ ISO 6400, 1/50s shutter and an aperture of f/1.8. And inb4
>but *I* don't need high ISO therefore nobody should
Being able to stop down, and/or use faster shutters, without worrying about ISO performance, is a benefit. It's something very many photographers wishes they had. Some cameras do this better than others. It's not up to debate.
>>2827815
I've honestly never seen a bad review.
Worst I've heard was "not much improvement over D4"
It's obviously a fantastic camera for its intended purpose: sports and journalism.
But yeah, so is the D4 and the 1Dx.
>>2828789
>Are people really still autofocusing in 2016? For real?
Moving subjects.
There is no way to manually focus that accurately on a subject that's moving towards you at speed.
The AF even "predicts" where the subject will be during the exposure, rather than focus on where it is when the shutter was pressed.
When you shoot sports with a wide aperture you need this level of precision.
>>2829020
Directly towards/away are easy. The hard part is at a slight angle.
>>2827815
>Some say the DR is crap. Others say the DR is just fine.
Former shoot JPG, latter shoot RAW.
>Some say the high-iso is the same as Nikon D810.
>Others say the high-iso is on another level.
First don't set up same shutter speed for comparison.
Others do and shoot RAW.
>>2828789
Professional photojournalists need this shit like air
Not that it applies to anybody from /p/
