This topic is in the 2009 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2009D3x better than 5DII
p.2 #2D3x better than 5DII
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.
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.
Jan 09, 2009 at 02:11 AM
p.2 #3D3x better than 5DII
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.
=^)
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.
=^)
Jan 09, 2009 at 02:18 AM
p.2 #4D3x better than 5DII
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.
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.
Jan 09, 2009 at 05:05 AM
p.2 #5D3x better than 5DII
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.
"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.
Jan 09, 2009 at 05:46 AM
p.2 #6D3x better than 5DII
from http://www.kenrockwell.com/about.htm:
"While often inspired by actual products and events, just like any other good news organization, I like to make things up and stretch the truth if they make an article more fun. In the case of new products, rumors and just plain silly stuff, it's all pretend. If you lack a good BS detector, please treat this entire site as a work of fiction."
Herb...
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.
"While often inspired by actual products and events, just like any other good news organization, I like to make things up and stretch the truth if they make an article more fun. In the case of new products, rumors and just plain silly stuff, it's all pretend. If you lack a good BS detector, please treat this entire site as a work of fiction."
Herb...
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.
Jan 09, 2009 at 12:34 PM
p.2 #7D3x better than 5DII
I think it would have made more sense to compare it to the 1Dsmk111 but hey what ever, they have the same sensor anyway don't they??
And he "hates" gear heads and the fact that more of his gear reviews get more hits than his "how to " photography write ups do so I think a lot of what he writes in his gear reviews is to spite gear heads and get them riled up.
But there is more info on nikon gear there than just about anywhere else so if you need to know something about something nikon it's a good place to start. Just have your sence of humor with you that is all.
And he "hates" gear heads and the fact that more of his gear reviews get more hits than his "how to " photography write ups do so I think a lot of what he writes in his gear reviews is to spite gear heads and get them riled up.
But there is more info on nikon gear there than just about anywhere else so if you need to know something about something nikon it's a good place to start. Just have your sence of humor with you that is all.
Jan 09, 2009 at 12:42 PM
p.2 #8D3x better than 5DII
I don't care a single bit about KR but in this case he might have a point. Canon has stated it has tweaked the 1DsIII sensor in the 5DII package, so this should be the best image quality Canon has on offer at this point in time, right? The fact that the D3x is an $8000 camera doesn't detract from that. And there definitely are a lot of jpeg shooting pros out there: sports & PJ's. So, finally, for once, the man has a point even though the scope of his findings is limited. A good comparison of the IQ of both cameras would go much deeper than this.
Either way, I don't have a 5DII nor a D3x. Makes me wonder what the heck I'm replying for...
Either way, I don't have a 5DII nor a D3x. Makes me wonder what the heck I'm replying for...
Jan 09, 2009 at 12:50 PM
p.2 #9D3x better than 5DII
camerapapi wrote:
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...Show more →
Some of his reviews are helpful but he is way too opinionated to be fair.
And in image quality a professional camera is not necessarily better than a semi professional or even consumer one.
There is not much diff in IQ between the 5dmk2 and 1dsmk3 and yet the 1dsmk3 is 6k vs 3k for the 5dmk2.
The diff is in features/build, speed, AF.... that's what you pay for in the 1dsmk3. For some people is worth it for others is not.
Comparing Jpeg is not the right way to compare cameras at this level.
Nobody in their right mind would buy an 8k or even a 3k camera and shoot jpeg.
And it works the other way too. A D3 jpeg is worse than a 5dmk1 jpeg in sharpness.
If you look at other reviews you will see that yes the D3x has an edge on the 5dmk2 but is more in line with the diff in mpx.
It's impressive that Nikon was able to improve so much the high iso of the Sony sensor.
For me the 5dmk2 is nothing more than using bin parts to build a mix of existing cameras.
5d AF, mirror box. 1dsmk3 sensor.
The only thing new is the video (the LCD was introduced on the 50D).
That doesn't make it bad is just that is nothing revolutionary as some present it to be.
Even the price for 21mpx is not revolutionary as you can get the 24mpx sony for the same price. (worse iso, but other advantages)
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...Show more →
Some of his reviews are helpful but he is way too opinionated to be fair.
And in image quality a professional camera is not necessarily better than a semi professional or even consumer one.
There is not much diff in IQ between the 5dmk2 and 1dsmk3 and yet the 1dsmk3 is 6k vs 3k for the 5dmk2.
The diff is in features/build, speed, AF.... that's what you pay for in the 1dsmk3. For some people is worth it for others is not.
Comparing Jpeg is not the right way to compare cameras at this level.
Nobody in their right mind would buy an 8k or even a 3k camera and shoot jpeg.
And it works the other way too. A D3 jpeg is worse than a 5dmk1 jpeg in sharpness.
If you look at other reviews you will see that yes the D3x has an edge on the 5dmk2 but is more in line with the diff in mpx.
It's impressive that Nikon was able to improve so much the high iso of the Sony sensor.
For me the 5dmk2 is nothing more than using bin parts to build a mix of existing cameras.
5d AF, mirror box. 1dsmk3 sensor.
The only thing new is the video (the LCD was introduced on the 50D).
That doesn't make it bad is just that is nothing revolutionary as some present it to be.
Even the price for 21mpx is not revolutionary as you can get the 24mpx sony for the same price. (worse iso, but other advantages)
Jan 09, 2009 at 12:58 PM
p.2 #10D3x better than 5DII
Emile Gregoire wrote:
I don't care a single bit about KR but in this case he might have a point. Canon has stated it has tweaked the 1DsIII sensor in the 5DII package, so this should be the best image quality Canon has on offer at this point in time, right? The fact that the D3x is an $8000 camera doesn't detract from that. And there definitely are a lot of jpeg shooting pros out there: sports & PJ's. So, finally, for once, the man has a point even though the scope of his findings is limited. A good comparison of the...Show more →
I think that makes you just as qualified to write a review on these cameras as KR! He probably hasn't ever shot either of them either!
I don't care a single bit about KR but in this case he might have a point. Canon has stated it has tweaked the 1DsIII sensor in the 5DII package, so this should be the best image quality Canon has on offer at this point in time, right? The fact that the D3x is an $8000 camera doesn't detract from that. And there definitely are a lot of jpeg shooting pros out there: sports & PJ's. So, finally, for once, the man has a point even though the scope of his findings is limited. A good comparison of the...Show more →
I think that makes you just as qualified to write a review on these cameras as KR! He probably hasn't ever shot either of them either!
Jan 09, 2009 at 02:38 PM
p.2 #11D3x better than 5DII
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.
Here is the "decider". Go with the money, shoot for the money, and have confidence in the tools you use. Shoot with anything else on your mind and nobody is going to pay you anyway.
Though retired now for 25 years, I still prefer my Leica's.
Here is the "decider". Go with the money, shoot for the money, and have confidence in the tools you use. Shoot with anything else on your mind and nobody is going to pay you anyway.
Though retired now for 25 years, I still prefer my Leica's.
Jan 09, 2009 at 02:51 PM
p.2 #12D3x better than 5DII
KR said this on the same page: "You people know who you are, but almost no one needs this many pixels. My pals who earn their livings through photography know that 10MP is more than enough for almost any paying job they get, and they all shoot JPG, too."
I must be hanging out with the wrong people. I deal with a lot of pro photographers and they all shoot raw.
I must be hanging out with the wrong people. I deal with a lot of pro photographers and they all shoot raw.
Jan 09, 2009 at 04:06 PM
p.2 #13D3x better than 5DII
GregM5 wrote:
KR said this on the same page: "You people know who you are, but almost no one needs this many pixels. My pals who earn their livings through photography know that 10MP is more than enough for almost any paying job they get, and they all shoot JPG, too."
I must be hanging out with the wrong people. I deal with a lot of pro photographers and they all shoot raw.
.... and yes many do need more than 10MP, otherwise Hasselblad would have been out of business years ago!
KR said this on the same page: "You people know who you are, but almost no one needs this many pixels. My pals who earn their livings through photography know that 10MP is more than enough for almost any paying job they get, and they all shoot JPG, too."
I must be hanging out with the wrong people. I deal with a lot of pro photographers and they all shoot raw.
.... and yes many do need more than 10MP, otherwise Hasselblad would have been out of business years ago!
Jan 09, 2009 at 04:10 PM
p.2 #14D3x better than 5DII
tdawg wrote:
Either way, I don't have a 5DII nor a D3x. Makes me wonder what the heck I'm replying for...I think that makes you just as qualified to write a review on these cameras as KR! He probably hasn't ever shot either of them either!
Good idea; I just might start a new website comparing Hasselblad's latest offerings to Ricoh point and shoots and get a large amount of followers who think I'm God's gift to photography
Emile Gregoire wrote
I don't care a single bit about KR but in this case he might have a point. Canon has stated it has tweaked the 1DsIII sensor in the 5DII package, so this should be the best image quality Canon has on offer at this point in time, right? The fact that the D3x is an $8000 camera doesn't detract from that. And there definitely are a lot of jpeg shooting pros out there: sports & PJ's. So, finally, for once, the man has a point even though the scope of his findings is limited. A good comparison of the IQ of both cameras would go much deeper than this.Either way, I don't have a 5DII nor a D3x. Makes me wonder what the heck I'm replying for...
Good idea; I just might start a new website comparing Hasselblad's latest offerings to Ricoh point and shoots and get a large amount of followers who think I'm God's gift to photography Jan 09, 2009 at 04:39 PM
p.2 #15D3x better than 5DII
GregM5 wrote:
KR said this on the same page: "You people know who you are, but almost no one needs this many pixels. My pals who earn their livings through photography know that 10MP is more than enough for almost any paying job they get, and they all shoot JPG, too."
I must be hanging out with the wrong people. I deal with a lot of pro photographers and they all shoot raw.
KR is a clown. He writes about the superiority of film over digital, but then he handicaps digital by insisting that JPEG is good enough for the digital cameras -- I suppose sticking Polaroid in his film camera should be good enough for the film cameras then, but he doesn't. Every time he offers one of his bogus comparisons he does things like uprezzing one of the images (remember, it's an out of the camera JPEG he's uprezzing) to "prove" his point. Frankly, I don't take anyone seriously after they cite him as a source.
KR said this on the same page: "You people know who you are, but almost no one needs this many pixels. My pals who earn their livings through photography know that 10MP is more than enough for almost any paying job they get, and they all shoot JPG, too."
I must be hanging out with the wrong people. I deal with a lot of pro photographers and they all shoot raw.
KR is a clown. He writes about the superiority of film over digital, but then he handicaps digital by insisting that JPEG is good enough for the digital cameras -- I suppose sticking Polaroid in his film camera should be good enough for the film cameras then, but he doesn't. Every time he offers one of his bogus comparisons he does things like uprezzing one of the images (remember, it's an out of the camera JPEG he's uprezzing) to "prove" his point. Frankly, I don't take anyone seriously after they cite him as a source.
Jan 09, 2009 at 04:42 PM
p.2 #16D3x better than 5DII
I don't read his postings regularly, but I found this nugget interesting:
"Each lens was picked to be far better than the camera being tested. For instance, on the Nikon, I also tried the 55mm f/2.8 AF Micro-NIKKOR and the Nikon Zoom-NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8 AF-S. Each gave the same result as each is far sharper than the 24MP resolution of the D3X. I used the fixed 50mm to keep the same framing as the 50/1.4 USM on the Canon." Reading the rest of the article, I don't think I am taking him out of context.
I'm glad my 50 1.4 is far better than the 5DMkII. Boy did my resale price ever just shoot up, and I'm glad I don't have to buy that 50mm 1.2 anymore.
"Each lens was picked to be far better than the camera being tested. For instance, on the Nikon, I also tried the 55mm f/2.8 AF Micro-NIKKOR and the Nikon Zoom-NIKKOR 24-70mm f/2.8 AF-S. Each gave the same result as each is far sharper than the 24MP resolution of the D3X. I used the fixed 50mm to keep the same framing as the 50/1.4 USM on the Canon." Reading the rest of the article, I don't think I am taking him out of context.
I'm glad my 50 1.4 is far better than the 5DMkII. Boy did my resale price ever just shoot up, and I'm glad I don't have to buy that 50mm 1.2 anymore.
Jan 09, 2009 at 04:51 PM
p.2 #17D3x better than 5DII
I read KR's site a lot. I do not soak in the description of things, only the specs and results he produces. He has a tidy website and his pictures of lenses and cameras he posts are technically quite good.
Grain of salt with anyone posting reviews on the net.
Grain of salt with anyone posting reviews on the net.
Jan 10, 2009 at 05:46 AM
p.2 #18D3x better than 5DII
Dnenciu: True, a professional camera does not have to be necessarily better in IQ than an amateur one. I mentioned in my post that I liked better the images from the 5D than those of the D3 or D700. I could be wrong but that is my perception. I am sorry I cannot discuss quality among Canon cameras since I only use Nikon bodies and lenses. My statement about the 5D comes from looking at pictures not actually using the camera.
"Nobody in his right mind would buy a 8k or even a 3k camera and shoot JPEG." You said that, I did not. Many professional wedding photographers I know shoot strictly JPEG with their D2X and D3. I shoot RAW but I would be lying if I said I can see the difference in prints, assuming sharpening is not done in camera when shooting JPEG.
As I said, I have no experience with Canon products but I know photographers using them and they are happy.
On regard to the D3X that is a camera I have no use for nor the money to buy it. I still use a D1X for macros and landscape photography and a D2H for those rare occasions when I shoot action or wildlife. If I travel, I usually take my D70S and kit lenses to make the load lighter and yes, I believe those cheap kit lenses are capable of very nice images.
William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.
"Nobody in his right mind would buy a 8k or even a 3k camera and shoot JPEG." You said that, I did not. Many professional wedding photographers I know shoot strictly JPEG with their D2X and D3. I shoot RAW but I would be lying if I said I can see the difference in prints, assuming sharpening is not done in camera when shooting JPEG.
As I said, I have no experience with Canon products but I know photographers using them and they are happy.
On regard to the D3X that is a camera I have no use for nor the money to buy it. I still use a D1X for macros and landscape photography and a D2H for those rare occasions when I shoot action or wildlife. If I travel, I usually take my D70S and kit lenses to make the load lighter and yes, I believe those cheap kit lenses are capable of very nice images.
William Rodriguez
Miami, Florida.
Jan 10, 2009 at 08:16 AM
p.2 #19D3x better than 5DII
Who's kidding who? we are all a bunch of big kids in the end. If we had the budget Ken had we'd all have D3x's and be singing it's praises along side him. There are some things on his site I take issue with sure, but what site is one I agree with 100%, NONE. I think he is sometimes justifyingly "in your face" about some things. He's right, the D40 is an amazing image making machine for so many, and is actually capable of superb images. There's just plenty high tech to go around for unlimited dollars. I do disagree however with his feelings over film. For me film is dead, buried and is dust in the grave. I don't even wish to hear about it anymore PERIOD.
Jan 10, 2009 at 09:52 AM
p.2 #20D3x better than 5DII
I would for one. I am fine with .jpgs from my D80/D2X/D700.
Ben Horne wrote:
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.
Ben Horne wrote:
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.
Jan 10, 2009 at 10:11 AM