Fuji S5 Pro v D90

[Dman]

For weddings and portraits, would there be any real difference between my D90
and the S5 Pro? I'll be using it with the Nikon 24-70 and 50 1.4, with an 85 1.4 or 70-200 coming shortly and from what I've read, the S5 has to be paired with good glass so that's all sorted.

I know that the S5 is meant to be slow and the RAW files can be quite difficult to work with, but what about ISO performance in low light - churches etc from out of camera JPEGs? The video aspect isn't an issue as I rarely use it and this would only be for use as a backup body with the D700 taking the brunt of the action (I'll be getting a second one of these next spring).

I guess I'm looking for reasons as to why I should or shouldn't take the plunge and swap from the D90 to the S5 from anyone who either owns the S5 or better still, both the S5 and D90.

Cheers

 

[Cistron]

In your context, the strength of the S5 would be outdoors portraits, where you try to capture details in the black suit and white dress (I hope the connection - churches/weddings - stands).

I don't think it can be faulted up to ISO1000. I'm using it all the way up to ISO3200, going with the motto that a blurred picture is worse than a picture with less detail. Especially the camera-jpegs get soft due to the noise reduction algorithm. That might not be up to your or your client's standards.

The jpegs have their own style, but I'm not sure why people praise them that much. A touch of vibrance or saturation in lightroom produces similar results from Raw files (which, sadly, are ~24MB in RAF format and ~16MB as DNG).

I hope that helps. My guess is that as soon as you have a second D700, the S5 will be degraded as backup-backup body. Simply because the menus are more sensible and the processing engine/display allows faster/better chimping.

 

[Dman]

In your context, the strength of the S5 would be outdoors portraits, where you try to capture details in the black suit and white dress (I hope the connection - churches/weddings - stands).

I don't think it can be faulted up to ISO1000. I'm using it all the way up to ISO3200, going with the motto that a blurred picture is worse than a picture with less detail. Especially the camera-jpegs get soft due to the noise reduction algorithm. That might not be up to your or your client's standards.

The jpegs have their own style, but I'm not sure why people praise them that much. A touch of vibrance or saturation in lightroom produces similar results from Raw files (which, sadly, are ~24MB in RAF format and ~16MB as DNG).

I hope that helps. My guess is that as soon as you have a second D700, the S5 will be degraded as backup-backup body. Simply because the menus are more sensible and the processing engine/display allows faster/better chimping.

Cheers, as long as I know I can work with them easily in Lightroom then that's fine, the file sizes are a pain though. I'm taking the plunge anyway, the D700 will be the sole body for really high ISO stuff with the S5 used when I can get away with anything up to 800.