Ken Rockwell puts 5d mk ii against d3x

[ptomsu]

Owing a 5D2 and a D3 and knowing some results from D3X I can only say I prefer the 5D2 if it comes to higher resolution and higher ISO - I shoot ONLY RAW !!!

The D3X shows lot of noise and not very clean transitions in shadow as well as highlight areas, miles away from the D3 quality! The 5D2 is not quite as good as the D3, but offers much higher resolution and in my eyes much better results than the D3X So for me the clear choice if it comes to high res and high ISO while delivering great quality also at standard ISO.

Not sure what all this discussion about KR is about, I cannot take such tests serious.

And BTW - it also depends on the whole chain of processing which result you get, finally on the screen you use to show for example high dynamic range etc. So if you have not the best in any part of this chain talking about high IQ is nonsense - just my experience and worth AT LEAST 5c

 

[nautilus]

Owing a 5D2 and a D3 and knowing some results from D3X I can only say I prefer the 5D2 if it comes to higher resolution and higher ISO - I shoot ONLY RAW !!!

The D3X shows lot of noise and not very clean transitions in shadow as well as highlight areas, miles away from the D3 quality! The 5D2 is not quite as good as the D3, but offers much higher resolution and in my eyes much better results than the D3X So for me the clear choice if it comes to high res and high ISO while delivering great quality also at standard ISO.

Not sure what all this discussion about KR is about, I cannot take such tests serious.

And BTW - it also depends on the whole chain of processing which result you get, finally on the screen you use to show for example high dynamic range etc. So if you have not the best in any part of this chain talking about high IQ is nonsense - just my experience and worth AT LEAST 5c

It's too funny what you wrote.
I like the look of 5D2 images better than the look of Nikon or Sony images.
When I read the tests of D3x, A900 and 5D2 which prefer the Nikon and Sony (at least at lower ISO's in the case of the Sony) I often ask myself what's wrong with my eyes.
That was the same in the past with pictures from 5D1 and 1D Canon cameras but not with Canon APS cameras.
I'm still not sure what's different with theses Canon cameras compared to other brands that makes their pictures appear so good in my eyes.
Of course it's a matter of taste but I think the difference could be that colors and contrasts look too harsh with Nikon and Sony whereas Canon is more smooth and pleasing to the eye.
Too bad that I'm bound to Sony since I have some good lenses from Minolta and Sony and therefore didn't buy a small Canon system to try it out by myself.

 

[fotografz]

It's too funny what you wrote.
I like the look of 5D2 images better than the look of Nikon or Sony images.
When I read the tests of D3x, A900 and 5D2 which prefer the Nikon and Sony (at least at lower ISO's in the case of the Sony) I often ask myself what's wrong with my eyes.
That was the same in the past with pictures from 5D1 and 1D Canon cameras but not with Canon APS cameras.
I'm still not sure what's different with theses Canon cameras compared to other brands that makes their pictures appear so good in my eyes.
Of course it's a matter of taste but I think the difference could be that colors and contrasts look too harsh with Nikon and Sony whereas Canon is more smooth and pleasing to the eye.
Too bad that I'm bound to Sony since I have some good lenses from Minolta and Sony and therefore didn't buy a small Canon system to try it out by myself.

What do you have that's binding you to Sony? Line list it and maybe you can get rid of it here to all of the new Sony A900 shooters

The Grass is always greener ... having recently moved from Canon for the very reasons that attract you to Canon, I would relish a chance to grab a few more select Sony/Minolta lenses. :thumbup:

 

[Paratom]

I would guess that color could be one thing which makes a difference between the brands.
I have replaced my D3 with a D3x because I was not 100% happy with the microdetail of the D3. For some reason I sometimes got the feeling that there might have been either strong AA filter or maybe some basic noise reduction or something like this going on.
SO far I find the d3x not to be problematic up to 1600 ISO - personally I rather get some noise than a loss of detail cause by noise reduction.
Regarding the 5DII - no experience but once had a 5D for some months and I was not happy with the color balance, specielly the reds.
However I think lenses have a huge influence as well and this is a problem of many comparisons.
The other thing was speed, the D3/D3x feels instant, the shutter delay is barely noticable, I dont know about the 5DII but the 5D seemed not in the same level to me.
IMO the D3x was the best compromise between detail at low ISO, quite good high ISO, speed, lens choices. However if I had not had allready many Nikon lenses I would have given the A900 a try.

 

[ChrisDauer]

The raw converters can have a large impact on the colors (most noticeably to me was the color red) depending on which you use.

Though I'm guessing you used the very same workflow both both cameras (?)

 

[Erik Five]

I just do not understand. i can see one doing a comparison using in camera generated jpgs if one is testing some point and shoots or even lower end DSLRs but how many people buy the 5DII and primarily use the in camera generated jpgs?

I cant remember if ive ever shot a dlsr in jpeg. Except for the 5d mkII cause it was blocked for Raw use since I tested a prototype for 5mins.

Ken is a Nikon fan boy as well

 

[ChrisDauer]

Not that I put any more stock in this, than I do Ken... but here it is anyway:

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos5Dmarkii/

At the end of the day, all that matters is that you're happy; not that anyone else is (okay, well maybe we'll make an exception for clients! ;-)

 

[Paratom]

The raw converters can have a large impact on the colors (most noticeably to me was the color red) depending on which you use.

Though I'm guessing you used the very same workflow both both cameras (?)

Well, Capture NX only works for Nikon, but C1works for both. Its some time ago and I dont remember 100% which rawconverter I have used mainly since I have various on my computer .

 

[eekimel]

At the end of the day, all that matters is that you're happy; not that anyone else is (okay, well maybe we'll make an exception for clients! ;-)

So true.
I don't visit this forum nearly enough but as ever, it's always ground in common sense which I appreciate.

 

[nautilus]

What do you have that's binding you to Sony? Line list it and maybe you can get rid of it here to all of the new Sony A900 shooters

The Grass is always greener ... having recently moved from Canon for the very reasons that attract you to Canon, I would relish a chance to grab a few more select Sony/Minolta lenses. :thumbup:

2x 4/600G Minolta
3x 2,8/300G Minolta and Sony
1x 1,4/85G limited Minolta

Only sold in one package. Do you still want to buy?

Just kidding.
I wouldn't change the system. Maybe I would buy a Canon 5DII and a lens like the 50/1,2 as a parallel mini system to make my own experiences with Canon's picture quality and to see how green the Canon grass really is.
What did hold me back one or two times at the last moment before buying is that this and other prime lenses are not stabilized (Sony's security belt).
But I don't have to do that immediately.
Maybe we will see different senors beyond current bayer sensors that will change the picture appearance in one or two years anyway.

 

[fotografz]

2x 4/600G Minolta
3x 2,8/300G Minolta and Sony
1x 1,4/85G limited Minolta

Only sold in one package. Do you still want to buy?

Just kidding.
I wouldn't change the system. Maybe I would buy a Canon 5DII and a lens like the 50/1,2 as a parallel mini system to make my own experiences with Canon's picture quality and to see how green the Canon grass really is.
What did hold me back one or two times at the last moment before buying is that this and other prime lenses are not stabilized (Sony's security belt).
But I don't have to do that immediately.
Maybe we will see different senors beyond current bayer sensors that will change the picture appearance in one or two years anyway.

Is that 300/2.8G the APO Sony version? If it is ... YUM! :thumbs:

 

[Jack]

My cats know more about cameras than KR. They at least sleep curled up around the 5D and Leicas.

:ROTFL::ROTFL::ROTFL:

Good one!

 

[edwardkaraa]

2x 4/600G Minolta
3x 2,8/300G Minolta and Sony
1x 1,4/85G limited Minolta

Only sold in one package. Do you still want to buy?

Just kidding.
I wouldn't change the system. Maybe I would buy a Canon 5DII and a lens like the 50/1,2 as a parallel mini system to make my own experiences with Canon's picture quality and to see how green the Canon grass really is.
What did hold me back one or two times at the last moment before buying is that this and other prime lenses are not stabilized (Sony's security belt).
But I don't have to do that immediately.
Maybe we will see different senors beyond current bayer sensors that will change the picture appearance in one or two years anyway.

Grass isn't always greener. I was a happy Canon user (1Ds2 with Contax lenses) until I saw the images taken with the A900. Now that I have completely switched to Sony/Zeiss and looking back to my Canon archives, I still believe my grass is still greener than the other side. No regrets whatsoever. I have always had doubts about digital and why was I not able te get the color depth and richness that film gave me, but now this question is already resolved. The A900 images have a certain Fujichrome look that I was never able to emulate with the 1Ds2.

 

[mazor]

Nice edwardkaraa, it just shows all this technical blah about having 14bit may not all that much improvement. As we can see the A900 is a superb performer in dynamic range, etc even though it only supports 12bit.

MAzor