ericborgstrom Posted May 26, 2016 Share #1 Posted May 26, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) Now the Nikon D5 is also tested by DxO. Surprisingly similar to the SL measured by their techniques. How relevant is this in real wold photography? Congrats Nikon, or is it Leica? Eric http://www.dxomark.com/Cameras/Compare/Side-by-side/Nikon-D5-versus-Leica-SL--Typ-601-___1062_1058 Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Advertisement Posted May 26, 2016 Posted May 26, 2016 Hi ericborgstrom, Take a look here SL vs. Nikon D5 DxOMark. I'm sure you'll find what you were looking for!
steppenw0lf Posted May 26, 2016 Share #2 Posted May 26, 2016 Since 2000 I made almost all my digital photos with Nikon gear. I bought once a top camera, the D2X in 2005. I like it and even use it sometimes today. But I know since then that a camera of the "semi-professional" type (D800 ff) serves me better, especially since the Nikon Pros lag behind in sensor resolution. (The D2H was maybe the first of this kind, faster, but only 4MP compared to the contemporary D2X with 12MP) Whatever the testers find, these cameras are of no relevance for most photographers. And it is too bad, that Leica seems to orientate themselves on this "professional" level. The same is also valid for Canon Pro cameras. So yes, congrats to Leica .... But what now ? The SL is too expensive. I have bought one, but do not know if I will ever be able to afford the next (602) or after-next (603) generation. On the other side, DxO mark make me laugh, especially the 25.1 bits . What kind of rubbish they sell to us. And everything is almost too precise like the 6016x4016, and we all know it is false or at least definitely irrelevant. In physics you learn to specify numbers not more precisely than your tools can measure - they have never heard of it. Some points are highly precise, others are completely fuzzy. They did not even get the fastest speed correctly (they list 1/8000 instead of 1/16000). The pixels in the LCD screen seem to be hand counted, while the more important pixels in the EVF are not even mentioned, while they are the ones that are normally used. And yes, they do not even counter-check the rubbish they write (like the aspect ratio). This is an example of poorest quality *testing" or "test writing". So for me this is mainly fun, not to be taken too seriously. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandokan Posted May 26, 2016 Share #3 Posted May 26, 2016 Since when did 6016x4016 (effective 6000x4000) become a 4:3 sensor? The Leica has autofocus in Liveview. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
johnloumiles Posted May 26, 2016 Share #4 Posted May 26, 2016 Same this popped out to me. Leica only uses 3:2. Weird mistake. I never looked at that site to make a decision about anything. Like taking a record and telling me all the instruments used to make the music but never actually tells me what the music sounds like. I should temper that statement with the fact that there are tons sites that take the latter into consideration but not many that do what DxO does. Since when did 6016x4016 (effective 6000x4000) become a 4:3 sensor? The Leica has autofocus in Liveview. Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Sandokan Posted May 26, 2016 Share #5 Posted May 26, 2016 Its hard to trust a review when they make basic errors Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jaapv Posted May 26, 2016 Share #6 Posted May 26, 2016 And they don't measure sensor output (how could they without dismantling the camera?) but camera output after it has been massaged by the camera software, making the camera with the less manipulation lose out every time. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
LD_50 Posted May 26, 2016 Share #7 Posted May 26, 2016 Advertisement (gone after registration) D5 is much better at high ISO (having reviewed and edited RAW files in my normal workflow to compare), has much better overall responsiveness (if equal to D4s), and AF and flash systems blow away the SL. That said I've traded my Nikon gear (D4, D4s, and lenses, flash, etc) for an M-P and SL. I prefer the Leica kit at this point for most of what I'd like to shoot. At low ISO I prefer the Leica files. At high ISO if normalized for output size they aren't far off in some circumstances. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Suteetat Posted May 26, 2016 Share #8 Posted May 26, 2016 I use my SL way more often than my D810 and D500 now a day but there are still certain circumstances where SL just cannot compete. AF speed and low light AF is still no contest unfortunately. I love EVF on SL but panning after moving objects is still not nearly as good as OVF. However, 80% of the time, I take out my SL rather than my Nikon though. Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Stefani Posted August 25, 2016 Share #9 Posted August 25, 2016 More on the subject: http://theartofphotography.eu/2016/08/18/nikon-d5-vs-leica-m240-in-almost-no-light/ Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
jmahto Posted August 25, 2016 Share #10 Posted August 25, 2016 More on the subject: http://theartofphotography.eu/2016/08/18/nikon-d5-vs-leica-m240-in-almost-no-light/ This comparison is between D5 and M240 (not SL). Link to post Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.