In this test the 1dS3 is compared to the D3X and holds it's own and maybe bests it.. The 5d2 should do as well..http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/nikon_d3x_vs_canon_1ds3.htmThere is also the 1dS3 vs the Sony 24 mgpx camera test on this site and the 1ds3 spanks it pretty good IMHO..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.Steven

Ken Rockwell is a#!I)&@#'ing idiot.Not because the D3x wins the test. Duh. It does not surprise me that an $8,000 camera beat my $2,700 camera. What drives me crazy is what a crappy smeared piece of sh*t photo he used to represent the 5DMkII.If my 5DMkII shot like that, I wouldn't own it!

put some real glass on that baby and learn to process RAW.My 50 1.4 always looks ghostly....

p0tempkinwrote:...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.it prove it again and again, all canon DSLR has poor AF, and proved the I'm right when a image is sligthy out of focus, no 100mp cmos will help and no magic can make it look sharp,

gavinwrote: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.it is an out of focus shoot, no setting will help 5Dm2

... making a crappy comparison with jpg straight out of the cameras straight out of the boxes with switch on and shoot in a matter of 2 secs (with no chance of reply from anyone, he just talks...).But then I looked at imaging resources comparometer and it's the same (5DII seems even out of focus)... then at luminous landscape comparison and actually the details are finally comparable (from iso 400 on, below he says that the D3X was subject to vibrations so it's not reliable as for sharpness) Still waiting for a serious comparison Luc -- http://www.pbase.com/duca_v2

I agree, it looks like something my crappy Kodak 2MP point and shoot does

p0tempkinwrote:...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.The most scary thing about the digic4 processing is that it is an ISO 100 image and the quality sucks that much.I could have understood it if it was iso 800 or iso 1600 that was shoot, but iso 100!!!

David Hullwrote: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.Bad comparision, better would be the "automatic gearbox" vs . "manual gearbox".Where automatic = jpg and manual = rawBut, people should still read the whole test and lso the info he gives about why he shoot jpg.

taking him seriously is silly. All these posts do is drive traffic to his site. Talk about spreding a meme!

I don't think it's the lens. 50/1.4 stopped down seems to do just fine on 21MP, especially if you're talking about the center which KR is.Clearly the 5DII JPEG engine leaves something to be desired. Fortunately, it's irrelevant for almost everybody who cares enough to notice in the first place.I hear some journalists depend on instant availability of shots and thus need JPEG. Well, those instantly-needed shots are presumably used in newspapers or online (not billboards or National Geographic) so they get downressed anyway, enough to make the 5DII and D3x JPEG engines look identical. But maybe they want a nice 21MP image to blow up later. Well, such people could have their cake and eat it too by shooting in RAW+JPEG mode.mr.izowrote: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.

Chill, man, it didn't win the test since there was no test. His whole site is a joke, literally. Also, he didn't even say what JPEG quality settings he used.Nicholas_Hwrote:Ken Rockwell is a#!I)&@#'ing idiot.Not because the D3x wins the test. Duh. It does not surprise me that an $8,000 camera beat my $2,700 camera. What drives me crazy is what a crappy smeared piece of sh*t photo he used to represent the 5DMkII.If my 5DMkII shot like that, I wouldn't own it!

In the past users asked why their canon DSLR capture trees and shrubs like green 'wiggling worms'. Answer from the experts is there's simply too much detail for ANY camera to handle.Now here's a chance to take a look side by side, the shrub clearly shows two different versions of detail, at roughly the same resolution.Interestingly the D3x shot also has better highlight and shadow detail preserved, all this was achieved with smaller pixel than 5D2.Do all you can do to sharpen the 5DII image and see if it's possible to bring back the details found in D3x shot.I'm sure the RAW files should bring the two cameras closer. But funny how people quoted KR in the past to prove canon is the sharpest, now all of a sudden he's a joke.Maxwildlife1212wrote:

Thanks for sharing the link.In this test the 1DsmkIII does hold its own and IMO even has better sharpness at the pixel level with the same detail but we're talking RAW files which is the only way to make this comparison. Better yet would have been to use the same lens with an adaptor on both cameras.When there is as much of a difference as shown in KR's test you know something is wrong.BobD. Robert Franzwrote: In this test the 1dS3 is compared to the D3X and holds it's own and maybe bests it.. The 5d2 should do as well..http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/nikon_d3x_vs_canon_1ds3.htmThere is also the 1dS3 vs the Sony 24 mgpx camera test on this site and the 1ds3 spanks it pretty good IMHO..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.Steven

....since you mentioned the traffic, there is guys out there who always push their own traffic with by linking it in forums...

simply put a Carl Zeiss or a Leitz Lens with adapter to the 5dmk2 and you'll get sharper images as from D3x!You can't use such lenses on Nikon bodys because you can't reach infinity

I bet he has NR set to high on the 5DMk2.Barnettwrote: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

This is a very interesting comparison indeed. Actually, from a detail standpoint I suspect the 2 sensors are similar, since the Nikon D3x clearly has more sharpening applied. However, there are two major distinctions - color, and shadow detail. The Canon is resolving tiny details of color in places that the Nikon is not. I suspect this is the opposite of what Ken Rockwell is complaining about - the Nikon is trying to eliminate Chroma noise to the extent that it is eliminating some color detail (Nikon quite rightly minimizes the control of luminance noise - does a better job than Canon in this regard). In terms of shadow detail, there's considerably more of it in the Nikon image - it's shadow separation, really. This is a winner for the Nikon D3x. Overall, I'd have to say that this is the most instructive comparison I have seen, and each camera has it's strengths.As for those who complain that it is not a RAW comparison, I disagree with that complaint. I shoot only RAW myself, but there is way to much variability between converters and approaches to have a RAW comparison be more meaningful. I want to see the files that the camera makers want to put forward - I find this instructive about what kind of thinking goes into the camera's design, even if it doesn't represent the final word on absolute image quality (which is highly subjective anyway).