http://www.kenrockwell.com/nikon/d3x/sharpness-comparison-5d-mark-ii.htm

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."

http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/blog.html

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.

*Darth Vader*

NOOooooooooo!

He's so smart, comparing out of camera jpgs from a $2.8K and a $8K camera, just like real users of those cameras would.

Man, he even tells us what aperture he shot those images at.... the "Optimum Aperture". I must have missed that setting before.

<-- wow that's disgusting.

I like Ken's blog and think he tells it more like it is from a working pro perspective, and less from a pixel-peeper's.

This test result shows more the differences between equivalent Canon glass and Nikon glass, though.

-m

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."

http://diglloyd.com/diglloyd/blog.html

Maybe this Digilloyd guy can give his 1Ds3 to me... I am always on the look-out for a decent back-up cam...

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

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.

mauriceramirez wrote:
I like Ken's blog and think he tells it more like it is from a working pro perspective, and less from a pixel-peeper's.

This test result shows more the differences between equivalent Canon glass and Nikon glass, though.

-m

Laughable. I think KR's BS isn't even useful for those shooting their kids with consumer cameras and lenses.

mauriceramirez wrote:
I like Ken's blog and think he tells it more like it is from a working pro perspective, and less from a pixel-peeper's.




I didn't realize that winning a photo contest in your local newspaper made you a "working pro"...

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.

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/big-three.shtml

mauriceramirez wrote:
I like Ken's blog and think he tells it more like it is from a working pro perspective, and less from a pixel-peeper's.

This test result shows more the differences between equivalent Canon glass and Nikon glass, though.

-m

He is not a pro and is most definitely the pixel peeper's pixel peeper.

James R wrote:


There is a 4th problem, Ken R's reviews generally are worthless. Just my opinion.

Just my opinion too.

molson wrote:
mauriceramirez wrote:
I like Ken's blog and think he tells it more like it is from a working pro perspective, and less from a pixel-peeper's.




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.

-m

mauriceramirez wrote:
molson wrote:
mauriceramirez wrote:
I like Ken's blog and think he tells it more like it is from a working pro perspective, and less from a pixel-peeper's.




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.

-m

Well said M.

Tuan

Ken who

Nice to see someone else confirm it being the best image quality ever...etc. It would want to be for the money.

Looking forward to hear what FM users think.

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.

Maurice...I'm with you

kenrockwell is proving that......D3x is more superior that 5D mark2.
Some of the Canon camp cannot accept the reality.
They say 5D mark2 is the best camare in the dslr camp.

For me, I just like to take jpeg not Raw.
Maybe D3x is my friend later.

i usually ignore ken rockwell, but if i can't, i take his opinions with a very large grain of salt.

but let's forget that it's ken rockwell for a moment. the web pundits are comparing a $2600 camera to an $8000 camera. as someone who owns a 5D2 (and will soon own a D700), i'm somewhat placated knowing that my relatively inexpensive camera's IQ must be tested up against the latest and truly greatest.

=^)

mauriceramirez wrote:
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.

Michael Reichmann (a working pro with a significant business based on photography) is on record on his web site as describing Ken's writings as nonsense. Bjorn Rorslett (a working pro who earns a healthy living from nature photography) is on record (on Photo.Net) as describing Ken as "on another planet". Most pros do not bother to comment on Ken so we do not know what they think.

I look at Ken Rockwell's website occasionally and I like to read his writings, like I do with others writing photography in the Internet. Many times I had wish he would have used different words to express his feelings or his testing of gear.
"Tripods are obsolete" he began to write recently after using VR lenses. While indeed VR lenses help, nothing beats a good tripod for stability and composition. I could go on and on.
I have no experience with either of the cameras he discussed in his website (5D II and D3X) but a $8000 has to be superior to a semi-professional camera. He is very enthusiastic of the old 5D and I am too. To my personal taste, the files from the old 5D look to my eyes better than those of the D3 or D700.
I agree that he is kind of controversial but on the other hand I see that he has made many contributions to photography, good or bad. In my case, for instance, I have done none.
I was totally unaware that Reichman and Rorslett took time to comment about his writings.
William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.