Spyder5 is slower and doesn't provide as good low light readings. Which is huge in calibration. Gotta get that shadow detail right. Plus with all the displays using pseudo local dimming or full local dimming this is really important because one thing that you have to do is occasionally depending on display have to wait a specific amount of time between reads due to local dimming. So if it struggles with low light and it's slow, it makes your calibration take that much longer. Also less accurate because if you have problems reading low light your 10-30 stimuli is going to be a pain to get dialed in because the meter readings will jump from high to low with the slightest change. This is bad because if you are going to have to make sacrifices on anything in a calibration it would be the high end 90 and 100, not your low end.
From some data that Tom Huffman (the man who makes Chromapure) posted from testing it with chromapure it appears to struggle with blue from the data I was seeing. and the white point. So your going to have a higher DeltaE
This is feedback on it
"The i1D3 reads lower, faster, and with better color accuracy. Low light levels had little effect on the color accuracy of either meters. Although the Spyder 5 could not match the color accuracy of the i1D3, it is significantly better in the regard than the Spyder 4. The biggest downside to the Spyder 5 is its speed. It takes nearly twice as long to take measurements as the i1D3. The color errors trouble me less because those can be significantly reduced with profiling and the errors are fairly small in any case. However, the speed and low-light limitations are inherent to the design and cannot be improved upon."
