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 … 5 6 7 end

Archive 2009 · D3x better than 5DII

DavidJB
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #1 · D3x better than 5DII

This is a whole lot better than when Canon had the 5D, and nikon had nothing to offer in competition. Cost differences aside, they're very closely comparable and only the most die hard gearhead would try to leverage a subtle difference between one or the other being superior.

Ultimately, photographers have a win/win scenario. If you have a large investment in Nikon lenses, you have an option...and similarly for Canon. Competition continues, R&D continues, future looks bright for DSLR users.

If i was buying into a system from scratch, I'd argue slightly in favour of Canon since the 5Dmk2 is signfiicantly cheaper...but who starts a hobby with a $3k body? its a non-argument.

Jan 23, 2009 at 06:03 PM

Avi B
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.6 #2 · D3x better than 5DII

If you were starting a system from scratch, you'd argue in favour of Nikon because the D700 has it all, except the highest megapixels.

Jan 23, 2009 at 06:07 PM

DaveEP
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #3 · D3x better than 5DII

DavidJB wrote:
If i was buying into a system from scratch, I'd argue slightly in favour of Canon since the 5Dmk2 is signfiicantly cheaper...

This of course assumes you want to process 21MP files, or 24MP from the D3x. There are very many people for whom 12MP is about perfect, and unfortunately Canon have abandoned that arena now as far as full frame is concerned. I hope nikon don't go the same way any time soon.

For most people shooting for a hobby, the idea of making 40x60 prints is a dream that just never happens, not because their camera can't do it, but simply because it's going to cost money to get printed, and framed and hung on the wall, and, well, it just never happens.

What does happen is that a lot more people print up to A3 (or A3+) and for that, a "high quality" 12MP camera like the D700, D3 and yes the 5D mark 1 is perfectly adequate.

For many working pros, their shots get printed even smaller than this, at least for 99.9% of the time.

What I have never understood is why people feel the need to bash other brands or models so much. Perhaps they have a psychological problem, if there is any chance at all that they are not on the 'winning side' in a feature for feature comparison, even if their current camera already produces excellent results. It's as if they need the constant validation that they made the right choice (no one likes to think they made a bad choice), and all I can think is that they are not getting their self esteem from the the shots they themselves are taking, but instead from the equipment they own. Sad really.

Jan 23, 2009 at 06:18 PM

DavidJB
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #4 · D3x better than 5DII

Avi B wrote:
If you were starting a system from scratch, you'd argue in favour of Nikon because the D700 has it all, except the highest megapixels.

Maybe. Depends upon what they're shooting. Canon still has the best range of telephoto zooms, and their entry level Ls for fixed focal length are much cheaper/better quality than Nikon offerings (on average).

Nikon has a much better flash metering system, D90 is the current industry best entry camera, and the D700 is a great high end body. The 14-24 lense is drool worthy. Lots of reasons to get your Nikon freak on going.

Jan 23, 2009 at 06:20 PM

dnenciu
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #5 · D3x better than 5DII

DavidJB wrote:
Avi B wrote:
If you were starting a system from scratch, you'd argue in favour of Nikon because the D700 has it all, except the highest megapixels.

From a lens point of view I would sum up the forte of the two as:

Nikon - wide and regular fast zooms, MF primes and 200-400mm zoom

Canon - fast L primes and slow L zooms

On the long end they are pretty much equal.

On the macro front they are pretty much equal

On the consumer front nikon wins (70-300VR, 18-200VR better quality than the canon counter parts).

Personally I like fast zooms so nikon won for me, went from a 5d+24-105 to a d700+24-70 and I couldn't be happier.

Jan 23, 2009 at 06:50 PM

Chris Langer
Online
Upload & Sell: On

p.6 #6 · D3x better than 5DII

I still do not see the need for a f/4 70-200 or one without VR. It just fills up the lens line and seems kinda redundant. So I think Nikon is smart spending all their time into one mega 70-200 VR.

Chris

Jan 23, 2009 at 07:13 PM

DaveEP
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #7 · D3x better than 5DII

dnenciu wrote:
On the consumer front nikon wins (70-300VR, 18-200VR better quality than the canon counter parts).

Personally I like fast zooms so nikon won for me, went from a 5d+24-105 to a d700+24-70 and I couldn't be happier.

I'm definitely not wanting to get in to brand bashing. I think both make great products.

The Canon 70-300IS is a pretty good lens, but I have not personally tried the EF-S18-200. The 18-200VR is the one thing that finally made me buy a D300, so Canon was too late.

In terms of fast zooms, I have to disagree with you. The Canon 24-70L can be awesome. Yes, I know there are plenty of people who claim to have been through lots of copies, but I never had any problems with mine. It beat the crap out of the 24-105L, which is what you appear to be comparing the Nikon 24-70 to (5D+24-105 vs D700+24-70). At this very moment in time I have the Canon and Nikon 24-70 lenses side by side, and really, there is not much to choose between them.

The Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS is a damn good lens, and can be sharp all the way in to the corners even on FF. There is mild vignetting at f2.8 on FF, but that's easy to fix. Now, compare that against the Nikon 70-200 VR on FX. Lots of complaints.

The 14-24 is another matter, and is universally acknowledged. Outside of that, it's a bit of a wash.

Both brands have great ranges of bodies and lenses. There is no obvious overall winner in my book (and at this moment I still have both). Which you choose is entirely personal decision based on what you like to shoot, how you like to shoot it, and what you like to process the files with.

I happen to be moving away from Canon and towards Nikon, but that's not to say that Canon are bad. It's just that I prefer the Nikon user interface and feature sets. Other people prefer Canon and that's all it is - a preference - so I don't see why people get so worked up about it.

Edited on Jan 23, 2009 at 07:27 PM · View previous versions

Jan 23, 2009 at 07:24 PM

dnenciu
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #8 · D3x better than 5DII

Chris Langer wrote:
I still do not see the need for a f/4 70-200 or one without VR. It just fills up the lens line and seems kinda redundant. So I think Nikon is smart spending all their time into one mega 70-200 VR.

Chris

There is one reason for an f4 zoom light weight. Some people want to travel light but don't want to compromise on IQ or build.

Also the 70-200VR is not really ideal for landscape shots on FX I had to return mine because of soft corners at infinity even at f8 (150-200mm range).

Jan 23, 2009 at 07:26 PM

dnenciu
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #9 · D3x better than 5DII

DaveEP wrote:
dnenciu wrote:
On the consumer front nikon wins (70-300VR, 18-200VR better quality than the canon counter parts).

Personally I like fast zooms so nikon won for me, went from a 5d+24-105 to a d700+24-70 and I couldn't be happier.

I'm definitely not wanting to get in to brand bashing. I think both make great products.

The Canon 70-300IS is a pretty good lens, but I have not personally tried the EF-S18-200. The 18-200VR is the one thing that finally made me buy a D300, so Canon was too late.

In terms of fast zooms, I have to disagree with you. The Canon 24-70L can be awesome. Yes, I know there are plenty of people who claim to have been through lots of copies, but I never had any problems with mine. It beat the crap out of the 24-105L, which is what you appear to be comparing the Nikon 24-70 to (5D+24-105 vs D700+24-70). At this very moment in time I have the Canon and Nikon 24-70 lenses side by side, and really, there is not much to choose between them.

The Canon 70-200 f2.8L IS is a damn good lens, and can be sharp all the way in to the corners even on FF. There is mild vignetting at f2.8 on FF, but that's easy to fix. Now, compare that against the Nikon 70-200 VR on FX. Lots of complaints.

So the idea that Nikon 'beats' Canon on fast zooms doesn't hold water.

Both brands have great ranges of bodies and lenses. There is no obvious overall winner in my book (and at this moment I still have both). Which you choose is entirely personal decision based on what you like to shoot, how you like to shoot it, and what you like to process the files with.

I happen to be moving away from Canon and towards Nikon, but that's not to say that Canon are bad. It's just that I prefer the Nikon user interface and feature sets. Other people prefer Canon and that's all it is - a preference - so I don't see why people get so worked up about it.

As I said in my initial post I was not talking telephoto zooms I was talking wide to normal range more specifically 14-24 and 24-70.

As for the canon 24-70 you must have a really good copy. I tried three diff ones and all were soft wide open compared to the nikon 24-70 that is sharp wide open.

Also on the wide end canon is really lacking neither 16-35mk2 nor 17-40 can compete with the 14-24

I returned the 70-200VR for the corners issue so yes you are right there. This was one of the only disappointments I had during the switch to nikon.

Over 200mm Canon has only 2 advantages 300mmf4 IS (nikon has no f4 VR) and 400mm f5.6 the rest are pretty close. Nikon on the other hand has the 200-400mm.

I have tried the canon 70-300 IS and own the 70-300VR and the diff is pretty big. Canon doesn't have USM and the build is worse than nikon also it does not come with a bag or a hood. Same thing for the 18-200IS.

And yes both brands have pluses and minuses. If I needed to print big and shot with fast primes I would have stayed with Canon and bought a 5dmk2 to go with a 35L, 85L, 135L ...

Jan 23, 2009 at 07:39 PM

LeifG
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #10 · D3x better than 5DII

I suspect there are not many people who both need and have the skill to use the D3x, or even one of the alternatives from other manufacturers. But really, comparing the D3x with the 5D2 is a bit silly. One is a tough pro body, with excellent AF, dual flash cards, and sealing. The other is a superb camera, with less capable AF, lighter build, single flash slot, and wonderful IQ. I think the 5D2 would suit most people who needed the high res. Would they not be mainly studio, fashion and landscape photographers?

Jan 23, 2009 at 09:33 PM

Bifurcator
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.6 #11 · D3x better than 5DII

Bifurcator wrote:
LeifG,

Maybe, you might be right - If I were to call someone that. I never called anyone anything. I said a flag is raised when I see people bagging on Ken. Consider r.gil's post above and indeed what kind of people bag on others.

LeifG wrote:
I find your posts disingenuous. You insult people on the basis that they hold an opinion that you do not like and then you use sophistry to avoid accepting responsibility for your remarks. Let me remind you:

"As far as feeling goes whenever I read someone dogging him, his techniques, or his conclusions it sends up a flag that I'm now reading a person with a VERY limited intellect. "

It is quite clear that you consider people who you disagree with to be idiots. At least have the backbone to stand by what you say.

I have made critical remarks about Ken's site. I think it is full of inaccuracy, sweeping statements, and downright nonsense. I genuinely think much of the writing is garbage. Hell, even Ken himself says the same thing. Mind you, much of the nonsense in this thread is no better.

You could of course simply accept that others disagree.

I do indeed accept that. And I really have no idea how you're coming to the conclusion that what I said means anything even remotely similar to "a person with an opinion I do not like is of very low intellect". How you get there from "As far as feeling goes whenever I read someone dogging him, his techniques, or his conclusions it sends up a flag that I'm now reading a person with a VERY limited intellect. " is beyond me. I have clarified what I meant over and over and over and over again yet you and two others here simply refuse to accept the explanation. I guess this won't help either tho and you'll replay yet again and tell me yet again what I "really" meant. Right?

WTF?

Jan 24, 2009 at 02:27 AM

TonyBeach
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #12 · D3x better than 5DII

Bifurcator wrote:
WTF?

It's very simple as far as I'm concerned; you think KR is beyond reproach and will insult anyone that takes issue with his bogus tests. Then you try to weasel your way out of taking responsibility for being a rude fool (rude for questioning other's intellect, and foolish for thinking KR does serious reviews and tests).

Funny thing is I was letting this go, but since you keep trolling here I can't help but to respond -- after all, this thread won't die until a moderator kills it.

Jan 24, 2009 at 02:46 AM

Bifurcator
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.6 #13 · D3x better than 5DII

Oh, so that's it.. You hate Ken and Ken-fans and you think I'm one so you've chosen to put me in my place huh? OK, it's making sense now.

You three hate him so blindly and so totally that you will attack anyone with even the slightest degree of acceptance. I've never met Ken and don't know much about him. All I've even said about him (basically) is just that: "he's alright.." and that " I like reading and considering his blog". You three on the other hand have gone out of your respective ways to trounce the guy and now me for saying he ain't so bad.

I don't know him at all. I've read maybe 10 or 15 of his pages. They were fine. About like the opinions I read here but with some twists and a little humor. No biggy... Why do you hate him so much? Does his insincerity challenge your snobbish perception of yourself as a photographer or something? That would be my 1st guess anyway.

Anyway to clarify I don't hate him and I don't especially look up to him - he's really kind of a non-issue to me so you can call off the dogs (or should I say dogging?). Why you three have to make such a fuss is really very strange. I suppose I fall back on my original supposition that people who dog others are of very low (social) intellect. Flag!

Jan 24, 2009 at 03:08 AM

Peter Le
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #14 · D3x better than 5DII

if everyone presses His Hide me button will he disappear

Jan 24, 2009 at 03:11 AM

Bifurcator
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.6 #15 · D3x better than 5DII

Why would you even say that Peter? If someone quotes me and calls me names and asks me to take responsibility for my remarks of course I'm going to reply. They obviously want to continue it. I made a comment, they challenged it, quoted it (or misquoted it) and called me out. And the cycle continues. If they want to stop it all they have to do is stop quoting me, telling me that only they know what I really mean, and asking me for a response. Simple really.

Jan 24, 2009 at 03:25 AM

TonyBeach
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #16 · D3x better than 5DII

Bifurcator wrote:Why do you hate him so much?

I don't hate him; I dismiss him. His tests are flawed and far too many people take them seriously. One thing is for sure; when KR wants to make a camera look bad, he accomplishes that in spades.

I suppose I fall back on my original supposition that people who dog others are of very low (social) intellect. Flag!

As do I; which is why I immediately raise a red flag (generally, in my own mind) when anyone takes KR seriously and subsequently cites him as a credible source.

Jan 24, 2009 at 04:15 AM

Kerry Pierce
Online
Upload & Sell: On

p.6 #17 · D3x better than 5DII

You're talking into a black hole, Tony.......... Probably the same guy in that dpr thread that insisted that the d300 was garbage compared to the d90.

Jan 24, 2009 at 04:23 AM

Bifurcator
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.6 #18 · D3x better than 5DII

TonyBeach wrote:
Bifurcator wrote:Why do you hate him so much?

I don't hate him; I dismiss him. His tests are flawed and far too many people take them seriously. One thing is for sure; when KR wants to make a camera look bad, he accomplishes that in spades.

I suppose I fall back on my original supposition that people who dog others are of very low (social) intellect. Flag!

As do I; which is why I immediately raise a red flag (generally, in my own mind) when anyone takes KR seriously and subsequently cites him as a credible source.

I got no problems with that.

Jan 24, 2009 at 04:42 AM

LeifG
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #19 · D3x better than 5DII

Bifurcator wrote:

[snip cos it's tedious]

I do indeed accept that. And I really have no idea how you're coming to the conclusion that what I said means anything even remotely similar to "a person with an opinion I do not like is of very low intellect". How you get there from "As far as feeling goes whenever I read someone dogging him, his techniques, or his conclusions it sends up a flag that I'm now reading a person with a VERY limited intellect. " is beyond me. I have clarified what I meant over and over and over and over again yet you and two others here simply refuse to accept the explanation. I guess this won't help either tho and you'll replay yet again and tell me yet again what I "really" meant. Right?

WTF?

This has got tedious. You say the following:

"whenever I read someone dogging him, his techniques, or his conclusions it sends up a flag that I'm now reading a person with a VERY limited intellect. "

Your use of the word 'dogging' is unclear and I assume it is an American slang usage meaning 'criticise'. If so, then anyone who criticises Ken has a "VERY limited intellect" i.e. they are an idiot, moron or cretin, whichever word you prefer. Is that what you mean? If so, then that is pretty offensive stuff. Anyone who disagrees with Ken is a moron. Blimey. Or did you mean something else?

As I have said, I think an awful lot of what Ken writes is technically incorrect to the point of ineptitude. If you abuse me for holding that view, so be it.

Jan 24, 2009 at 09:21 AM

Stono
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #20 · D3x better than 5DII

I got both the D3X and the 1Ds MarkIII (and intend to keep both). And, of course, I have made detailed comparisons. Conclusion: Regarding ergonomic and focus the winner is clearly the D3X, but the winner with respect to image quality and low noice (ISO 100-400) goes to the 1Ds MarkIII. Regarding resolution, the difference is too small to matter.
PS: We got several 5DIIs too, but are sad to conclude (money wise) that the image quality of the 1Ds MarkIII is better.

Edited on Jan 26, 2009 at 12:08 AM · View previous versions

Jan 26, 2009 at 12:04 AM

Chris Langer
Online
Upload & Sell: On

p.6 #21 · D3x better than 5DII

Stono wrote:
I got both the D3X and the 1Ds MarkIII (and intend to keep both). And, of course, I have made detailed comparisons. Conclusion: Regarding ergonomic and focus the winner is clearly the D3X, but the winner with respect to image quality and low noice (ISO 100-400) goes to the 1Ds MarkIII. Regarding resolution, the difference is too small to matter.
PS: We got several 5DIIs too, but the sad to conclude (money wise) is that the image quality of the 1Ds MarkIII is better.

Pics?

Jan 26, 2009 at 12:07 AM

Deezie
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #22 · D3x better than 5DII

They're both terrific camera's in the right hands. In my opinion Ken does not possess the depth or skill to recommend a camera to anyone but an absolute novice. I'm brand agnostic. I own Canon, Hassy and Mamiya. They all serve a purpose for what I shoot, and all of my camera's have their pros and cons. A good photographer understands how to utilize these strengths and weaknesses to his advantage. So a claim for any camera to being superior is rather simplistic, if not outright absurd.

I think one look at Bifurcator's www link removes any credibility he might have on an objective opinion -- at least with me. That's pretty scary stuff.

Jan 26, 2009 at 01:10 AM

James R
Offline
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.6 #23 · D3x better than 5DII

Deezie wrote

I think one look at Bifurcator's www link removes any credibility he might have on an objective opinion -- at least with me. That's pretty scary stuff.

Hey Deezie, watch out or you'll be put on a list.

Jan 26, 2009 at 03:52 AM

Bifurcator
Online
Dedicated FM
Upload & Sell: On

p.6 #24 · D3x better than 5DII

LeifG wrote:
This has got tedious. You say the following:

"whenever I read someone dogging him, his techniques, or his conclusions it sends up a flag that I'm now reading a person with a VERY limited intellect. "

Your use of the word 'dogging' is unclear and I assume it is an American slang usage meaning 'criticise'. If so, then anyone who criticises Ken has a "VERY limited intellect" i.e. they are an idiot, moron or cretin, whichever word you prefer. Is that what you mean? If so, then that is pretty offensive stuff. Anyone who disagrees with Ken is a moron. Blimey. Or did you mean something else?

As I have said, I think an awful lot of what Ken writes is technically incorrect to the point of ineptitude. If you abuse me for holding that view, so be it.

How many times do I need to explain that's not what I meant and that you're misreading it and making something out of nothing?

Dogging, in my sentence was meant to mean irrational persecuting or personal attack. But we can use your word "criticize" if you like. Here's where I'm coming from: If Ken, I, or anyone writes an incorrect sentence and you correct or "criticize" the sentence or the information in it then that's constructive or at least rational and maybe even adult. If however, you "criticize" the author calling him or her a fool, an idiot, stupid, etc. and attack the author then IN MY OPINION you (or whoever does such a thing) has "a VERY low intellect". I feel and believe that people who personally attack others in forums and etc. FOR ANY REASON have an under-developed intellect. If you read back through this thread you will see people personally attacking Ken. When I wrote what I wrote those people blew a fuse because they were busted and weren't adult enough to apologize. Then they immediately turned it on me for expressing a fairly common sense moral principal - which convicted them. They took the conviction upon themselves. I stated a generality: People who personally attack others are often operating from a VERY low intellect; which they took personally I guess because they felt guilty of personally attacking others; Ken in this case.

The 50 messages attacking me PERSONALLY which followed just vindicated my feeling or belief in the axiom that people who attack others are weak minded and/or of a VERY low intellect.

I'm not abusing anyone. Not you, not Ken, not anyone. Whenever I read someone dogging him, [for] his techniques, or his conclusions it sends up a flag that I'm now reading a person with a VERY limited intellect.

Make sense yet?

Jan 26, 2009 at 05:16 AM

dnenciu
Offline
Upload & Sell: Off

p.6 #25 · D3x better than 5DII

Bifurcator wrote:
LeifG wrote:
This has got tedious. You say the following:

"whenever I read someone dogging him, his techniques, or his conclusions it sends up a flag that I'm now reading a person with a VERY limited intellect. "

Your use of the word 'dogging' is unclear and I assume it is an American slang usage meaning 'criticise'. If so, then anyone who criticises Ken has a "VERY limited intellect" i.e. they are an idiot, moron or cretin, whichever word you prefer. Is that what you mean? If so, then that is pretty offensive stuff. Anyone who disagrees with Ken is a moron. Blimey. Or did you mean something else?

As I have said, I think an awful lot of what Ken writes is technically incorrect to the point of ineptitude. If you abuse me for holding that view, so be it.

How many times do I need to explain that's not what I meant and that you're misreading it and making something out of nothing?

Dogging, in my sentence was meant to mean irrational persecuting or personal attack. But we can use your word "criticize" if you like. Here's where I'm coming from: If Ken, I, or anyone writes an incorrect sentence and you correct or "criticize" the sentence or the information in it then that's constructive or at least rational and maybe even adult. If however, you "criticize" the author calling him or her a fool, an idiot, stupid, etc. and attack the author then IN MY OPINION you (or whoever does such a thing) has "a VERY low intellect". I feel and believe that people who personally attack others in forums and etc. FOR ANY REASON have an under-developed intellect. If you read back through this thread you will see people personally attacking Ken. When I wrote what I wrote those people blew a fuse because they were busted and weren't adult enough to apologize. Then they immediately turned it on me for expressing a fairly common sense moral principal - which convicted them. They took the conviction upon themselves. I stated a generality: People who personally attack others are often operating from a VERY low intellect; which they took personally I guess because they felt guilty of personally attacking others; Ken in this case.

The 50 messages attacking me PERSONALLY which followed just vindicated my feeling or belief in the axiom that people who attack others are weak minded and/or of a VERY low intellect.

I'm not abusing anyone. Not you, not Ken, not anyone. Whenever I read someone dogging him, [for] his techniques, or his conclusions it sends up a flag that I'm now reading a person with a VERY limited intellect.

Make sense yet?

Just because somebody doesn't have the expertise in the photo field to realize that what Ken writes is just a twisted personal joke does not make them of "very limited intellect".

He's reputation and website are well known and some people without the necessary background/experience take him seriously and are guided the wrong way.

Just because I don't know much about baking cakes doesn't make me of limited intellect and if I go on a renowned website where they give recipes that sound plausible but turn out to be cr@p and I loose the money for the ingredients I wouldn't be happy about it especially if those ingredients cost thousands of $$$.

The problem I have with his reviews is that the site seems extremely professional and for somebody without a lot of photo experience is very hard to realize that his writing is extremely biased and sometimes plainly wrong probably on purpose to make it fun to read.

I do realize that people should do more do diligence and not believe everything they read but misleading people is not something that I find right.

Jan 26, 2009 at 05:43 AM


FM Forums \| Nikon-mount SLRs \| Join Upload & Sell 1 2 3 … 5 6 7 end