D3X vs 5D2 - myth and reality

Started Jan 26, 2009 | Discussions
leping Regular Member • Posts: 429
Re: The difference..

Hi Gil,

I had exactly the same thoughts before my two week long holiday trip, in which I had the chance to use my partner's Phase One P45 MF back along with my new Canon 5DII.

The trip, and what I learned afterwards, changed my mind and I am going to buy a D3x.

1. I am not limited to 35mm lens, although there are large pools of excellent and inexpensive Nikkor AIS lenses to choose -- many does not work very well with the D3/D700 but good with the D3x, as documented by Bjorn and others including my own experiences. I can and do plan to use my Pentax 67 MF prime and zoom lenses for the highest image quality. See the threads I started here and elsewhere "MF lenses can be the best DSLR lenses".

2. For my type of landscape often with the foregrounds in the shadows the 5DII's dynamic range is not enough. This is after processing the RAW files from the trip and compared with the P45 files. The Canon colors leaves a lot to be desired, and there is no reliable way to get quality wide angle work -- the adapter I used to get the Nikon 14-24mm/f2.8G to the 5DII broke into two pieces in the field because of the weight of the lens.

3. The D3x RAW output, when carefully processed, approaches the P45 back quality. Actually giving me the choice today, I would retain the optimized AA filter on the D3x body instead of have it removed. And I can have it removed (Dan at maxmax.com is excellent) if I wish.

4. The key is not always the absolute quality. I still actively shoot my 4x5 (Ebony and Toyo) as well as my Pentax 67II. But, the LF/MF tend to produce landscape works that are dead, lifeless, and dull, including many of my own, and myself and my friends using the digital MF back. A while ago I had the pleasure to meet a fellow landscape photographer, Marc Adamus, who shoot exclusively a Canon 1DsIII. Check out his work -- his images have a life that is so absent from so many LF/MF "masters"!


5. It is not that we always have to have the best technically achievable quality (8x10, 16x20, ...). It is a threshold, beyond a certain point the freedom and flexibility can outweight the technical details in absolute terms. So, today, if someone sells me a P45 back for the same price of D3x (with the current Phase One buy the back and get 5 lenses of your choise free promosion actually the back is only about $10000), I might still take the D3x, because I learned during the trip the MF back limitations, number one of which is the inability to check focus and DOF with Live View. And with all the reports that their D3x results makes MF backs valuable only over 39MP, and my now perference of the 3:2 aspect ratio, I would really need to go for the $40000 P65+ if not the D3x. At least eveyone agrees the D3x DR, color, and sharpness is one step over the 1DsIII level. All my friends knows me as a perfectionist, so they might be shocked to hear what I have learned.

Currently the D3 is $4500 street. The $7500 D3x is $3000 more. 5DII is not a pro body and the shuttle life is only half that of the pro bodies, and no real weather sealing. Yes I would wish the D3x is $6000, but at this currency exchange ratio and the production scale the price is reasonable to me.

The key is once a system crosses the threshold and becomes fits your needs, and is flexible enough for your work style, you do not need to upgrade every year in chase to the best and the newest. Grab the nature while it is alive when the lights are fading, even you can see a bit differences on a 40"x60".

Gil Evans wrote:

Yeah, they are out of their minds. Which is fine. If you have money
to waste, waste it. If you're interested in image quality...when go
medium or large format, film or digital. The D3x is an odd duck, in
my opinion. At 8K, you're limited by 35mm lenses and an anti
aliasing filter. Doesn't make much sense when for third of the price
you can get 5D2 and get the same limitations and damned near the same
image quality. Yeah, the D3x is better, the best SLR...but it's not
3 times better, it's maybe 10% better.

And for 8K you can buy both a 4x5 view camera and a medium format
film camera with lenses. All of which will produce better image
quality...if that's what your going for. Hell, you could even go
8x10. For 15k, you can step into digital medium format.

So I guess I don't really understand the market for the D3x. It's a
professional camera, but what professional would use it over a medium
format and, say, a 39 meg back? Maybe for certain location
applications where portability is important, but still, even then,
that's what god made assistants for.

The D3 I understand, the ultimate sports and photojournalist camera,
but what niche is the D3x best for? Not studio. Not landscape. Not
Fine Art. Not Sports. Not photojournalism. I suspect this is why
Nikon priced it so high...it's more a status symbol for the company,
and perhaps the owners, than a serious tool.

Maybe a case can be made for it as an entry level pro studio
camera...but still, why not go medium format, where there still a lot
of upside currently available, should you want to go there.


-- hide signature --

4x5 film / 6x7 film / Canon 5DII & 5D-IR / Nikon D700

rhlpetrus Forum Pro • Posts: 25,871
Re: OP asked D3x raws to prove..

pertti wrote:

In the following test done using xx -converter I cannot see too much
difference between 20mpix+ bodies in practical image quality (bar
A900 in high ISOs), can you? Anyway converter/method can explain most
of differences, as is case in typical comparing tests.


Studio shots usually have up to 8stops of DR. Not appropriate for DR testing, the issue of this therad. The claim by Gabor, a very good contributor here, is a bit overstated (he calls the DR difference D3x x 5DII a myth). Before he'd say that, he should have asked for the RAWs he has later. And the RAW files from IR for D3x are 12bits!?

I agree, already stated, that most other IQ aspects are well within marginal differences for these cameras. The only issue is, actually, DR, since DxO mark and a few other testers have claimed the D3x has higher DR than any other dslr so far, and by a wide margin (except for the HDR technique used by the Fujis).

I hope someone here with a D3x provides him with the images he needs, Nnot my case, not a D3x owner.

Finally: I still think DR is, at this point, the one aspect worth pursuing improvements in digital photography. The present state of affairs is already outstanding, digital DR is at least as good as any film available (much better than positive film, for example), but likely there's some room for improvement. If D3x has done it, we'll see evidence coming, for or against either side of claims.

-- hide signature --

OnExposure member

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

 rhlpetrus's gear list:rhlpetrus's gear list
Leica D-Lux (Typ 109) Nikon D7000 Nikon 1 V1 Nikon AF-S DX Nikkor 12-24mm f/4G ED-IF Nikon AF Nikkor 35mm f/2D +4 more
bobn2 Forum Pro • Posts: 61,730
Re: Still measurements

GaborSch wrote:

bobn2 wrote:

Yes, but sensor DR is in th end to do with incident light not just
the photoelectrons created in it. the CFA is part of the system, and
needs to be taken into account

We are dealing with pixel values, which are the result of the
combined effects of the color filter, microlens, sensor's quantum

For example Nikon changed the color filters with the D300. They are
mostly different from model to model, but in this case the change was
dramatic: the transmissivity of the red range has been increased a
lot in all three channels.

Should one rearrange the illumination for testing the D300?

I think this is the point at which you need to start thinking, what is it that the test is trying to show. The most likely thing people would want to know is 'what is the DR in real photographic situations', in which case, you'd want to test with a standard representative illuminant (or several). The is quite a lot of evidence to suggest that the sensel of the D3x and A900 is identical, with the difference being precisely in the 'toppings'. Does this mean that we should test the two cameras differently? Your tests, by cancelling out the effect of the 'toppings' provide no insight into the beneficial or otherwise effects of this work.

The dynamic range of the system can be increased by a color filter.
Should one make separate measurements for the result with a magenta
filter in daylight? What about shooting in studio with color filtered

I have good reason to make the measurements as abstract as possible.
This result can be transposed to any setting, but setting specific
results can not be transposed to other settings.

Yes they can, so long as you know the deatails of the test conditions.

There is no triangulation against any calibrated instrument.
Nonlinearities and messing around in the signal chain could be
transparent to your measurements

Wherever I can I am measuring the nonlinearities as well. I noted,
that the Nikon values are not corrected. However, I started out with
identical values in the highest intensities, and I know that the
Canon values are virtually linear, thus I used those values in the
darker regions.

I'd be interested to know how you measure the non-linearities without a known and calibrated illuminant.

The problem is simply that the saturation level is one end of the DR
calculation. I've been trying to work out whether your 'measure noise
at a fixed fraction of saturation' somehow gives you a measure of DR,
I can't see that it does, but I could be missing something

You miss only two numbers and a calculator. Let's take this capture
as sample:

1. The average black level in this case is 1024.

2. The red saturation level for ISO 100 is defined in Rawnalyze as
15755 (give or take a few levels).

3. The average pixel intensity is 1061, after correction 37. The
saturation level after correction is 14731.
14731 / 37 = 398.135 = 2 ^ 8.637
The displayed value is -8.62 EV. The difference is due to the fact,
that the black level correction of the pixels occured row-wise, not
by constant 1024.

OK, I follow that. -8.62 EV, is probably about 2 or more EV above the read noise floor.

We have a different understanding of DR then. Different levels of
incident light have different noise in them. You should only be
interested in sensor noise, you are measuring the noise in the light
as well

Why? We are talking about the same amount of light (1/3 EV difference).

Yes, but that same amount of noise masks a great deal of the difference in noise floor, as I suggested.

Than what you are measuring is not the DR. I think that's your basic
misunderstanding. measure what you like, but don't call it DR, and
don't make sweeping statements saying others are misrepresenting the
DR based on your measurements, which are not the DR

I'm afraid it's you who are misinterpreting the concept.

I think not, I'm reasonably secure about the notion of 'dynamic range'. Your concept is something different from what is generally known as DR - it may be a useful concept, but use a different term.

engineering definition of dynamic range is totally useless in
digital photography.

An easy assertion to make but wrong . The engineering definition of DR informs the photographer how much range from max to min there is to use. Which part of that range to use, and what to do with it is up to the photographer.

You used the term 'DR' repeatedly. Just go back and read what you
actually posted in your OP. If you want to use some other term, we
have no dispute.

Perhaps using of the label "DR" in the display caused some confusion.
It does mean "dynamic range", but only in conjunction with the
displayed noise level.

I think what caused the confusion was bangin on about DR in your very agressive OP, then denying that you were, still lets decide it's a terminological confusion.

I can't see it means the same thing as is commonly accepted as DR at all. What you've observed is that at the level you measured it, it takes half or stop more illumination to get the same noise level on the 5DII as the D3x. But how much extra you need depends on the illumination level. Up at saturation, the shot noise is absolutely dominant, and essentially the difference will be small - dictated by the difference in sensor efficiency which is a fraction of a stop.

Right down at the noise floor, where the D3x read noise seems to be about 1/4 the 5DII's, you'd need two extra stops of light to make that difference. In between, the difference is in between.

-- hide signature --


pertti Senior Member • Posts: 1,043
OP quotes above:

"The dynamic range depends on your acceptance of the noise: if you are accepting 28% at ISO 1600, then the DR of the D3X is 7 EV (28% is very low)."

If we assume the above statement true, I still cannot see much difference between bodies in (for example) ir -test since the visible noise seems to be roughly equivalent?

He also asked some D3x raws with different curves layout to prove further, but i'm afraid argumenting with second hand information ad infinitum is more popular here than practical photography.

Anyway I'm going back shooting. And yes my cameras can deliver quite a lot of what I need (unlike the yesterdays 1.5/1.6 crop cameras like D200 and 30D could honestly do) -> That is the significant difference for my applications.

-- hide signature --
knickerhawk Veteran Member • Posts: 6,262
Re: What is DxO's claim?

bobn2 wrote:

Another point on this. If you look at the DxO DR charts, you'll see
that the D3x, D300, D90 (at low ISO's) and A900 share this
straight-line DR curve which is characteristic of the Sony column ADC
architecture, where the read noise is really rather constant over the
ISO range (which is what causes the straight line, the only thing
changing the DR is the reduction in effective saturation, cause by
ISO amplification). By contrast, conventional ADC systems such as the
5DII and D3 have a DR curve which droops at low ISO's, since they
typically have read noise which doubles with each lower ISO step.

Interesting observation. By the way, your "Still Measurements" response to Gabor makes a lot of sense to me.
My photos: http://www.pbase.com/imageiseverything/root

leping Regular Member • Posts: 429
Check out the real landscape examples: Lloyd's new additions

Dark foreground pushed up two stops in NX/DPP RAW conversion (+2.0 exposure compensation), D3x vs. 5DII crops published yesterday:


Better if you can go into the DAP for the details including full frame images.

-- hide signature --

4x5 film / 6x7 film / Canon 5DII & 5D-IR / Nikon D700

Octane Senior Member • Posts: 2,993

for the your explanation. Makes sense to me at least.

-- hide signature --
nicram Regular Member • Posts: 305
Re: The difference..

leping wrote:

3. The D3x RAW output, when carefully processed, approaches the P45
back quality.

First, that's a little vague, what does approaches really mean. Second, if it were true and verifiable, that a 14 bit depth $8,000 35mm with 24 MP approaches the quality of a 16 bit depth medium format 39 MP chip that was once and recently sold for $30,000, it would be headline news and revolutionary to say the least.

Maybe you didn't mean approaches, maybe you meant at 2x3 inches on a website, but maybe you haven't tested them side by side or shot a billboard with one or both of them, well, I have, and no 35 comes close in any IQ category to a 39 MP medium format chip shot on a Hassy body and lens that costs more than the complete Nikon. Comparing the two is like looking at a conventional TV signal on a nice digital LCD and then looking at an HD signal on a 42" 1080 HD LCD; it's night and day!

You need to clarify or verify with a statement like that, no offense, just common sense.

sidelight Senior Member • Posts: 1,013
Re: The difference..

nicram wrote:

leping wrote:

3. The D3x RAW output, when carefully processed, approaches the P45
back quality.

First, that's a little vague, what does approaches really mean.
Second, if it were true and verifiable, that a 14 bit depth $8,000
35mm with 24 MP approaches the quality of a 16 bit depth medium
format 39 MP chip that was once and recently sold for $30,000, it
would be headline news and revolutionary to say the least.

Maybe you didn't mean approaches, maybe you meant at 2x3 inches on a
website, but maybe you haven't tested them side by side or shot a
billboard with one or both of them, well, I have, and no 35 comes
close in any IQ category to a 39 MP medium format chip shot on a
Hassy body and lens that costs more than the complete Nikon.
Comparing the two is like looking at a conventional TV signal on a
nice digital LCD and then looking at an HD signal on a 42" 1080 HD
LCD; it's night and day!

You need to clarify or verify with a statement like that, no offense,
just common sense.


I have no dog in this fight so am just following this out of interest and curiosity. I will take your word for it that the 39MP images are clearly better than D3X images, assuming you have examined both shot carefully under same conditions. To me, it at least seems somewhat plausible that the D3X might approach (getting close to) 39MP quality for two reasons, possibly three.

The first is that the linear resolution increase is only 27%, which according to all accounts should be noticeable but not a huge improvement. Second, the DR of the D3X with a 14 bit sensor is supposedly about as high as seen so far in 35mm and bit depth is high enough to give very smooth tonal gradation. Even with these improvements compared to 12MP cameras, the differences in IQ are becoming fairly hard to see - perhaps more noticeable in very large print or viewing sizes. And last, the D3X still retains the AA filter so there is presumably some improvement there in the shots where this matters. It's not clear to me what 16 bits is providing in terms of noticeable IQ improvement.

OP GaborSch Veteran Member • Posts: 7,203
What to measure

It is my firm opinion, that photographers generally do not know the DR of their camera, no matter what you mean with DR; and really, why would they know that?

The DR for a photographer has nothing to do with the engineering definition. It simply means the range the camera can capture and produce a result acceptable for the photographer . The limit of acceptance (of noise) depends on many factors. If I am shooting in bright sunlight a landscape from tripod, the level of perceivable noise I accept is close to zero. Another guy is shooting a night performance of a band without flash light. He will be happy with lots of noise.

Thus the DR becomes the question of the difference between cameras. The D3X is clearly not a low light camera; so the question is, if and how much the DR is greater than that of other cameras in the ISO range 100 to max. 1600. It does not really matter if that is 10 or 20; what matters is, if it is 0.5 or 2 more than the other.

Furthermore, the noise is relevant only in the low intensities. Who cares for shot noise? Give me as much shot noise as possible, I am happy about that.

Now, you may believe, that one camera becomes much less noisy suddenly in the almost blacks, while it creates more noise in the "normal shadows" than another camera. Ask the people on the forums, which camera they want to have.

However, there is one point, where you caught me: the linearity. I have raw images of Stouffer transmission wedges by a free cameras. I myself have a calibrated wedge and can attest, that the Canon 40D is linear down to the point, when pixels start to turn black. The old 5D too appears to be linear. Now, there is an interesting point: the test shots I have been using include a Kodak gray scale too. If I am accepting that the 40D (not only my one but the others as well) maintains linearity, then I can "calibrate" the Kodak gray scale (Imaging Resources have been using the very same one in their tests, of the 40D as well). This suggests (not proves ) to me, that the 5D2 too is linear.

On the other hand, I know for fact, that the Nikon raw files are never linear without an adjustment. Now we are at a different, but important issue: your belief, that the D3X becomes suddenly much better in the range close to black. Well, it does not. This is the inherent difference between the presented raw data of Canons and Nikons, and Lloyd (and obviously DxO too) misinterpreted the situation.

Anyway, we need to agree, that our views in these issues are strongly differing; I don't see any problem with that.

Mel Veteran Member • Posts: 3,716
Re: The forums

Let me be clear here . . . I absolutely agree with you on 99% of these points. And also the base issue in technical understanding for it all. We simply cannot learn too much detail in photography shooting digital. IMHO.

But you seem to be tap dancing around a basic question and issue (again) of whether or not your initial DR "point" here will really matter for the "bulk" of the printed images that will be generated by these models (Nikon and Canon and Sony), in a real world sense. Again, leaving out the specialty applications and even landscape for that matter since they do not currently make up the bulk of use.

If you will, please answer just this one aspect of the reality we are in. Again, I completely agree that the knowledge itself can only serve to better all of us in the long run. No one in their right mind should argue this. But as you know, often, the ultimte knowledge of a thing, does not meet or surpass the reality of daily application. And that daily application is geared directly to the levels of acceptance the purchasers have given us in guideline. The purchasers, after all, really are the driving force in the professional photography we are speaking about.

OP GaborSch Veteran Member • Posts: 7,203
What to measure

ejmartin wrote:

What you are measuring mixes together a number of different effects.
First of all, by measuring the red patch, you are including
variations in the reflectance of the source (surface roughness) as
well as gradients of the overall illumination in the measurement
patch in the standard deviation

I don't see any problem with that. I don't even see any problem in comparing measurements from different images, and here the very same objects have been used.

This contamination calls
into question why you are reporting 3-4 significant figures in your
measurement results

This is a simple issue: in certain cases I am using calibrated targets, which do yield very reliable results. Anyway, irrelevant.

Second, since the patches being measured are not particularly close
to the black point, there is a significant contribution from photon
shot noise

1. I don't see any "significant" shot noise at -8 EV, and if I could go lower, this would becomne even less relevant,

2. Whatever. This is part of the game, try shooting without shot noise. The other camera is only 1/3 EV off of the shutter time, same aperture.

The 5D2 has substantially higher
read noise for low ISO, at least according to DxO

I have a much lower opinion about that test than you do. This is the essence of my initial post.

On the other hand, if one really
goes close to the black point on their plots, the 5D2 hits SNR=1
(0dB) at about .027%, while the D3x has DNR=5.5dB at this point; the
D3x hits SNR=1 at about .015%. That's about a one stop difference
near black

If one really goes close to the black point, then the Nikopn data becomes invalid in a comparison to the Canon, due to the difference the cameras present the raw data.

I suggest you to linearize the Nikon data first and redo the measurements (and take a close look at the differences between the Nikon and Canon raw data close to black).

I doubt that
the RAW files you are using are sufficient to back out the photon
noise to get at the substantially smaller read noise underneath,
which is what controls the DR near black

I agree with this point. Unfortunately, that's what I have; DxO did not publish their raw files.

When (rather if ) I find someone in my area with a D3X, who is willing to make suitable shots of the Stouffer wedge, I shall present those results.

Photo Pete Veteran Member • Posts: 4,772
Re: D3X vs 5D2 - myth and reality

Just returned from winning another photo competition this evening, with an image taken on my elderly D2X.

It's a good job the judge didn't realise what camera the image had been taken with as I would surely have lost out had he realised the dynamic range was short of the now obligitory DXO threshold of 13.7. As for trying to sell the image to potential clients... surely they wouldn't even consider buying anything taken on a camera with such objectional sensor read noise.

What a load of old rubbish.

If a range of professional reviewers can't agree on which cameras have the better dynamic range under test conditions, let alone by how much, what is the point of arguing about it.... there is no way such a difference will be repeatably significant under real life shooting situations.

The D3x, 5DII and 1DSIII all seem to have state of the art imaging and I challenge anyone to demonstrate a consistent image quality advantage in a real life situation between any of those three cameras.

Are the D3x or 1DSIII worth the extra money over the 5DII? Possibly, but it ain't anything to do with the image quality they are capable of. To my mind, anyone who makes a buying decision based on the image quality of these cameras is a complete fool. A decision based on AF performance, handling, exposure accuracy and build quality is the way to go... just like in the good old film days.

The OP was right to question the validity of the DXO results, but for totally the wrong reason. Their ratings are misleading as they are providing a significant numerical advantage to something that will not provide a significant and repeatable real world difference.
Have Fun
Photo Pete

OP GaborSch Veteran Member • Posts: 7,203
What really matters

Mel wrote:

But you seem to be tap dancing around a basic question and issue
(again) of whether or not your initial DR "point" here will really
matter for the "bulk" of the printed images that will be generated by
these models (Nikon and Canon and Sony), in a real world sense

Tap dancing? How on earth would I know if others make any use of my anyway highly contested statements?

I know of a handful photographers from forums, who are really using their knowledge. I know of many , who are reading the most solid, uncontested advice and ignoring it.

What do you think, if I started a thread on the Canon forum, explaining that even though ISO 3200 is "real" with the 5D2, it is 100% useless and should not be used with raw, how many would be following that advice?

Anyway, we are too far from the topic of this thread.

ejmartin Veteran Member • Posts: 6,274
Re: What to measure

GaborSch wrote:

On the other hand, I know for fact, that the Nikon raw files are
never linear without an adjustment.

You mean, like this?

D300 ISO 200 noise variance vs average signal, G1 channel, in raw levels; 12-bit data. Line is a least squares fit to the data. Read noise plus photon shot noise predicts a straight line.

-- hide signature --
genotypewriter Veteran Member • Posts: 4,846
Re: Canon friends problem is

Toermalijn wrote:

LOL, the losers to me seem the canon fanboys....all eyes were on the
5dII and now every review is trashing their trumph...

Every review in the Nikon World Order weekly? lol And is that how you pick your stuff? Based on what other's think?

Deep in your hard, you know the d3x IS the best dslr on the planet at
the moment...build quality wise and image quality wise...

Yeah for shooting mushrooms and empty park chairs maybe... it's amazing how you can boil down such complex, multi-faceted devices down to a single binary digit called "best" or not. You need to go and find out what else you can do with a camera other than setting it to Program Auto and clicking away lol

it doesn't mean that the 5dII isn't a good camera for the money, it
just isn't the camera that can compete with the d3x.

This is not about what either camera can and cannot do... it's about dismissing the 5D2 because for the sake of being elite.

Canon had the lead, nikon is taking it over again, like in the film

That's grossly misinformed. You guys have a chip on your shoulder because there's a lot of wannabe film-fanboys who bought Nikons thinking it'll add some special meaning to their lives and help them get laid. ROFL Now since Nikon finally have some decent cameras to even compete with Canon (at a non-spiritual level) you guys like to abuse this fact. I've seen far fewer Canon users bragging about their cameras than Nikon users... and considering the difference in numbers that clearly indicates a well defined cluster of people with personality disorders over on your side. If you didn't have an investment in Nikon glass from film days and you still bought anything pre-D300/D3 then you very likely fall in to this category. If you got your first one during the D3/D300 era and judging by the way you bring up your arguments, you're a n00b.

To set the record straight... anyone with a brain would know people should use whatever works for them when their options aren't completely dominated by any other option (anyone reading this would agree). So if you want to boost up your confidence with D3X... that's fine... not my issue... but don't spread wrong information (about other cameras) to mislead people


CRH Regular Member • Posts: 148
Re: D3X vs 5D2 - myth and reality-Just WTF are you TALKING about?

Taikonaut wrote:

It is true D3x has about 2 stop DR advantage over 5DMk2 at low ISO
but critically DR for both cameras at sub ISO 400 are already high
enough not impede on IQ.

Huh? DR IS A CRUCIAL PART OF IQ. The ability to shape and pull detail and tonal ramps from deeper shadows, to name just one benefit of increased DR.

The siginificant of DR advantage is most

noticeable at higher ISO. D3x actually start to fall slightly behind
round about ISO 600 and upward.

The D3X actually PULLS AHEAD of the 5D above ISO 600. Where in the heck are you getting your information? Oh, yeah... uninformed, wishful thinking masquerading as 'conjecture' and 'analysis'... again, the tedium of asinine posts is almost too much to overcome, seeing as it's a rising tide around here... fortunately, many on this forum who own and use the D3X and are either 5D owners or have used one and are ACTUALLY familiar with the 5D's strengths and limitations weigh in frequently... they've come surprise! to very different conclusions, maybe you can read and learn from these actual users of the cameras in question... =^D

"...5D retains IQ superiority in real world at anything below ISO 400..."

Ummm... you're gonna have to unpack that one there, Perfesser... I own BOTH of these cams, and quite the opposite is true. Do you own and use them both? Didn't think so. So, how do you come to this pearl of wisdom? Yeah, your opinion... thought so.

even though it lags D700 in DXO DR scores. This proves DR at low ISO
is high enough not to impact on IQ. DR gap on 5DMk2 and D3x is closer
than 5D vs D700.

Again, DR IS A CRUCIAL PART OF IQ. Try to ascertain a few facts before you go off into the brambles and get lost, all the while assuring the other posters that you know exactly where you are because you swallowed a GPS at breakfast. What you're saying not only makes absolutely no sense, your infinite confidence in your own bs is inspiring! Good luck with your 'studies' and 'conclusions'!

-- hide signature --

'Eternity is a very long time, especially towards the end.'
-Stephen Hawking

'The fox knows many things, but the hedgehog knows one big thing.' -Archilochus

'The media doesn't dictate the message. The need dictates the media.'
-Melvin Van Peebles

Photo Pete Veteran Member • Posts: 4,772
Re: Canon friends problem is

Having a Nikon camera helps you get laid? Do DXO have a rating system for that?
Have Fun
Photo Pete

S Kumar Junior Member • Posts: 29
Re: A 40D welding amateur

Toermalijn wrote:

I just don't hope this is the general knowledge of an average canon

But then again, we all make mistakes!

Oh well, we all now know the sense of humour of an average "non-Canon" shooter.

I just hope their Nikon loves them back when they cuddle up to it in bed at night.

S Kumar
I have cameras, and lenses, and I'm not afraid to use them

knickerhawk Veteran Member • Posts: 6,262
Re: Check out the real landscape examples: Lloyd's new additions

Unfortunately, I'm not a DAP subscriber, but the teaser images on his blog are very impressive for the D3X. That forest/mountain image from the 5D2 by comparison looks horrible. Again, more data points for each of us to factor into our analysis. Thanks.

By the way, I really admire the images on your site. The opinion of someone of your obvious skill and refinement ultimately means much more to me than the opinion of someone who can work wonders with numbers and software.
My photos: http://www.pbase.com/imageiseverything/root

Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads