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.
TonyBeach wrote:
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.
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.
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....Show more →
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.
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.
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. ...Show more →
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.
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.
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.
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...
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.
Honestly what's most annoying is he thinks too high of himself,... annoying especially after seeing some of his work
I just made a promise to myself to never ever visit his site again !
davenfl wrote:
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. ...Show more →
Sounds about right. And as the previous poster has said, if I read his writings, I find his enormous ego a turn off. He comes across as all mouth and no trousers. If only life was as simple as Ken would have us believe.
benstein wrote:
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.
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".
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.
Wow. The dynamic range advantage at ISO 100 is shocking (you'll have to click some buttons, I can't direct link to the page).
Two stops... This is a SERIOUSLY impressive sensor...
Also, noise is all but indistinguishable from the 5D MkII all the way to ISO 6400. Whatever Nikon is doing, they're getting more out of the sensor than Sony is.
I kinda like Ken's website, as he often posts up interesting articles. From a scientific point of view though, this comparison is among the worst I've ever seen. At the very least he should have used a top canon lens, and not one that's known for lack of corner sharpness when shot too open.
I think the only possible way to make a review like this is shoot both cameras with the same lens. This would HAVE to be a sharp and preferably calibrated (for each body) 3rd party lens. Another option would be to at least use one of the best known lenses for each camera, so not the 50/1.4.
Another note: shoot with the same aperture, iso speed (unless one camera offers a lower value). do NOT use jpeg. Just... don't. The way this review is set up, Ken Rockwell appears to intentionally make the Canon 5DII look bad. I have no trouble believing that the D3x is better than the 5DII, but this review would be unacceptable even for first-year students. There's just too many variables left unclear, uncomparable or just plain wrong.
I hope Ken accepts this critique and fixes his review by revealing ALL the testing parameters and not just stating additional tests showed the same results. This is just condescending and making a mockery of people who are interested in the actual differences and whichever one wins - by what margin it does that.
