I am not sure I could get an image that unsharp if I used a pinhole camera. What is going on here?I think we need to ignore "tests" that are either obviously biased or just plain stupid.In fact we should do what KR does: just make a load of controversial statements about stuff we don't like, e.g. "5D Mark II is crappy" and just make stuff up about gear we don't own or use.This bloke used to be entertaining but I think he just exists to annoy people now.P.S. I am not annoyed - I just can't see why anybody would post such an obviously useless example of a shot. I think the man should be questioning his technique.Come on, this is a guy who says a Nikon 18-200 VR is almost indistinguishable in quality from his 70-200 VR.....'nuff said! -- Malc http://www.flickr.com/photos/malc350/

That is what I suspected. I guessed his result was c r a p simply because I have seen so many phenomenally sharp images shot with the camera and assumed he was suffering from headus-rectus. It is sort of like taking a Lamborghini and comparing it to a Ferrari. And having results that show the Lambo goes 170 MPH but the Ferrari can’t get above 50. Common sense should tell you that ain’t right, maybe you should look further.

Just ask him. While I suspect the D3X would still win this comparison, it would be much closer.From all accounts, the D3x IQ looks to be very sweet.Steven

spencermcchesterwrote:I totally agree.However unsupported, the conclusion is correct: D3X has the best image quality of any DSLR ever made.Now that's funny. You give your unsupported opinion to support the admittedly unsupported conclusion of Rockwell. And somehow that means something.

Finally! Someone who understands my sense of humor!DaveWCwrote:Now that's funny. You give your unsupported opinion to support the admittedly unsupported conclusion of Rockwell. And somehow that means something.

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

Steven Noyeswrote:Just ask him. While I suspect the D3X would still win this comparison, it would be much closer.From all accounts, the D3x IQ looks to be very sweet.Stevenyeah i forget, RAW has no pluses only minusesyeah i'm sure the d3x will be pretty fine, but the difference really should not be that extreme, he messed something up for sure

mr.izowrote:oh, and sharpening on d3x seems to be very high.I dare you to find a halo. The micro-contrast is nothing short of astounding. Look at the shadows. The tree trunks. It's amazing.

It doesnt mean that if 5D II jpegs look less good to D3x Jpegs that some how the 5DII RAW will peform much better than D3x Raw. It is the opposite ussually for Nikon. Nikon Jpegs alway underform to Canon's jpegs, but Raw always exceed expectations. With Canon Jpegs always look slightly less better than their Raw.

in the test of 5D vs D3 where the 5D won he stated:"Oh well, I've never seen real photographers worry about this - these articles are just picking nits at huge magnifications. "see here: http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3/sharpness-1.htmnow, 1 year later that Nikon has the edge in this wannabe test he says: The Nikon looks great shot as JPG. The Canon looks crappyHow come that a visibe difference in Sharpness is absolutely negligible if Canon wins but quite important if Nikon wins? How big of a fanboy can you be?Besides these ridiculous assessments, these tests are so flawed it is laughable. If you're not comparing cameras with the same lenses the test doesn't make any sense at all. This might also have been the reason why the 5D won, the 70-2004L IS is about the sharpest zoom ever, no wonder Nikon lost.Ken, go and become real here!!!

Canon:Nikon:It is clear that the Nikon image has had more sharpening. When you add some sharpening to the Canon image the difference between the two cameras becomes small. If you try to sharpen the Nikon image some more it quickly falls apart - more evidence that it has already been sharpened.I have no doubt that for photographs like this where AF is not an issue, the 5D MkII will do just as good a job as the D3x.Barnett

kevm14wrote:mr.izowrote:oh, and sharpening on d3x seems to be very high.I dare you to find a halo. The micro-contrast is nothing short of astounding. Look at the shadows. The tree trunks. It's amazing.I see lots of halos. The Nikon image clearly has had more sharpening than the Canon image. See my post below for what the Canon image looks like after sharpening.Barnett

24-70mm F2.8 at 50mm, 1/250 F8 iso 400 opened in canon DPP 3.5.2 with default settings, a circular polarizer was used, no tripod. DPP by default sharpens a little bit. here is the shot100% crop

Jarek B.wrote:http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3x/sharpness-comparison-5d-mark-ii.htmLOL What is wrong with 5D II picture? It cant be that bad.

When you see the white edge on the tree on the right, it is obvious the Nikon has more sharpening. I would be more concerned about the poor shadow detail in the Canon shot but my guess is it is just bad exposure or bad editing.

Isn't Ken Rockwell the same fellow that told us all to throw our tripods in the trash?And you go to his site for reliable advice?!?!?!Mark

photo_rbwrote:I would be more concerned about the poor shadow detail in the Canon shot but my guess is it is just bad exposure or bad editing.I also noticed the shadows lacked some detail. My guess is Ken Rockwell might have taken the image with highlight priority mode on. He removed all exif info from the files so we will never know what settings he used for this "test", or what his definition of "optimum aperture" is...Barnett