REVIEW: D3x sharpness "annihilates" the 5D Mark II

manbou

http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3x/sharpness-comparison-5d-mark-ii.htm

"[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]The D3X wins, which is too bad, because it's so much more expensive.[/FONT]" :rofl

Shootin1st

Not apples to apples and he clearly misstated the wind thing as it's clear from those images that the wind was moving branches.

Regardless. 2.5 x cost of 5D should get you something.

kdog

I don't know about you guys, but I shoot RAW. Ken tested JPGs out of the camera, which is completely irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. In RAW mode, I'll bet you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the two cameras.

davev

kdog wrote:

I don't know about you guys, but I shoot RAW. Ken tested JPGs out of the camera, which is completely irrelevant as far as I'm concerned. In RAW mode, I'll bet you wouldn't be able to tell the difference between the two cameras.

All I shoot is JPG's, I must be irrelevant.:D

Andy

BAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAAAHAHAHA I usually don't pay any nevermind at all to KR. But today, he's just gone totally over the top. This "test" is so laughable I can't even type any more words, help call 9-1

Moogle Pepper

Andy wrote:

BAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAAAHAHAHA I usually don't pay any nevermind at all to KR. But today, he's just gone totally over the top. This "test" is so laughable I can't even type any more words, help call 9-1

Andy, you ok?!

I take KR words as poop and giggles!

ziggy53

Ken is just not a reliable source of information. He supplies a "rollover" and gives us no clue to real exposure information. Note the "optimum aperture" instead of giving us real aperture information.

Note that the shots are from 2 different times of day. Perform the rollover looking at the upper left to see what I mean.

Has he bothered to confirm proper operation of the lenses he is testing? I doubt it and I suggest that the Canon EF 50mm, f1.4 USM was simply out-of-focus. Note that he bothered to try 3 lenses on the Nikon D3x and only mentions testing one lens on the Canon 5D MKII.

I will wait for a more formal site to test the 2 cameras.

Not that I want to disparage the Nikon D3x. It is a wonderful camera to be sure. It is only the testing procedure of Ken Rockwell that I hold in suspect.

Harryb

What silliness. A D3X or a 5D Mark II would make any photographer a very happy camper. I just can't take KR seriously. He makes these absurd assetions just to get reactions and to draw attention to himself.

i_worship_the_King

If we need a more exhaustive test I'll be the dGrin guinea pig. Message for where to send the bodies/glass.

rwells

Andy wrote:

BAHAHHAHAHHAHAHAAAHAHAHA I usually don't pay any nevermind at all to KR. But today, he's just gone totally over the top. This "test" is so laughable I can't even type any more words, help call 9-1

Tee Why

If all the settings were equal and it's a legit test, ken only shoots in JPG so a couple of turns up on the sharpness setting on the picture style should even things out.

It makes for a good flame Ken thread though.

angevin1

[FONT=Helvetica, Arial, sans-serif]"Nikon wants eight grand for this $5,500 camera, based solely on image quality, however the D3X' image quality ought to be about the same as (maybe worse than) the $2,700 Canon 5D Mark II. The D3X ergonomics are far superior to Canon, but the D3 has the same ergonomics as the D3X, but for half the price and with twice the frame rate and four times the ISO of the D3X. : From KR"

Yeah, I think this test was quite hokey! And unfortunately poorly done. But I admit, after reading the review of this camera, I cannot for the life of me figure out how it is worth the money. I bought a decent camera in the D300 back in October, a D700 around Christmas and I have a Mamiya MF R67Pro2 laying over in the camera cabinet. Everything I've seen, disgarding the bunk, I've liked about the New Canon piece. And at $2700 and falling, I'd much sooner buy one of those over the D3X. The D3X just doesn't add up......or is that the new math I've heard about since fourth grade?

cheers, tom
[/FONT]

kdog

davev wrote:

All I shoot is JPG's, I must be irrelevant.:D

:uhoh

System

Time of day is exactly the same. Look at the shadow of the tree in the lower right. It did not budge even a single pixel aside from the slight rotational difference in the framing. Winds look pretty calm to me. Oh my lord, a few of the branches moved a tiny bit - must have been a storm coming through. Even the tiny little leaves on the tree with the red leaves (right third of the frame) did not seem to budge. Exposure looks about the same too. What little difference there is could easily be due to how each camera processes its JPEGs. Even if Ken had stated what aperture he had used, there is not a doubt in my mind that people would have said he used the "wrong" aperture. He just tested the Canon lens, so from that you know he used something between f/5.6 or f/8, which sounds about right for an f/1.4 lens. What seems odd is the slight blue cast on the Canon, but since they reduced the selectivity of the R/G/B filters on the photosites to get both more MP's and better high ISO at the same time to compete with the D3/D700, a tradeoff in perceived sharpness and/or color accuracy may have occured. This was a concern of his from his 5DII review, which might be some of what is seen here. I'm pretty sure the D3x is worse at high ISO than the 5DII. But nevermind, I'm sure that's all "wrong" too.

Robinivich

Comparison crops between the 5d II and well vetted canon cameras can be found here: http://www.the-digital-picture.com/Reviews/Canon-EOS-5D-Mark-II-DSLR-Digital-Camera-Review.aspx. Bottom line from that reviewer? Comparing 1ds III and 5d II "We see that these two bodies have identical resolution and sharpness." The only appreciable difference I see being less noise on the 5d II shots.

Now, to quote phil from dpreview "If you need resolution, the Mark III - as long as you choose your glass carefully - has it by the bucket load."

Bottom line? I don't know how Ken got that comparison shot, but if I had to guess I'd say he's dealing with veiling flare (that blue shift) and maybe either field curvature or focus issues. It could also be the processing he used with his JPEGs, which are, let's remember, a lossy format, that loses data and sharpness every time you click "save." (And don't worry davev, I'm sure the 5d II can be made to produce wicked JPEGs )

It's pretty clear to me he just wanted all the hits on his site that these kinds of discussions bring...

Awais Yaqub

People here also don't like him at all
Famous person indeed

Andy

S P wrote:

But nevermind, I'm sure that's all "wrong" too.

This isn't Canon v Nikon This is about a ludicrous test and assertion.

pathfinder

Andy, You don't think we'll have to hang our heads in shame for using the wrong camera, do you ??

BigAl

Harryb wrote:

What silliness. A D3X or a 5D Mark II would make any photographer a very happy camper. I just can't take KR seriously. He makes these absurd assetions just to get reactions and to draw attention to himself.

unfortunately, the masses regard KR's words as gospel

Moogle Pepper

I believe I should turn my work and blog into a hoaky camera reviewing site!

FYI, I reckon my old polaroid camera is better than the new crop of DSLRs. There is no NOISE! Just... faded imagery!

jonh68

pathfinder wrote:

Andy, You don't think we'll have to hang our heads in shame for using the wrong camera, do you ??

He also proclaimed the Canon 5d sharper than the D3,D700 when they came out using the same test.

These flame wars about Rockwell are more entertaining than his website. In a few weeks we will have owners of the D3x posting sharpness pictures and then there will be new flame wars from people pixel peeping these things to death. Go take some pictures.

Moogle Pepper

Pixel Peeping. The longest running reality show based on photography.

System

Andy wrote:

This isn't Canon v Nikon This is about a ludicrous test and assertion.

You're correct that it's not about Nikon or Canon. It's about the general derangement towards KR that is displayed on these forums. He could be 100% correct but people will still bash and flame on "principle". You have a PM.

Respectfully,

ziggy53

S P wrote:

Time of day is exactly the same. Look at the shadow of the tree in the lower right. It did not budge even a single pixel aside from the slight rotational difference in the framing. Winds look pretty calm to me. Oh my lord, a few of the branches moved a tiny bit - must have been a storm coming through. ...

Quote from Ken's article, "There was no wind and no heat shimmer." You believe him, don't you?

Obviously, something moved between the 2 images. Ken says it was not wind so, by process of elimination, it must have been the earth.

No, I'm not serious about this discrepancy and I would hope you are not as well.

SteveF

Finally, Davev admits that shooting jpegs makes him irrelevant. Glad that is settled.

Did you get home in time for the UPS driver yesterday Dave? Hope so. Might even need a new signature.

The test obviously has issues. But I sure would like a camera to plug the 14-24 and 200/400 into, and the Nikon does seem to be better at that.

ziggy53

SteveF wrote:

... The test obviously has issues. But I sure would like a camera to plug the 14-24 and 200/400 into, and the Nikon does seem to be better at that.

We are very fortunate to be living in these times, photographically speaking. clap

rwells

S P wrote:

You're correct that it's not about Nikon or Canon. It's about the general derangement towards KR that is displayed on these forums. He could be 100% correct but people will still bash and flame on "principle". You have a PM.

Respectfully,

Ever stop to think that maybe, just maybe, some of the people here that don't agree with KR on that test, actually HAVE THAT CAMERA model, and have not seen poor results like KR posted as inferred fact, that this is the BEST the 5DMkll will produce?

Take a look at the 100% crops Andy posted with this body, on this site.

KR set himself up for this also by his own rave review of the 5DMkll IQ. Now to bash it. What's up with that? How can it be that great one month, then be crap the next?

I certainly believe that if current 5DMkll owners could only produce pictures like the one KR posted as "best", I don't think anyone here would be on him.

But, that's just not the case.

YMMV

Moogle Pepper

ziggy53 wrote:

We are very fortunate to be living in these times, photographically speaking. clap

Yeah we are in a great time with photography in mind! Most magazines, brides, and that sort do not care for what brand or model, just the quality of the photograph(s) that they are getting.

Only Pixel Peepers really hold KR close to gospel. Are you a Pixel Peeper?

Cygnus Studios

BigAl wrote:

unfortunately, the masses regard KR's words as gospel

Just think how many more people are reading his site because of all the discussions here and on other forums. For the newbie and die hard Nikon fans, this information will be important to them.

Kens opinion on whether the D3X is sharpest or not is irrelevant. People who know cameras are not going to KR's site for decision making information.

Sure it drives people to his site, and the forums help out everyday.
If you read enough on his site, you will find quite a few cameras that were once the greatest only to be subpar upon the next models release.

We all know that there are plenty of sites that review systems and even compare them.

ziggy53

Moogle Pepper wrote:

... Are you a Pixel Peeper?

I'm not sure that I would draw that same conclusion about pixel peeping and KR.

The last couple weeks I have been retouching images from recent shoots at 300%, most of it related to complexion problems. It's hard not to be conscious about the pixels at that scale.

I do hope to get a Canon 5D MKII in the not too distant future, and I probably will do some "peeping" comparisons with my own equipment and when fine tuning lenses.

Andy

S P wrote:

You're correct that it's not about Nikon or Canon. It's about the general derangement towards KR that is displayed on these forums. He could be 100% correct but people will still bash and flame on "principle". You have a PM.

Respectfully,

Respectfully, this comparison is just silly, IMO. No flaming of Ken, in fact, he and I have spoken a bunch and he's got a standing offer to host images on Smuggy if he wants