the lens is superb for close distance shots but I recall joe-mama showing us all evidence of the lens being 'ghostly' when shot from a distance.. I agree that the lens can exhibit the exact fuzziness observed in this sample if not close focused. 85mm f/1.8 would be a better lens to test in these circumstances..Kabe Lunawrote: 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.... --

Matt Chamwrote:... 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).So you shoot several 100 images in RAW. Can you not batch convert them to jpg while you sleep to produce what would have come out the camera had you shot jpg? Then use the jpgs where they're ok, and revert to editing the RAW version if/where you need the extra processing latitude it provides?Doesn't that provide the best of both worlds?

Bernie Esswrote:Rockwell says: "Each image came directly from each camera. I did not use any external raw processing software, as each and every piece of software (Adobe Camera Raw, Phase One, Capture NX, etc. etc.) uses different processing."He does not know what he is talking about, otherwise he would know that JPEGs out of the cameras apply different processing as well, each company has their own processing preferences, Nikons are visibly better than the ones of 5dII, but I would not mind for one second, as I shoot RAW exclusively."If I shot raw, we'd be comparing the variations in how any given piece of software processed images from different cameras instead of getting a clear view of what each camera actually does when processing an entire image to completion as a JPG."Furthermore he does not understand that a RAW file just gives the fullest, most complete potential of the camera + lens. He does as if processing a RAW file in the best possible way (better than the image pipeline in-camera) is somehow unethical.He also fails to remind that JPEG is a heavily lossy format which compresses the real image data to 15% of the original content."If you want to twiddle with raw software, you'll undoubtedly get different results. The Nikon looks great shot as JPG. The Canon looks crappy and might benefit greatly if you have nothing else better to do than screw in front of a computer just to get the images you need. "He just likes simple truths and populist views. In the past it was normal to process a negative in the dark room, nowadays it can be done easily in front of a computer. This can be as simple as pushing the file through a RAW converter of choice with the camera preferences that work best, which will lead to better results than any JPEG engine.I even think that Rockwell knows this, but somehow he prefers to provoque with the easy solutions.And this has nothing to do with Nikon or Canon, it is about minimum knowledge in modern photography.He knows very well that if he posted real representative RAW crops from these 2 cameras the comparison would reveal little difference, and therefore be much less provocative.The way to keep his site traffic high is to do exactly what he did so even forums like this are helping him in his site promotion.In a few weeks he will probably reveal a new test performed with raw files, and post equally lame crops that "demonstrate" that in RAW mode, the 5dII is actually infinitely better than an $8k pro camera. This will stir up both camps all over again and bring even more traffic to his site. He's shameless, but crafty.Sal

Taikonautwrote: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.I got my 5D II from ADORAMA yesterday. What an AWESOME camera! IQ is just something I’ve never seen before. That is all about CANON - an IQ. It is not easy to make this picture that bad.

85 f/1.8 is not very good at longer focusing distance either. I would use 35 f/2.0 at f/5.6 (better than 35 f/1.4 L at long focusing distance)Michael'People are crazy and times are strange, I'm locked in tight, I'm out of range, I used to care, but things have changed' - Bob Dylan

Yes, this makes sense to me, and I agree with your basic premise. However, I just would like to say in response to some "rockwell-bashing", that for a guy who favors jpegs over RAW, and has some strong opinions about camera equipment and photography in general, he does turn out some darn nice images!! He does have an eye for composition, particularly his landscapes and nature shots.As for my opinion, I think that today's DSLRs and lenses are of such overall high quality, that we are reaching the point where more pixels is really irrelevant, unless you are printing billboards. Granted, I feel that the Nikon sensors are superior in very low light, but both the Canon and Nikon systems now produce awesome image quality in decent light, therefore, this debate between the D3x, the 5D MII and whether an image is upscaled or not, is rather moot. My advice is to simply enjoy one's equipment to the fullest, and go create some photography! My wishes for all us photographers to have a healthy, happy, and creative 2009! -- Steve Solomon steve@totalqualityphoto.com

Evan Effawrote:No doubt, the D3x is a great camera, but this is not a definitive comparative. Why not test it against the 1DsIII; the real rival to the D3x?http://www.pbase.com/eheffaDone allready in RAW where it really means something..http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/nikon_d3x_vs_canon_1ds3.htm

There are just as many halos in the Canon image, so that's been sharpened by the same amount (if not more).From this test (which I tend not to put too much stock in) it looks like the 5DII has a pretty bad JPEG engine.SB

-nt-

John Seymourwrote:So you shoot several 100 images in RAW. Can you not batch convert them to jpg while you sleep to produce what would have come out the camera had you shot jpg? Then use the jpgs where they're ok, and revert to editing the RAW version if/where you need the extra processing latitude it provides?Doesn't that provide the best of both worlds?I always shoot in RAW, sometimes RAW + JPEG, precisely for your reasons (back-up in case of over or underexposure). For images that are particularly important, I always PP the RAW image. If I see that the JPEG image looks great, I skip RAW processing altogether. Again, I would never do this with my 1D Mk II (crappy JPEGs), but I do it occasionally with the 40D/D300 and often with the Nikon D3/D700. I find that with the D3/D700, the in-camera JPEGs are almost the same noise quality as running through Neat Image.

D. Robert Franzwrote:Evan Effawrote:No doubt, the D3x is a great camera, but this is not a definitive comparative. Why not test it against the 1DsIII; the real rival to the D3x?http://www.pbase.com/eheffaDone allready in RAW where it really means something..http://www.juzaphoto.com/eng/articles/nikon_d3x_vs_canon_1ds3.htmThank you. This is quite interesting & a useful comparative, but I wonder whether you could do an equivalent comparative using a landscape subject. I do agree with Rockwell's choice of subject, in that organic details like distant trees etc. can be very challenging for the digital sensors in trying to resolve meaningful detail at the limits of the sensor's resolution. How do the 1DsIII & the Nikon D3x differ in how they handle these subjects when shot properly (i.e. in RAW & with good tripod, mirror-up techniques)?The original landscape samples provided by Canon for both the 5D2 & the 1DsIII were pretty poor (awful actually), with their mushy trees & foliage detail. I know with the 1DsIII & I suspect with the 5DII that these landscape subjects can be rendered with much better tonality & detail than seen with these. Could you show us some sort of similar comparative?Thanks.-evan

rhlpetruswrote:I think you didn't compare the two jpegs at ISO 100 from D3x and 5DII from IR carefully. Check the fabrics, especially the red colored one, but also the gray, the gree and the black ones. The effect is not as harsh as in these KR shots, but the blurring of the red fabric as compared to the D3x or even to the old 5D is quite visible.I did compare the two jpegs at ISO 100 quite carefully. I also noticed the differences on the fabrics you mentioned. At the same time I also noticed the writing on the scale as well as the fabric under the black mug. I can't explain why parts of that image are better for the D3x and some are better for the 5D II. What is clear is that most tests have shown only very minor differences and never a consistent advantage to one or the other.Take the time to look at this at IR and type this after the address in the home page:PRODS/E5D2/E5D2RAW.HTMIt now includes a raw comparison for Canon 5D mark II, Canon 1DS mark III, Nikon D3x and the Sony A900.Tell me that you see ANY difference in RAW at ISO 100 between the Canons, D3x or the Sony. I can't see it.

What an unserious comparison!! How can somebody compare jpgs with noisereduction turned on. The only fair comparison is with Raw files in the same Raw converter. -- http://photoartkalmar.com

bgbswrote: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.Even if that's historically true, this is a new model.The article did seem to suggest that he used all the default settings, which are often somewhat conservative.As such, I want to see the results from shooting raw. I don't judge high end cameras by its JPG.

shows that the 5dII's iq is very close to the more expensive d3x... the alpha 900 is also included:http://www.dphotoexpert.com/2009/01/09/canon-eos-5d-mkii-nikon-d3x-and-sony-alpha-900-compared/

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.There are still some colored leaves in the top of the almost-bare tree to the right of center in the Canon version; there is no color in the D3x version, so obviously, contrary to what Ken is suggesting, the D3x version has more noise-reduction.

Barnettwrote:It is clear that the Nikon image has had more sharpening.I wonder why Ken didn't think of this? Could it be that he is totally lacking in critical thinking skills?