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

...undisputed king of image quality right now. Nikon worked some magic with the AA filter to give it the best resolving power of any 35mm DSLR, and its high ISO performance is equal to the 5D2 according to Reichmann on LL.Also note that he shot the comparison pictures using in-camera JPEG, and the 5D2's Digic4 processing robs the image of detail so Canon could keep the noise levels low. That's why 5D2 RAW files have so much more noise.

I am sure you can set the internal processing to make them both look similar. The resolution difference is not significant to show such different results. So its not a very valid comparison. If you want reviews, I would not go there.Again Ken has his view of things... --What camera do I have? I rather you look at my photoshttp://www.flickr.com/photos/gavinz

For those of us who shoot raw, this comparison means nothing. Also, note that different lenses were used for this test, vs. the test he cites where the old 5D beat the D3. He's comparing apples to oranges by comparing the two tests. -- http://www.pbase.com/victorengel/

That said, I have no doubt the D3X produces stunning images.

First three paragraphs "About Ken" Home page --------------------- "Caveat Lector! (reader beware!)This is my personal website. I do it all by myself. I'm just one guy with a computer who likes to take pictures. I have the playful, immature and creative, trouble-making mind of a seven-year-old, so read accordingly.This site is purely my personal speech and opinion, and a way for me to goof around.While often inspired by actual products and events, just like any other good news organization, I like to make things up and stretch the truth if they make an article more fun. In the case of new products, rumors and just plain silly stuff, it's all pretend. If you lack a good BS detector, please treat this entire site as a work of fiction. " ------------------------He goes on to compare his style to "The Onion"

It is a comparison of JPEGs. Thus, not a true representation of what each camera is actually capable of recording. Rather, it is an example of a what each camera records, processed into version that decision-making engineers and marketers at each camp think look best. And, as mentioned above, playing with the processing parameters for each likely greatly changes how these change.I personally don't dislike Ken the way so many people do, but if he wanted that article to be remotely meaningful (at least in the absolute context he presents it in) -- why use JPEG?I, for one, care not about what the JPEG output of my 5D2 is. Nor that of the D3x for that matter.

p0tempkinwrote:high ISO performance is equal to the 5D2 according to Reichmann on LL.Better than the 5D2 according to DXO, but looking at the images, the difference seems small.

optimum aperture? is this wide open or something like f/5.6?canon 50/1.4 is not really that good, but one used here seems to be really off. dear ken, next time use some new zeiss lens (not 50/1.4 which also is not that good, but 50/2 will do very nice) and use it on both cameras. that would be way more fair test.i did try 1dsIII (basically same sensor as 5dII) with good (zeiss zf) lenses and i know that details can be very good, not much difference from d3x resoults i'm seeing here.yes, d3x is fine camera if you don't bump iso too much, but details on 5dII are just as good, i would say. maybe, just maybe have d3x slight edge, but nothing like that, what was shown on ken's test.

greenlanderwrote:I personally don't dislike Ken the way so many people do, but if he wanted that article to be remotely meaningful (at least in the absolute context he presents it in) -- why use JPEG?I seldom shoot JPEG either, especially with the crappy JPEG quality of my 1D Mk II, but I've found that using JPEG from my Canon 40D and Nikon D3 saves me a lot of time in PP, which matters a lot when I need to provide several hundred images for my client within a couple weeks (on top of my other full-time job). Many if not most full-time pro photographers have more images to work on within an even tighter deadline.It is for this reason that I cannot seriously consider a Sony A900 (over a 5D2 or D3x) even though the Sony RAW is so much more acceptable than its JPEG.

oh, and sharpening on d3x seems to be very high.

It looks like the whole canon scene is out of focus. Is Mr. Rockwell that bad of a photographer?

mr.izo wrote: oh, and sharpening on d3x seems to be very high.... so is detail and DR== L

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

In printed output, these two cameras differ by about half a dB in SNR with the Nikon having the edge -- a difference hardly worth noting. For all practical purposes, given you are interested in finished prints these two devices are indistinguishable from one another in terms of IQ. One would be hard pressed to say that one or the other is the undisputed king of anything based on the DxO data.

It's already been pointed out that the test is flawed because Ken uses jpegs rather than RAW.I want to reiterate that and say it's particularly stupid in this case, when he's comparing ultimate image quality of two high-end cameras. If he was really concerned about having the very best IQ he'd be shooting RAW, whatever camera he usedIf you shoot jpeg change to RAW for high IQ stuff. You get the same image quality boost as a few thousand dollars worth of kit would get you - for free!

Victor Engelwrote:For those of us who shoot raw, this comparison means nothing. Also, note that different lenses were used for this test, vs. the test he cites where the old 5D beat the D3. He's comparing apples to oranges by comparing the two tests.I totally agree.However unsupported, the conclusion is correct: D3X has the best image quality of any DSLR ever made.

1) What is optimum aperture? 1.4? 5.6? 2) He is comparing 5D2 108% crop with D3x 100% crop. 3) JPEG?!4) The 50mm 1.4 (although not the greatest lens) is capable of producing razor sharp images even on my 40D which has higher pixel density than the 5d2. You don't have to be a genius to figure out something is wrong with his sample.

Matt Chamwrote:Better than the 5D2 according to DXO, but looking at the images, the difference seems small.Where did you find this? On dxomark.com there is no test for D3x.