Nikon D3X Vs Canon D MK II

<p>Dear Guys<br>

First I am not creating any controversy of N vs C. Yesterday I had chance of seeing the test undertaken by a leading Magazine in Delhi to comapre the results of the above two . The settings are done as follows.<br>

1.All controls like sharpening, saturation,Contrast were kept at '0"<br>

2. Picture quality RAW and in Noraml mode<br>

3.In studio stobes were used and the light were measured with Flash meter<br>

4. Sturdy tripod in place.<br>

5.Canon USM 70-200 f/2.8 image stabilizer and nikon AFS- 70-200 f/2.8 VR was used<br>

6.Iso started from 100 to 3200 shot various faocl lengths.<br>

7.Auto White Balance was used in both camera.<br>

8.No lense filter was used (UV filters)<br>

9. The Flash meter reading for ISO 100 was f 16 aparture. But the tester kept at f 22 for both nikon and canaon.<br>

10 . We shot in out door with ambient light Shot was done and we opened both N and C raw file to view.<br>

The results were :-<br>

1. Nikon image was covered by blue tint (vey Much) and under exposed in studio situation<br>

2. Canon white balance was much much better and looked very normal exposure.<br>

3.Nikon sharpness was better than canon both in indoor and out door<br>

4.we found that AREA COVERAGE in canon is much more than Nikon. Canon colour was saturated than Nikon.<br>

I want to know whether the above testing method is alright or the tester has missed something.????<br>

I am Nikon user and after seeing the result I wonder whether I should stick with Nikon.? I am confused.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>One not so good test: using a sturdy tripod and leaving VR turned on...</p>

<p>And using a lens (on a digital camera body) at f22 is <strong>not ideal</strong> either for testing purposes.</p>

<p>A blue tint is likely from the blue sky overhead...it is reflected and the camera's sendor picks up the hue.</p>

<p>The best way to test a camera would be to go out and shoot a day or two with it. If the resulting images are very good, then you should be able to make your decision which is better.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>Sorry to say, but I don't understand why they compared D3X with 1D MkII in the first place.</p>

<p>1D MKII is a 8.2MP camera with 1.3x crop factor. They should have used 2.1MP full-frame 1Ds MKIII in order to make the comparison more reasonable.</p>

Go for what you like and know well. Don't let a magazine test determine your choices. If you use Nikon and it has served

you well, why would you switch?

<p>Akira<br>

Maybe he meant a 5DMKII<br>

And using a 70-200 which has been shown to have some issues on a FX body would not have been my choice of lenses.<br>

Why not use a simple 50 f/1.8. Both companies make one.</p>

<p> Why bother? Both are great cameras, up to any professional task.</p>

<p> </p>

<p>if you are in the market for either the d3x or the (i'm assuming) 5dii, then yes, you could think about switching if the test showed the 5dii might be better for you. if you're not in the market, this could not be less relevant. that being said, i see a couple problems:</p>

<p>"The Flash meter reading for ISO 100 was f 16 aparture. But the tester kept at f 22 for both nikon and canaon."<br>

well, then the tester seems to have underexposed the scene. the fact that the canon did NOT seem underexposed seems to indicate that the body is actually overexposing while the nikon is giving faithful rendition.</p>

<p>the blue tint is not something to worry about with autoWB. if AWB leaves the scene a little cold for you, dial in some warmth, A1, or A2.</p>

<p>i have no idea what AREA COVERAGE is nor why it is capitalized. </p>

<p>but to repeat, if this is swaying you towards the specific canon that they tested over the specific nikon that they tested, you should rent both cameras and determine which will serve you better before dropping $2800-$8000 on a camera body. if this makes you feel less secure in your d80 or something, that's ridiculous. </p>

<p>I find the original post very unclear. For one thing I am not even sure exactly which Canon camera body was used for the comparison; I think only the 1Ds Mark III would be a fair comparison. Is this review available on line and is in English? If so, a link to it so that all of use can read it first hand would be helpful.</p>

<p>I haven't even used the Canon 1Ds Mark III, 5D Mark II or 1D Mark II. However, I tested the D3X for photo.net for several weeks and took it to the Frans Lanting workshop back in April. I found the D3X to be an excellent camera in every way. The main reservation for it is the $7000+ price tag, and at least I don't need 24MP that often.</p>

<p>Dear All<br>

The tester has used Canon 5D MK II . The blue tint is from the images shot with strobes in studio. VR was turned off in both cameras. Sorry I have not added 5 before D. The are I mean to say is that canon image shows at least 5% more area in the images than Nikon. How this could happen if both are FX body? Both the lens has been claimed by the respective manufacturers is top of the line lens. Why this should happen at all. I will post some images may be with in a day or two. By the way I am using D300 and D200 with all best lens of Nikon like 70-200 AFS -VR, 105 AFS VR, 17-55mm AFS f/2.8 DX . I colud not belive the Nikon performance, that is why I wanted your views on the method adopted in testing. Thanks</p>

<p>Thanks Mr. Shun. I 'm sorry , it was 5D MK II of CANON. I never came accross such a result from any Nikon model , even with D40X. I am a total Nikon patroniser.</p>

<p>"The are I mean to say is that canon image shows at least 5% more area in the images than Nikon. How this could happen if both are FX body?"</p>

<p>I think the tester didn't count in the 98% FOV of viewfinder of 5D MKII and framed as if it were a 100% finder.</p>

<p>Certainly one of the most pointless and futile comparisons. Like comparing a Chevy to a Ford. Really infantile if you ask me. Especially on the Nikon forum. Canon and Nikon are both superb companies and they both build superb products. So leave it at that. Some prefer one others prefer the other, it will be like this ad infinitum. Blah blah blah blah. Alberto Contador just won the Tour de France today. I wonder if he shoots with Nikon or Canon, oh oh oh...</p>

<p>Comprehensive testing has been available here:</p>

<p>http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM</p>

<p>for quite a while.</p>

<p>"1. Nikon image was covered by blue tint (vey Much) and under exposed in studio situation" indicates to me photographer error and I would not trust the results although I don't necessarily agree or disagree with them - as a user of both Nikon and Canon I find that in general identical RAW images can be processed to look pretty much identical.</p>

<p><strong>@ jerry Litynsk</strong>i,<br>

>The VR was not turned on.<br>

>The blue tint was not only outdoors but also in indoors.<br>

<strong>@ Akira Sakamoto</strong><br>

Itwas not 1D mark II, It was CANON EOS 5D MARK II (21 MP) vs NIKON D3x<br>

<strong>@ Dan Sutton,</strong><br>

>The Flash meter reading was f/16 and we kept it at f22 <br>

If at all we have underexposed the frame why did canon give perfect results, and why did nikon underexposed?<br>

>Acc. to me a blue tint is something to worry about?<br>

Here while doing the test we are presuming that there is no photoshop and we are using straight out of the camera shots...<br>

And in the white balance test nikon failed to perform......<br>

<strong>@ Akira Sakamoto</strong><br>

>Irrespective of the view finder coverage, we shot a same scene with both the cameras at same focal length and from the same position without moving the tripod and surprisingly the difference in the frame area is only from the bottom part, all the other three sides are almost same.... </p>

<p><strong>@ All</strong>, me and Thangavelu Sir conducted this test together.</p>

<p>The only motive of conducting this test was to know whether is it really worth spending 5.27 lakhs on D3x or not, and this test was for the people whom I always hear saying " Canon is giving 21 MP in 1.5 Lakhs and Nikon is offering 24.5 MP in 5.27, then why to spend money 3 times higher and buy NIKON?"<br>

I myself is a die hard fan of nikon, but currently I am using both Nikon D80 and Canon 5D with top of the line lenses, I was very happy with NIKON untill I conducted this test, because acc. to me this is the right time to think between one Canon or Nikon bcoz you have to decide on one in this MP race as you cannot just go on changing between Brands, we need to stick to one, and as I have a D80 ans was planning to upgrade in NIKON but this test has forced to think once.<br>

And mind you all, we are not against either canon or nikon,it was just done for our own satisfaction and acc. to me it is not worth spending 5.27 for NIKON when the difference is just 18.5 & 20.........<br>

We will come up with some more comparisons of ISO, Dynamic Range, Etc.<br>

Regards<br>

Ankush Maria</p>

<p>@ Elliot,<br>

Again I repeat , we are assuming that there is no photoshop, and it is always better to get best results from the camera itself so that you have to process less.</p>

 

<p>The pictures were shot in RAW. They would be opened to the default settings of the RAW program and the native file would be manipulated at that time. I would guess the different RAW programs would have different default settings. </p>

<p>I shoot Canon but I have to say that in any comparison in which the 5D2 and D3x aren't roughly equal the Nikon would have the edge.</p>

<p>Whether the Nikon is worth 3x as much to <em>you </em> is another issue, but plenty of photographers who can afford either camera choose the Nikon.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>me and Thangavelu Sir conducted this test together</p>

 

</blockquote>

<p>So Ankush and Thangavelu performed this test together. I'll ask one more time: do you have any images to show everybody what you observed?</p>

<p>For example, when I tested the D3X, I compared it against the D700 for resolution and high ISO performance. For one thing, I used exactly the same lens on both cameras and went through the same apertures:<br /><a href="../photo/9308533">http://www.photo.net/photo/9308533</a><br /><a href="../general-comments/image-attachment?comment_id=15264792">http://www.photo.net/general-comments/image-attachment?comment_id=15264792</a></p>

<p>Thangavelu,<br />You may want to use a prime lens instead of the zoom, Nikon 70-200 is known to have some corner sharpness issue with the full frame sensors, a 50 f/1.4 for both would be the ideal choice because you will not be limited by the resolution of the lens. <br />Secondly, at f/22 both cameras are diffraction limited and you will have blur in your image due to diffraction so the result will be useless. Try f/8 which is the sweet spot for most lenses.<br />Last, you may want to compare at all ISOs starting at 100 and going to 6400, make sure your test scene has some shadows so you can compare shadow noise as well.<br />FYI, Imaging resource website <a href="http://www.imaging-resource.com/">http://www.imaging-resource.com/</a> has done systematic testing of these cameras, you can download and compare the RAW files.<br />IMO Canon 5DII has the best sensor currently available in the market, noise performance is very close to that of D700 while sharpness and detail is excellent. D3X is about one stop behind these cameras at high ISO and relatively slow when you set it to 14Bits but in terms of sharpness it should not have an issue at ISO 100 at least.</p>

<p>Ankush, I have done numerous camera and lens tests over the years and have had to repeat them on occasion due to settings errors on my part. The D3X (and other Nikon cameras) does not give blue pictures unless the camera is defective or if you have something, likely your white balance, set incorrectly. While it is possible your camera is defective, the problem is likely user error.</p>

<p>Keep in mind that if you shot RAW, it would be difficult to compare RAW images from Canon and Nikon unless you open them in a program like Photoshop as both DPP and NX open their images with in-camera settings affecting IQ. What program(s) did you use to open the files with and did you shoot RAW? If you shot JPG, neutral or '0' settings from both cameras could give very different results. </p>

<p>In the 'real' world, post processing is a common element of photography and can greatly affect the final IQ. As an example (hypothetical), lets say out of the camera RAW images favored the Canon yet after PP, the Nikon image was superior, wouldn't Nikon be preferred?</p>

<p><em>"I want to know whether the above testing method is alright or the tester has missed something.????"</em></p>

<p>My guess is that you missed something. Ultimately if you can afford the D3X, that is the way to go.</p>

<p> </p>

<p><em>Irrespective of the view finder coverage, we shot a same scene with both the cameras at same focal length and from the same position without moving the tripod and surprisingly the difference in the frame area is only from the bottom part, all the other three sides are almost same....</em></p>

<p>This is normal, the focal length of a zoom lens is measured at infinity, when you focus to closer distances focal length changes a little bit, also zoom lenses often have slightly different focal lengths than stated, for example Canon 70-200 f/4 is more like 72-205 but the manufacturer rounds the numbers, I did a test between Canon 70-200 f/4 @ 70mm and Nikon 24-70 @ 70mm and FOV was 15% different! That's another reason why you should use a standard prime like the 50.</p>

 

<p>"I am Nikon user and after seeing the result I wonder whether I should stick with Nikon.? I am confused." <br>

It sounds like you're thinking about switching to Canon. Go with the manufacturer that has the lenses that fit your photographic style. Camera bodies depreciate in value very quickly and are soon replaced with better technology. Professional quality lenses are invaluable tools in getting the image you want and often appreciate in value.</p>

<p>f22 on these cameras will without doubt lead to diffraction (due to the high pixel density) and softness of the images. You should stay below f16 on these cameras (if not f11). Or use a T/S lens if deep DOF is required at reasonable f-stop. The blue cast on the Nikon sounds a bit strange. What you are saying is that the colour temp from Nikon was higher than from Canon on those images? The D3X underexposed with strobes? That's also a bit odd, are you sure the light meter is reliable??</p>

<p>Oistein</p>

<p><strong>@ Dan Sutton,</strong><br />>The Flash meter reading was f/16 and we kept it at f22 <br />If at all we have underexposed the frame why did canon give perfect results, and why did nikon underexposed?</p>

<p>you realize that this is the nikon giving perfect results, right? if i deliberately dial in underexposure on my d700, you better believe that i completely expect the camera to give me an "underexposed" scene. i have no idea why the 5dii didn't overexpose, but it is a cause for concern. am i right?</p>

<p>it sounds like if you set the 5dii to f/16, like a sekonic would tell you, your picture would be overexposed. that is not perfect. </p>

<p>oistein-- remember, the meter did not underexpose with strobes: the testers did if they metered the scene at f/16 and then set the camera at f/22. </p>