D. Robert Franzwrote:http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/nikon_d3x_vs_canon_1ds3.htmThanks Robert. I have respect for that site and ... indeed 5D2 should be the same with 1Ds3.

BNVwrote: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.Anyone can make an image look bad just to prove a point. In KR case he is just a satarist trying to cause argument. KR speaks about videogamers living with their parents who does too much complaining. He is a saddo crying out for attention even if it means through maniplation and falsifying facts. I pity for his wife and children.

The idiot had NR switched on in the 5DMk2 sample. Noticed he even scrapped EXIF data so there is no chance of telling. If he is such an honest bloke he would have posted us a set of RAW files to download and compare but he couldnt.maxzwrote: 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:

Well, I dont think anybody really expect the MII to be anywhere near the quality of the D3X, I mean after all reading the MII has big problems living up to the D3/D700. For once in a lifetime Ken seams to have got it right.

Taikonautwrote: The idiot had NR switched on in the 5DMk2 sample. Noticed he even scrapped EXIF data so there is no chance of telling. If he is such an honest bloke he would have posted us a set of RAW files to download and compare but he couldnt.maxzwrote: 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:

I have to give Kenny Boy a break. His poor kid is suffering a terminal case of illness - the kid is sunkist orange . . . looks like the dreaded RBWB syndrome . . . (Really Bad White Balance)http://kenrockwell.com/katie/Here the kid is orange. It appears to be hereditary - sometimes family members are a sickly greenish blue.It is sad because Kenny Boy is so more talented than the rest of us . . . he 'gets it right' in jpg, while we are buried in RAW files.If only we could be like Ken Rockwell . . . .http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3x/sharpness-comparison-5d-mark-ii.htm

Granted the 50/1.2 is sharper in the center, but softer at the borders. Overall, and particularly at moderate apertures across the frame, the 50/1.4 wins for sharpness. And it has much less CA. If you find your copy underwhelming in terms of image quality, you must be using it wider than f/2 where itishazy. But the test wasn't done at those apertures.I dare you to show me a Canon zoom covering this focal length that performs better at the tested aperture(s) as well.Ryanidewrote:put some real glass on that baby and learn to process RAW.My 50 1.4 always looks ghostly.... --

My 5D mark II certainly produce real and good image at 100% view, be it directly from the camera or Canon software raw conversion.The imageshe posted are clearly gone throught his own excessive noise reduction and resharpening to destroy the quality.By the way, it is the Nikon that having the cheating issue he mention. And regarding on Nikon soft images are actually due to some of its lenses.This guy is truly a BIG Liar!!! Shame on him!

For all we know, both photos could have been taken with the same camera.

Oh the irony of you of all people posting this.....Brilliant.Taikonaut wrote: Anyone can make an image look bad just to prove a point. In KR case he is just a satarist trying to cause argument. KR speaks about videogamers living with their parents who does too much complaining. He is a saddo crying out for attention even if it means through maniplation and falsifying facts. I pity for his wife and children.

If the NR is turned on you won't see the false colors in tree branches, as 5DII's chroma NR is quite effective in removing those.Anyway a raw comparison should bring these two cameras much closer. But KR does have a point in using JPEG, as some people don't want to be forced to sit in front of a computer to get good results.Taikonautwrote:The idiot had NR switched on in the 5DMk2 sample. Noticed he even scrapped EXIF data so there is no chance of telling. If he is such an honest bloke he would have posted us a set of RAW files to download and compare but he couldnt.

cavewalkerwrote:simply put a Carl Zeiss or a Leitz Lens with adapter to the 5dmk2 and you'll get sharper images as from D3x!I don't doubt that.You can't use such lenses on Nikon bodys because you can't reach infinityYes that would be a problem but I was thinking more of using the Nikkor 50 on both bodies.

...in fact, he's been pretty consistent about his views on photography.He prefers shooting in-camera JPEG. This was true years ago, and it's still true today.Here's the MILLION DOLLAR QUESTION:Why is the 5D2/DIGIC4 robbing so much detail from the image at the base ISO of 100?Thereshouldbe very little noise in the first place. Is Canon trying to steal Sony's crown of having the worst in-camera JPEG processing? In their $2700 semi-professional DSLR?The fact is that the 5D2 is a double-edged sword. DIGIC4 gave it great high ISO image quality, but they had to sacrifice a good amount of detail in the process.As for the D3x being better, it shouldn't be a surprise. It's $8000. Of course it'll be better.Canon is fine right now, but they might need to rethink their priorities once the D700x (aka D900) gets announced. When Nikon crams the D3x sensor into a D700 body in late 2009, the 5D2 (and it's 3-year-old AF system) is finished.

I don't care for this biased comparison. We all suspect the D3x is an amazing camera, and pretty sure a little better in IQ than the 5D II, but this comparison is ridiculous. I have never seen such a soft - blured image from my camera.What a waste of time.

There is something strange when you look at the photo description:The text on the images suggests that the 5D mk II image was upsampled to 108% to match resolution with the Nikon.This would seem a bit strange to me as anyone who has tried upscaling knows that it adds bogus information leading to suboptimal results. Doing that in a comparison review on puts the Canon at a disadvantage and makes a comparison useless.Does this make sense to any of you?

A few interesting observations from his 5D2 review:http://www.kenrockwell.com/canon/5d-mk-ii.htmAs hoped, lower resolution files get sharper because Bayer Interpolation is no longer needed.Unlike Nikons, which don't get any sharper at 100% when set to smaller resolution files, M and L files form the 5D mark II are super, duper sharp.I shoot in NORMAL and save hard drive and CF space.Try shooting your 5D Mark II at it's M (11MP) or S (5MP) settings. If you look at your images at 100%, you'll see that the lower resolution shots are sharper!Why? Because they use less, or no, Bayer interpolation. No digital camera really resolves its rated resolution; they cheat and interpolate up, so at 100% at its rated resolution, no digital camera image is as sharp as a true scan from film.What this means is that the lower resolution settings actually pack away lot more detail than you think. The S (5MP) setting of the 5D Mark II is a lot sharper than any 5MP camera. When I'm photographing family and friends, I shot at S!If you're testing lenses, sure, shoot at L, but for everything else, try the settings for yourself, You'll probably get what you need at the smaller settings. For instance, the 11MP setting of the 5D Mark II has way more detail than any of the 12MP (native) Nikon cameras.The resolution advantage of the 5D Mark II is obvious, even at lower settings. Try them.I prefer the NORMAL (stair-step icon) setting. It gives me files which look the sam as at FINE, but take up half the file space.Canon cameras are extremely smart; much smarter than Nikons. The file sizes are all automatically optimizes for each shot, using more or less bits as needed to retain quality based on the detail content of the image.> >

photo_rbwrote:For all we know, both photos could have been taken with the same camera.Actually. youre right. We will never know.

PerLwrote:Taikonautwrote: The idiot had NR switched on in the 5DMk2 sample. Noticed he even scrapped EXIF data so there is no chance of telling. If he is such an honest bloke he would have posted us a set of RAW files to download and compare but he couldnt.maxzwrote: 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:

The D3X is a great camera. I find the efforts to make 5DII or D3X or A900 worse kind of annoying. OK A900 high ISO is not great but the dynamic range is good. I kind of like the Luminous Landscape reports..Now let see a Phil 5DII review. I hope the P&S queue is cleared. --What camera do I have? I rather you look at my photoshttp://www.flickr.com/photos/gavinz

I dont think the 5D II image is proper sharp. The difference i s much to big. -- Best regards http://www.fotopeter.dk