Nikon D3X Vs Canon D MK II

[frank_skomial]

<p>"7.Auto White Balance was used in both camera."</p>

<p>AND</p>

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

<p>Sounds like the tester was an inexperience person in photography ?</p>

<p>Auto White Balanced used and a studio strobe was used?, instead of pre-flash based Nikon iTTL flash. This already is some wrong doing.</p>

<p>Make sure use FLASH setting for white balance and possibly custom value to match the flash light temperature used when using a flash that is not a Nikon compatible flash.<br>

Or otherwise the camera will not detect presence of a flash and Auto white balance may not work perfectly, not having time to adjust or make proper decision.</p>

 

[lex_jenkins]

<p>The testing methodology seems flawed.</p>

<ul>

<li>Why set the camera exposure differently from the meter reading?</li>

<li>What studio flash was used? Was a color temperature meter used to evaluate the flash?</li>

<li>The "area coverage" issue appears to be a misunderstanding about two factors: (1) viewfinder coverage; (2) the Canon is not "FX". FX is Nikon nomenclature for full frame. <em>(All squares are rectangles; not all rectangles are squares. Charmin is toilet paper; not all toilet paper is Charmin. Etc.)</em> </li>

<li>Comparing raw files is like comparing negatives. The blue tint WB issue, even if accurately tested (which seems doubtful, considering the other flawed methodology) is akin to saying that Ilford XP-2 Super negatives have a blue tint. True. And it doesn't show in the b&w prints for which XP-2 Super is intended. Raw files are intended to be processed, not used as-is. </li>

<li>What do the testers mean by "sharpness"? Are they talking about resolution? "Sharp" is an imprecise term, usually comprising resolution, contrast and, in the case of subjective opinions, factors such as saturation. Was an <a href="http://www.dpreview.com/learn/?/Glossary/Digital_Imaging/Resolution_01.htm">ISO resolution chart</a> used to evaluate "sharpness"? </li>

</ul>

<p>Just as there are ways to accurately examine negatives to evaluate relevant information, raw files can be evaluated for relevant information. But so far we don't know what the testing methodology was in this comparison.</p>

<p>It might be interesting to see a valid test using standard methodology that can be used by other independent testers. I'd be more inclined to rely on the dpreview or DxO tests for a more reliable evaluation since their methodologies are known and consistent.</p>

[bms]

<p>aeh,</p>

<p>http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond3x/page28.asp</p>

<p>maybe more objective? (mind you not against the 5D)<br>

:)</p>

[dbcooper]

<p>Blue cast, higher saturation? No information on how the RAW files were converted?</p>

<blockquote>

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

</blockquote>

<p>Since these don't affect RAW files anyway, and IS/VR is supposed to be turned off on a tripod, it sounds like the tester doesn't really know what's going on.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>We shot in out door with ambient light</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Ambient light is unstable, and shouldn't have been used for a test unless the cameras were mounted side-by-side, targeted the same, and shutters released at the exact same instant.</p>

<p>Sounds like an flawed or biased test to me, whether intentional or unintentional.</p>

[stephen_asprey2]

<p>There are so many invalid criteria here that its hardly worth the trouble responding. Just because the 5D/2 has almost an many pixels as the D3x does not make them comparable cameras. As we all know, the pixel count is just the start of the story. I am not going to get into a Nikon vs Canon debate, except to say that the D3x is worth every bit of the price as many are now discovering...specially in the studio. The D5/2 should really be compared to the D700 despite the latter's lower pixel count. They <strong>are</strong> comparable as the individual photocells in the D700 are much bigger and so produce less noise as the ISO gets cranked. Even with the D700, there is still no comparison in terms of quality body either. Then you have all the other nice stuff like ease of use, autofocus engine and matrix metering. The big one for me though is older lens compatibility.<br>

I think the only area of weakness that Nikjon have is in a smaller range of new FX lenses, but that gap is closing slowly. You can get 3 fast zooms from 10 to 200mm that are as good as Canons L series. Thats all you want anyway.<br>

What everyone is really waiting for is the 1D/3 replacement. While Canon dither on the final specs, Nikon sells more D3 and D3x's. But you can bet that Canon won't slip up. They have to stop the topend market share leakage to Nikon, and that won't be easy.</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p><em>"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?"</em><br>

<em></em><br>

They are not both FX body. The 5DII is full frame, the D3x is FX. The Nikon FX sensor has never been a true full frame sensor, it is slightly smaller than a frame of 35mm film. That is why the Canon images show approx. 5% more of the shot. Having said all that, this is such a minor detail it is simply not worth bothering about.</p>

[dan_south]

<p>A few remarks:<br>

<br />Why use Auto White Balance with studio lighting? Daylight (Direct Sunlight) would match the studio strobes perfectly, and Incandescent would match steady state flood lights or modeling lights. Auto White Balance is handy when you have no idea what color of light you're dealing this. This is not normally the case in a studio unless you're mixing light sources.</p>

<p>If Canon had more saturated colors in the default color mode, that's not necessarily an advantage. You can use Vivid or Landscape mode if you want vibrant colors. Normal color mode should deliver less punchy colors, because there are situations where vivid colors detract from the photo as when shooting portraits or photos of products for advertisements.</p>

<p>Sharpness was better? When? Before for after sharpening in post-processing? Out of camera sharpness isn't important. It's better to customize sharpening in post-processing for the intended uses of the photograph.</p>

 

[zigzag]

<p>Here you can compare with Sony too:<br /> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/cameras/big-three.shtml<br /> (re noise): "I see no significant noise difference between the Nikon D3x, Canon 5D MKII and Sony A900 up to and including ISO 800."</p>

<p>...</p>

<p>"So to repeat – one can quibble over the differences at 100% on screen, but in 24" X 30" or smaller prints these cameras are essentially indistinguishable in terms of comparative noise, up to ISO 1600 in the case of the Sony, and to 6400 in the case of the Nikon and Canon.<br /> Other factors such as dynamic range and colour rendition are not being evaluated here, but I doubt that there is more than a half stop difference between them in terms of DR, and now with the availability of proper profiles and the profile editor in Camera Raw and Lightroom colour rendition differences between cameras are academic because these can be modified and made to match the manufacturer's rendering, or anything else that pleases you."</p>

[ntv666]

<p>Thanks for every one and My confidence in NIKON will never change.</p>

[ilkka_nissila]

<p>When you use flash with a Nikon DSLR, typically the flash white balance setting is used and fine-tuned to taste. Auto doesn't work ideally in this case.</p>

<p>f/22 is an absurd choice, anything smaller than f/5.6 would show diffraction limited sharpness with a typical (good) lens. f/22 would never be used with such a high resolution camera for a practical photography situation.</p>

<p>The operator didn't know what they were doing, obviously.</p>

[j.art.photo.]

<blockquote>

<p><strong><br /> </strong> <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1119106"></a><br>

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

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>@</strong> <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1119106">Thangavelu Nachimuthu </a><br>

conffused you are indeed my friend if you need to rely on test like this to make up your mind on what camera to use. either Canon or Nikon are exelent systems.<br>

I suggest you get an Olga start shooting lomography and then understand why this kind of test are so irrelevant. <br>

@ <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5210444">Finley Engle</a><br>

The point you make about QUALITY is very important. and is one of the reasons i decided to use Nikon as my main system. ( Have Canon also.)had to send My canon cameras and lenses several times to adjust and fix . (apparently the elves come and mess with them while I'm asleep). But as for Nikon. never had that problem. Once Dropped a D300 with battery grip and a105mm lens on floor and to my surprise all was intact.. that dropp test told me alot about the construction of the camera. is not a toy. is a tank.</p>

 

</blockquote>

[j.art.photo.]

<blockquote>

<p><strong><br /> </strong> <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1119106"></a><br>

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

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p><strong>@</strong> <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=1119106">Thangavelu Nachimuthu </a><br>

conffused you are indeed my friend if you need to rely on test like this to make up your mind on what camera to use. either Canon or Nikon are exelent systems.<br>

I suggest you get an Holga start shooting lomography and then understand why this kind of test are so irrelevant. <br>

@ <a href="../photodb/user?user_id=5210444">Finley Engle</a><br>

The point you make about QUALITY is very important. and is one of the reasons i decided to use Nikon as my main system. ( Have Canon also.)had to send My canon cameras and lenses several times to adjust and fix . (apparently the elves come and mess with them while I'm asleep). But as for Nikon. never had that problem. Once Dropped a D300 with battery grip and a105mm lens on floor and to my surprise all was intact.. that dropp test told me alot about the construction of the camera. is not a toy. is a tank.</p>

 

</blockquote>

[ralph_jensen]

<blockquote>

<p>The Nikon FX sensor has never been a true full frame sensor, it is slightly smaller than a frame of 35mm film. That is why the Canon images show approximately 5% more of the shot.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>False. The Nikon sensor <em>is </em> smaller than a 35mm frame, not by 5% but by only by 0.27% (it's 35.9mm wide while the Canon sensor is 36mm wide; 1/10th of a millimeter is an extremely small difference).<br>

FX is Nikon's terminology for "<strong>F</strong> ull Frame" (~36 x 24)<br>

DX is Nikon's terminology for "<strong>D</strong> igital Frame" (~23.6 x 15.8)</p>

[dan_south]

<blockquote>

<p>f/22 would never be used with such a high resolution camera for a <a href="http://www.photo.net/bboard/#" target="_blank">practical</a> photography situation.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Hmm. That's an interesting philosophy. If diffraction is such a deal breaker, why didn't Nikon's engineers just limit the D3X to f-stops of 11 and lower. If you're using G lenses, the selection of an f-stop is controlled entirely in the software domain.</p>

<p>I suspect that I'll shoot some f/16 and f/22 shots if I ever get my hands on a 24 MP camera. Sometimes DOF is the most critical factor in an image. You can approximate it with layers and software tricks, but not if something in the frame is moving rapidly.</p>

[jamie_robertson2]

<p><em>"Thanks for every one and My confidence in NIKON will never change."</em><br>

 <br>

So why do the test in the first place? That seems like a silly statement.</p>

[oistein]

<p>Actually I'm a bit amazed that this thread is on the front page of PN. A hopeless case in my opinion.</p>

[ntv666]

<p>Hi<br>

Mr. Jamine, Thanks for your comments. I am sure it is not not silly statement. I am working with NIKON cameras for the last 25 yeras starting from FM2 and FE2. When I shifted to Digital (D70s) it was amazing for me. When ever I use to see the Images C Vs N , the Canon colors looked more natural than Nikon. But for the ease of use and handling "C "can not beat "N". When you have both 5D MK II and D3X in your hand , as a photographer, we always compare the both. That is what happened. All my question was , is the method adopted to test these two cameras are right or something that we have missed. This doubt I got it after seeing the RAW images of both Canon and Nikon. <br>

So people like Mr.Oistein may thing it is a hopeless case and it is not worth it in the front page of PN. My humble openion is that PN is a fourm that any photographer , whether he is having little knowledge about the photography orhe may be a PRO , can get his doubt cleared and it educate the photographers all over the world to get a fair and excellent views always. As per Mr. Oistein, this forum belongs only to the PROs people like him and everybody else question seems to be hopeless or silly.<br>

As for as I am concerned, the PN is Great forum for every pghotographer and it gives indepth knowledge to every one who want to learn photography.<br>

Thanks Mr.Jamine and Mr. Oistein for your frank openion.</p>

[zafar1]

<p>This whole test sounds somewhat non-professional to me.</p>

<p>When you underexpose a shot, it "should" be underexposed. There is a problem if it is NOT underexposed. Instead of looking at Nikon, you should check why 5D did not underexpose. Are you sure both cameras were at the same ISO and shutter speed? Are you also sure that the cameras were in full manual mode (particularly 5D) with AUTO ISO turned off?</p>

<p>You should not even be using Saturation and Colors as a basis for comparison at this level. The color rendering and saturation is a function of Profile used by Raw viewer. If you use the same RAW viewer with the same profile, that would definitely give you different rendering because of differences in the sensor characteristics. I would dismiss the differences in saturation as a meaningless comparison between cameras. If you do want to compare color response, you will have to review the raw image (before bayer interpolation is applied) and measure the luminosity values or individual r,g, and b pixels. I don't think you can do this kind of analysis outside of a laboratory. Check dxomark.com for laboratory tests on this.</p>

<p>I have not used D3X, however I have had no complaints with AWB on Nikon or Canon in normal lighting conditions . If you see a significant blue cast on images, this could very well be operator error (highly likely) or a defective camera. I believe that on Nikon you can even adjust AWB to be warmer/cooler. Could it be that?</p>

<p>As for Area Coverage, when a manufacturer specifies a focal length, they are allowed some variation (probably up to 5%). It could be that the difference you see is due to that (say Nikon is at an actual 205mm and Canon is at 195mm). Also Nikon sensor is very slightly smaller than full-frame, but I dont think that would make a noticeable difference.</p>

<p>Why don't you post some of the images you took with EXIF data intact. We will able to give you a more useful feedback.</p>

 

[zafar1]

<p>Another factor that should be kept in mind (when using external meters) is that actual ISO on each camera is different from indicated ISO (check dxomark.com to see actual vs. indicated ISO). This could easily account for difference of 1/3rd to 2/3rd of stop.</p>

<p> </p>

[pixel_vaughmutt]

<p>Did you guys see this D3X vs 1Ds Mark III head to head review - VERY different conclusions:<br>

<a href="http://www.h2hreviews.com/article/Head-2-Head-Review-Nikon-D3x-vs-Canon-EOS-1Ds-Mark-III.html">http://www.h2hreviews.com/article/Head-2-Head-Review-Nikon-D3x-vs-Canon-EOS-1Ds-Mark-III.html</a><br>

Not to knock either review, but more information about the lenses would really help me out. </p>

<p> </p>