He used two (or three) different lenses to do the test. It would have been more credible to use the exact same lens on both cameras. Plus the D3x is about 3X the price of the other camera. I know that's very cliche-ish but there is no denying....
Ok, Rockwell has his new toy... He used to sing praises to the 5D, but now he has abandon his true love for another
Seriously, he is comparing JPEG's... He says he rather compares JPEG's because: "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."
I don't get it... JPEG's are processed by software as well... only in-camera (in his case)
This has been confirmed by others including diglloyd also...
"the Nikon D3x offers the finest image quality in a DSLR the world has yet seen. The online bitching and moaning about the price won’t change that fact—I don’t like it either. But if you need or want the very best DSLR available today, the Nikon D3x is your camera. In fact, I have zero desire to shoot my Canon 1Ds Mark III any more. None at all. It’s not about resolution: it’s about stunning image quality."
Looks like he proved that the D3x makes a good jpeg. In all honesty, who would shoot jpeg on any of these cameras? You miss out on a lot of detail and tonality. I don't think Canon's jpegs have ever been something to brag about.
gman1339 wrote:
This has been confirmed by others including diglloyd also...
"the Nikon D3x offers the finest image quality in a DSLR the world has yet seen. The online bitching and moaning about the price won’t change that fact—I don’t like it either. But if you need or want the very best DSLR available today, the Nikon D3x is your camera. In fact, I have zero desire to shoot my Canon 1Ds Mark III any more. None at all. It’s not about resolution: it’s about stunning image quality."
Anyhow, three problems- was the Canon lens focused right? Was the Canon lens actaully good or was it a bad copy (I know, that doesn't happen very often), did Nikon do a better job processing the jpegs?
Oh, one more - Since Ken spent 3X as much on the D3x, did he want it to win in order to justify his purchase to his wife?
Steve Perry wrote:
Didn't Ken try to start a boycott of the D3x?
Anyhow, three problems- was the Canon lens focused right? Was the Canon lens actaully good or was it a bad copy (I know, that doesn't happen very often), did Nikon do a better job processing the jpegs?
Oh, one more - Since Ken spent 3X as much on the D3x, did he want it to win in order to justify his purchase to his wife?
Hmm...
Steve
There is a 4th problem, Ken R's reviews generally are worthless. Just my opinion.
Daan B wrote:
Seriously, he is comparing JPEG's... He says he rather compares JPEG's because: "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."
I don't get it... JPEG's are processed by software as well... only in-camera (in his case)
Presumably, he deems the comparison "purer" when the processing is done by the actual cameras that are being compared, instead of throwing an external dependency into the mix. The differences in reverse engineered RAW processing algorithms for any given non-manufacturer supplied converter could theoretically favor one camera over the other.
That's just an assumption of course.
Many people shoot JPEG only so from KR's perspective, comparing output at that level could make sense.
Disclaimer: I'm completely neutral towards KR, neither endorsing nor condemning his articles. I did not read his review, just responding to your quoted statement above.
Oh boy here we go again. On one more subject Rockwell proves nothing. The Canon image looks out of focus to begin with, then the different lenses, and lastly Canon has proved time and time again on it's DSLR's that without significant tweeking of camera parameters it cannot produce a decent out of camera JPEG. Nikon on the other hand has the formula like it or not to give you quite printable images out of camera. Sad stuff. I think that the recent Luminous Landscape Sony/Nikon/Canon comparison was at least providing some pretty level headed insight.
molson wrote:
I didn't realize that winning a photo contest in your local newspaper made you a "working pro"...
Well whatever. I don't know whether or not he won a newspaper photo contest but most working pros couldn't care less about res charts or megapixels. And I don't even like his photography but its his anti-gearhead and anti-forum photographer attitude that I find refreshing. Michael R is sorta the same way, just polite about it.
Its almost a cliche, but I've noticed that the forum conventions are the very opposite of those who are out there shooting every day. Whether or not KR is an actual working pro, he's sounds a lot more like the type. There's some condescension in a lot of what he writes, but theres truths in there. Everything from the silliness of the MP chase, simplifying our gear to get better photographs, the fallacies of digital, the beauty of some of the older film stuff, etc. Yes, he's cocky, but so are a lot of pros. Petteri Sulonen's biting diatribe on telephoto's being for cowards for instance, pisses off gearheads but most who strive to shoot people creatively see the truth in that.
Besides, for all the derision Ken gets over the years people still are quoting him. Its intriguing. There's even an anti-KR site. That's pretty good notoriety.
Don't get me wrong, he's pretty pedestrian in comparison to REAL photog bloggers like Chase Jarvis and Joe McNally, but KR's in the ballpark and an interesting guilty pleasure when I switch into gearhead mode and Strobist isn't doing it.
Look at those who jumped on the D3x hater bandwagon. At least Ken's honest enough to acknowledge (though in a somewhat veiled way) that his assumptions were wrong.
mauriceramirez wrote:
Well whatever. I don't know whether or not he won a newspaper photo contest but most working pros couldn't care less about res charts or megapixels. And I don't even like his photography but its his anti-gearhead and anti-forum photographer attitude that I find refreshing. Michael R is sorta the same way, just polite about it.
Its almost a cliche, but I've noticed that the forum conventions are the very opposite of those who are out there shooting every day. Whether or not KR is an actual working pro, he's sounds a lot more like the type. There's some condescension in a lot of what he writes, but theres truths in there. Everything from the silliness of the MP chase, simplifying our gear to get better photographs, the fallacies of digital, the beauty of some of the older film stuff, etc. Yes, he's cocky, but so are a lot of pros. Petteri Sulonen's biting diatribe on telephoto's being for cowards for instance, pisses off gearheads but most who strive to shoot people creatively see the truth in that.
Besides, for all the derision Ken gets over the years people still are quoting him. Its intriguing. There's even an anti-KR site. That's pretty good notoriety.
Don't get me wrong, he's pretty pedestrian in comparison to REAL photog bloggers like Chase Jarvis and Joe McNally, but KR's in the ballpark and an interesting guilty pleasure when I switch into gearhead mode and Strobist isn't doing it.
Look at those who jumped on the D3x hater bandwagon. At least Ken's honest enough to acknowledge (though in a somewhat veiled way) that his assumptions were wrong.
