D3x better than 5DII

FM Forum Rules
Nikon SLRs, primes, and zooms lenses reviews

FM Forums \| Nikon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell	Search Used
1 2 3 4 … 6 7 end

Archive 2009 · D3x better than 5DII

LeifG
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #1 · D3x better than 5DII

Spyglass wrote:
I watched the Canon v Nikon war in my photo store for 35 years. I can still remember the day reps from both companies actually busted out in a fist fight in the middle of my local trade show.

Did anyone get a picture of the fight? And what brand was the camera that took the picture?

Jan 11, 2009 at 09:22 PM

LeifG
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #2 · D3x better than 5DII

chez wrote:
Vole wrote:
I like how he can afford all the latest & greatest high-end kit and then has the nerve to beg for money to "support his growing family".

And yes, a month ago he most definitely blabbed on about how we should all boycott this Camera.

What a to$$er.

Well if Ken is a to$$er and you read his site...what does that make you?

Presumably it makes him a voyeur ...

Jan 11, 2009 at 09:25 PM

LeifG
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #3 · D3x better than 5DII

TonyBeach wrote:
chez wrote:
Well if Ken is a to$$er and you read his site...what does that make you?

We don't need to read his site to be aware of the nonsense he writes. It ends up in every forum with his latest outlandish remarks being the titles of topic threads. Sometimes, we verify for ourselves that he really did say something stupid; personally, it never surprises me when it is confirmed.

I sigh when I see Ken being quoted on forums, and then check what he is saying. Someone suggested I read his latest article on film. It seems like an exciting read, dynamic, and enthusiastic. But when I focus on the content, I see that it is full of sweeping statements, with no specifics. When he says "If you demand the best quality for serious subjects, and don't mind investing a lot of time to get it, then step all the way up to film." what does he mean? Does he mean a 4"x 5" sheet film camera compared to a D700? Does he know how hard it is to use sheet film? And expensive? And then how about printing it? How many companies do that?

And how about: "You can't go back to a raw file and get more resolution. With film, you don't have to make a resolution decision until you scan it."

So according to Ken, film has infinite resolution. What can one say in response to such twaddle.

Jan 11, 2009 at 09:35 PM

Slug69
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #4 · D3x better than 5DII

LeifG wrote:

I sigh when I see Ken being quoted on forums, and then check what he is saying. Someone suggested I read his latest article on film. It seems like an exciting read, dynamic, and enthusiastic. But when I focus on the content, I see that it is full of sweeping statements, with no specifics. When he says "If you demand the best quality for serious subjects, and don't mind investing a lot of time to get it, then step all the way up to film." what does he mean? Does he mean a 4"x 5" sheet film camera compared to a D700? Does he know how hard it is to use sheet film? And expensive? And then how about printing it? How many companies do that?

And how about: "You can't go back to a raw file and get more resolution. With film, you don't have to make a resolution decision until you scan it."

So according to Ken, film has infinite resolution. What can one say in response to such twaddle.

IIRC he did do a test to find the ultimate resolution of film. (It is finite)

Unfortunately, Ken has good access to cheap film developers local to him. I know I don't so most of what he publishes about film isn't relative for myself as it is way too expensive to consider.

Yeah, he loves 4 x 5.

Jan 12, 2009 at 02:31 AM

dnenciu
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #5 · D3x better than 5DII

LeifG wrote:
dnenciu wrote:

Everybody is free to do what they want with their camera. But buying a d3/d3x and shooting jpeg is not something somebody that cares about image quality would do.

You lose a lot of latitude in PP as well as sharpness.

Whilst not disagreeing with your last statement, I think your first statement is a half truth. If you are a working pro sports shooter working to a deadline, the last thing you might want to do is mess about with raw files. Much better to send the JPEG files directly to the news desk or who ever the customer is. There are some good reasons to use JPEG. But, if like me you are an amateur, and have time on your side, or you shoot for quality (landscapes say) then I think we would all agree with your statement.

I totally agree that for the D3 your comment applies but even than I would shoot RAW+Jpeg as the d3 has 2 card slots.
(D3x is not meant as a sports camera. A sports shooter does not necessarily need the resolution and the FPS is much slower as well as the iso that only goes to 6400)

Jan 12, 2009 at 06:56 PM

benstein
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #6 · D3x better than 5DII

Alright guys, I wouldn't comment about ken unless you read his stuff. The 5dmk11 and the D3X were BOTH shot with the same Nikon lens. He's also an engineer who knows what he is talking about when it comes to digital imaging, so I would trust him more than some amateur shooting RAW because he can't get the exposure right and needs leeway to edit afterward.

Jan 13, 2009 at 04:54 AM

TonyBeach
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #7 · D3x better than 5DII

benstein wrote:
Alright guys, I wouldn't comment about ken unless you read his stuff. The 5dmk11 and the D3X were BOTH shot with the same Nikon lens. He's also an engineer who knows what he is talking about when it comes to digital imaging, so I would trust him more than some amateur shooting RAW because he can't get the exposure right and needs leeway to edit afterward.

KR minions are everywhere.

You can get more resolution from a RAW file than a JPEG file, and you can get more DR from it too. Every time KR knocks digital compared to film he ignores this because he insists JPEG is good enough for digital -- which is either deliberate handicapping, or because perhaps KR is a fool as well as a clown.

I get the exposure right all the time, and I can tell you that is very different when you are shooting RAW then when you are shooting JPEG. With RAW I can expose about 2/3 of a stop hotter than with JPEG, and that translates directly into less noisy images with more DR.

Jan 13, 2009 at 06:48 AM

jvarszegi
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #8 · D3x better than 5DII

TonyBeach wrote:
benstein wrote:
Alright guys, I wouldn't comment about ken unless you read his stuff. The 5dmk11 and the D3X were BOTH shot with the same Nikon lens. He's also an engineer who knows what he is talking about when it comes to digital imaging, so I would trust him more than some amateur shooting RAW because he can't get the exposure right and needs leeway to edit afterward.

KR minions are everywhere.

You can get more resolution from a RAW file than a JPEG file, and you can get more DR from it too. Every time KR knocks digital compared to film he ignores this because he insists JPEG is good enough for digital -- which is either deliberate handicapping, or because perhaps KR is a fool as well as a clown.

I get the exposure right all the time, and I can tell you that is very different when you are shooting RAW then when you are shooting JPEG. With RAW I can expose about 2/3 of a stop hotter than with JPEG, and that translates directly into less noisy images with more DR.

Exactly, and well put.

Jan 13, 2009 at 07:07 AM

fusiongt
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #9 · D3x better than 5DII

I'm sick of all the people who bitch and moan about Ken Rockwell... if you want to do a better job I suggest getting off the forums and actually make your own camera review site. It's his opinion and he can use any method he wants of review... if you disagree with his methods then create a site and do reviews yourself rather than rant on him on some message board.

Jan 13, 2009 at 08:03 AM

TonyBeach
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #10 · D3x better than 5DII

fusiongt wrote:
I'm sick of all the people who bitch and moan about Ken Rockwell...

That makes us equal -- I'm sick of all the people who cite him and link to his nonsense in forums where you would hope people new better.

Jan 13, 2009 at 08:38 AM

Jeff Laitila
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #11 · D3x better than 5DII

Not really surprising given the huge price difference.

Jan 13, 2009 at 08:45 AM

jvarszegi
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #12 · D3x better than 5DII

fusiongt wrote:
I'm sick of all the people who bitch and moan about Ken Rockwell... if you want to do a better job I suggest getting off the forums and actually make your own camera review site. It's his opinion and he can use any method he wants of review... if you disagree with his methods then create a site and do reviews yourself rather than rant on him on some message board.

So the only way to discuss falsehoods on a website is to create a whole new website of our own? I guess you're right.

Jan 13, 2009 at 11:36 AM

Chrono1081
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #13 · D3x better than 5DII

I'm sorry but I dont trust any online reviews no matter how "credible".

A friend has a D3x. Its nice, but Id never trade my 5D Mark II for it and he uses his 1Ds Mark III over it all the time so....

different strokes for different folks.

EDIT: My bad its a D3 he has. I cant keep track the kid buys a camera a month. (Must be nice...)

Jan 13, 2009 at 12:05 PM

dnenciu
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #14 · D3x better than 5DII

Chrono1081 wrote:
I'm sorry but I dont trust any online reviews no matter how "credible".

A friend has a D3x. Its nice, but Id never trade my 5D Mark II for it and he uses his 1Ds Mark III over it all the time so....

different strokes for different folks.

EDIT: My bad its a D3 he has. I cant keep track the kid buys a camera a month. (Must be nice...)

I'm sorry but I had the 5dmk1 and tried the 5dmk2 and I tell you that I would take the d3x over it any day.

The 1dsmk3 is a diff story, but the 5dmk2 AF is the main problem I have with the 5dx series and the reason I sold all my canon gear for the d700.

Jan 13, 2009 at 03:45 PM

LeifG
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #15 · D3x better than 5DII

TonyBeach wrote:
fusiongt wrote:
I'm sick of all the people who bitch and moan about Ken Rockwell...

That makes us equal -- I'm sick of all the people who cite him and link to his nonsense in forums where you would hope people new better.

That's disgraceful.

You meant to say:

"where you would hope people knew better"

Jan 13, 2009 at 05:57 PM

dnenciu
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #16 · D3x better than 5DII

LeifG wrote:
TonyBeach wrote:
fusiongt wrote:
I'm sick of all the people who bitch and moan about Ken Rockwell...

That makes us equal -- I'm sick of all the people who cite him and link to his nonsense in forums where you would hope people new better.

That's disgraceful.

You meant to say:

"where you would hope people knew better"

Well I wouldn't say that the original poster didn't deserve it.

Jan 13, 2009 at 05:59 PM

TonyBeach
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #17 · D3x better than 5DII

LeifG wrote:
That's disgraceful.

You meant to say:

"where you would hope people knew better"

Perhaps I should fall on my sword over a typo.

Jan 13, 2009 at 07:01 PM

r.gil
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #18 · D3x better than 5DII

From Ken's site:
I used the 105mm f/4 Micro-NIKKOR AI from 1980 because it's an ultra sharp lens, especially at the 1:8 reproduction ratio used here, and because it doesn't use floating elements or zoom. Its optical core is locked down solid, so nothing changes as put on different cameras with kludgy adapters. Newer macro lenses and zooms would all change their optical properties with floating elements as the flange focal distance varied slightly with the silly Nikon -> Canon adapter I used.

I left NR and sharpening at defaults. These are the actual images (JPGs) created by each camera. If you prefer to shoot raw, your results will vary all over the map depending on which software you use to anneal the raw files into actual images.

Jan 13, 2009 at 07:44 PM

dnenciu
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #19 · D3x better than 5DII

r.gil wrote:
From Ken's site:
I used the 105mm f/4 Micro-NIKKOR AI from 1980 because it's an ultra sharp lens, especially at the 1:8 reproduction ratio used here, and because it doesn't use floating elements or zoom. Its optical core is locked down solid, so nothing changes as put on different cameras with kludgy adapters. Newer macro lenses and zooms would all change their optical properties with floating elements as the flange focal distance varied slightly with the silly Nikon -> Canon adapter I used.

I left NR and sharpening at defaults. These are the actual images (JPGs) created by each camera. If you prefer to shoot raw, your results will vary all over the map depending on which software you use to anneal the raw files into actual images.

I think it was repeated above any half serious photographer that would buy a high res camera like d3x would not shoot jpeg. The reason you get a 24mpx camera is for the extra resolution. why would you lower the res by shooting compressed jpeg?

Yes just buy a d3x with a 24-120VR and shoot jpeg! And than compare it with a NC NX RAW file from a D90 with a 17-55 f2.8 and you will see which one is better.

KR just makes me laugh sometimes.

Jan 14, 2009 at 05:49 AM

benstein
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #20 · D3x better than 5DII

I disagree dnenciu. If you want to sit in front of your computer screwing with your images for more time than it took to take them, sure enjoy shooting RAW. But along with that 24 mpx comes with the same rock solid body as the D3 designed for a photographer going against the elements, not sitting in front of a computer all day. If I was to baby a camera I'd buy a 5dmk11 and some sweet glass.

Ken did comparison shots of Raw vs. Jpg with many of his cameras and showed huge enlargements for comparison. Honestly it might save a stop if you screw up an exposure, but other than that I didn't see much of a difference. ANd that's sticking my face at like a 100% crop of an image. Real pictures it wouldn't even matter.

Jan 14, 2009 at 06:54 AM

LeifG
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #21 · D3x better than 5DII

benstein wrote:
I disagree dnenciu. If you want to sit in front of your computer screwing with your images for more time than it took to take them, sure enjoy shooting RAW. But along with that 24 mpx comes with the same rock solid body as the D3 designed for a photographer going against the elements, not sitting in front of a computer all day. If I was to baby a camera I'd buy a 5dmk11 and some sweet glass.

Ken did comparison shots of Raw vs. Jpg with many of his cameras and showed huge enlargements for comparison. Honestly it might save a stop if you screw up an exposure, but other than that I didn't see much of a difference. ANd that's sticking my face at like a 100% crop of an image. Real pictures it wouldn't even matter.

The problem with JPEG is that you freeze in your processing, such as white balance, and sharpening. If you then want to print big that becomes an issue. And if you want to do contrast masking on a landscape using one frame, you can't because JPEG does not have the range. Maybe some people would shoot the D3x in JPEG mode with good reason, but it sure does seem a strange thing to do given that a key advantage of the camera over the D3 is the high resolution. Surely at that price you hope to sell to high end clients. Maybe fashion photographers would choose JPEG? Who knows, I cannot speak for pros in a range of disciplines.

But the one thing I do know is that Ken's comments on RAW are completely incorrect. I can only guess that either he is genuinely technically inept (he does say he was sacked from one job) or he is taking the mickey out of his audience.

Jan 14, 2009 at 11:14 AM

Steve Perry
Offline
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #22 · D3x better than 5DII

My D3, D3x and D300 are in raw and raw only. I'm happy to take my best stuff and work on it in front of the computer for awhile. I truly enjoy taking a photo and "working" it into the image I saw when I snapped the shutter. Sometimes it's ten minutes, sometimes it's an hour, but I enjoy every minute of it. I personally couldn't imagine shooting any other way for what I do.

However, if I was shooting weddings or sports, I'd probably shoot jpeg or a RAW + JPEG combo. As much as I like messing with my images, I sure wouldn't want to spend two weeks processing images from a wedding or sports event!

Everyone uses these cameras for different things. I might think it's crazy not to shoot RAW, the next guy says the opposite. Depends how you use it.

Steve

Jan 14, 2009 at 12:49 PM

Hendrik
Offline
Dedicated FM
Moderator
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #23 · D3x better than 5DII

I like KR, he has a refreshing view on photography and many things he writes is true, especially if you read between the lines. Of course he’s not the only source for reviews if I need them, but many other reviewers are not completely unbiased and I suspect often some influence from the industry.

For example, someone mentioned the Nikkor 24-70mm. Some early reviewers praised this lens into heaven and not one of these reviewers mentioned its bad characteristics. I’m talking about a very pronounced field curvature. Even the samples available showed this behavior, but no one talked about it. After many complains and discussions on various forums, some reviewers included this field curvature issue into their review.

I don’t say KR is unbiased, I don’t know, but he has the nerve to kick against some evangelic beliefs.

Jan 14, 2009 at 01:46 PM

Avi B
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.3 #24 · D3x better than 5DII

Honestly, I like shooting RAW, but if I had a D3X or a D3 then I would probably shoot JPEG more than RAW for the simple fact that the RAW files are just huge!

No comment on the gentleman with the website tho...

Jan 14, 2009 at 02:14 PM

davenfl
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.3 #25 · D3x better than 5DII

KR has a right to have a web site and use it to state his opinions. That said if you publish something other people who don't have web sites have a right to disagree, either based upon their personal opinion which is formed by personal experience, discussions with other, reading other press or web site reviews, or just because they think it is that way. The issue with KR is that IMO his opinions fly counter to my personal experience and what other qualifed reviewers are saying about digital equipment, and therefore even though he may say some good things, he says more things that are of a questionable nature. All of this tends to cast doubt on his creditability and taint people's opinions of his work, myself included. I once did but no longer do read his material unless it is put in front of me through forums like FM.

As to the comparison of the 5DmK2 and the D3X the whole test is nonsense IMO. Unscientific testing method, different focal lengths, exposures, etc, etc, and the list goes on. If someone would like to analyse Raw images after a credible level of front end shooting has occurred, I am all ears. At the end of the day they both deliver incredible images with massive detail and are designed for very different purposes IMO. The question that everyone is seemingly attempting to solve is can a $2700 camera deliver the same image quality as a $7900 camera. Having shot both and having RAW images on our computers to look at, the answer is pretty much so. Why the big difference in price, marketing mostly, the 5D has it's feature set and the D3X has it's feature set. If you need the features of the D3X and cannot get along without them then your going to buy it or it's Canon counterpart the 1DsMk3, simply as that. But again for the average photographer there isn't a tinkers d--m worth of difference in image quality.

Edited on Jan 14, 2009 at 02:46 PM · View previous versions

Jan 14, 2009 at 02:30 PM


FM Forums \| Nikon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 4 … 6 7 end