spudgun wrote:
Oh dear it looks like the DP forums are leaking into here. Like I said there, people seem keen to perpetuate the perception that photograpers are dull, humorless bores.

Why so many get their tits in a wringer over him is beyond me. And I can't understand why people don't get it when he's being deliberately silly. What, so some of you thought he was being serious when he was talking about killer robots taking over the world??

As Mr. T might say,
I pity the fool who obtains self esteem by deriding Ken Rockwell.


Exactly!

Better look out tho. Now those who do are going to attack you for calling them fools.

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.


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.

Bifurcator wrote:
So if I do what you do then:

"Well, I'm not going to go and look at KR's "comparisons" to check, mainly because I don't have the time to waste and from what I've checked in the past his tests are flawed and I suspect they are deliberately biased to reinforce whatever he wants them to "prove".

You just called him "A waste of time", "A lier", "a cheater" and,

Regarding screwing up exposure as the only reason to shoot RAW, that's a myth propagated by JPEG shooters. Getting exposure right with RAW is different than getting it right with JPEG; and you can get a stop more DR when shooting in RAW, you can probably get even more than that if you use the whacky image settings KR uses."

you also just called him "stupid".

You think I'm insulting him...

If I process text like you do then yes there's no question about it. I however am not that corrupt that I would twist what you say into another meaning. You can do that if you want - that's not me! I simply said that people who do insult others (really anyone in any way) send up a flag which tells me that I'm reading someone with a VERY limited intellect. If you want to own that description and therefor own the slight attached to it then that's up to you.

Here's yet another case in point where it seems your reading comprehension is distorted beyond reasonability:

TonyBeach wrote:

Bifurcator wrote:
How I feel about stupid people or rude people with VERY low intellects is just how I feel about them!

Just as I suspected, you are calling those of us that take issue with KR "stupid". Like I said in my first reply to you, I prefer not to engage in such name calling with people I disagree with; I do realize though from everything you've written in this thread that you are someone not worth taking seriously, especially as it relates to photography.

That doesn't even make sense! You're being combative, rude, snide, and completely disingenuous for no other reason than to deliver insults to someone you don't agree with. Why? Your meds need refilling or something? The sentence you quoted is out of context, has nothing to do with Ken nor people who like/dislike him and couldn't possibly reflect on my skill level as a photographer. Even you have to admit that what you've written here appears to be the drivel of an insane person.



Tony Beach uses some terms of abuse when referring to Ken and I think he would do better to restrict himself to criticising the writing, and the methodology. But saying that someone who holds an opinion you do not like is of "very low intellect" is very offensive. It is cheap. So quite how you can complain about Tony Beach insulting Ken is beyond me. That is hypocrisy. Still, who cares ...

The Hide Me feature sure comes in handy some times..

What's funny is that he is showing noise by using the shadow/highlight tool at ISO's 50-400.
What kind of test is that! All that shows is errors in the original JPG or RAW output.
He even follows his tests by saying...

"Note well that praise for the Nikon D3x should not be taken as criticism of the Canon 5D Mark II, the latter offering tremendous value and possibly a better choice (in terms of noise and color) than the D3x for high ISOs"

So, he's saying that the 5D2 bests the D3x when it comes to color and noise, but the D3x is better if you want to be heavy handed with photoshop's shadow/highlight tool at low ISO's. HAH, crazy.

And as far as KR goes, well, he's KR, nuff said

So, all in all it appears the $2500 camera offers the best IQ available for a DSLR.


Daan B wrote:
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...

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.


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.



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.

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

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.

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).

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 ...

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?

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?

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.

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!

if everyone presses His Hide me button will he disappear

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.