fast D3x/5DII comparison

[eronald]

I have a D3x, and a 5DII.

I regularly use the cheap 50mm lenses on both cameras. Theses 50mm lenses are addictive.

The D3x weighs a ton, is built like a hammer, focuses fast and accurately within a cm or so tolerance, and produces beautiful luminous images in any light.
The 5DII is fairly light, is solid enough for the real world, focuses decently but not really well, and seems to run out of light all too often.

In practice, the 5DII seems to have better DR to handle external architecture and interior architecture. The 17m TS/E lens is delightful.
In practice, the D3x does much better on portrait situations with a medium tele, due to the fast off-center focus points, and skin tone is something I prefer. I have run off full length portrait posters from the D3x Jpegs.


More subjective drivel.

- Direct-printed postcards from the Nikon look better.

- A quick test I did with a fast C telephoto (200/2) on the 5DII showed inaccurate focus acqusition. A set of tests I did with the N 200/2 on he D3x showed inferior sparkle/look, compared to an old  C 200/1.8  model which I have used extensively for fashion and portrait. The old C 85/1.2 is superb but slow; the N 85 1.4 is a sharp and fast-focusing lens which always gets a decent shot.

- The 17mm TS/E on the 5DII is superb. If you want to use this lens, it's worth acquiring a camera for it.
 
- The 5DII does video. One day you may need that.


My feeling is if you want to photograph things, and in particular interiors or exteriors with highlights and shadows, you want the 5DII, if you want to photograph people especially working in low light or people who move, you want to use the pro Nikon. Both cameras can do either quite well, but each does one thing superbly.   I also believe that the old 5D may be superior to the 5DII for skin tone. As for the EOS-1 series, they're nice but not perfect. The D3x is still the closest thing to a perfect all round camera that can be found out there. And yes, I still use a 50mm on each camera most of the time.

Edmund

[uaiomex]

My 5D2 arrives this wednesday. My 24 & 17TS's  sometime before xmas. If I get satisfied with these upgrades, most likely I will sell all my large format and hasselblad gear. I'm tired  of the wait. Canon seems to be coming back as the leader in photography. They may well venture into bigger formats and that will be the Armagedon for MF all together. I'm gonna miss shooting with a waist level finder. (sob!)
Thanks for short review.
Eduardo

I have a D3x, and a 5DII.

I regularly use the cheap 50mm lenses on both cameras. Theses 50mm lenses are addictive.

The D3x weighs a ton, is built like a hammer, focuses fast and accurately within a cm or so tolerance, and produces beautiful luminous images in any light.
The 5DII is fairly light, is solid enough for the real world, focuses decently but not really well, and seems to run out of light all too often.

In practice, the 5DII seems to have better DR to handle external architecture and interior architecture. The 17m TS/E lens is delightful.
In practice, the D3x does much better on portrait situations with a medium tele, due to the fast off-center focus points, and skin tone is something I prefer. I have run off full length portrait posters from the D3x Jpegs.


More subjective drivel.

- Direct-printed postcards from the Nikon look better.

- A quick test I did with a fast C telephoto (200/2) on the 5DII showed inaccurate focus acqusition. A set of tests I did with the N 200/2 on he D3x showed inferior sparkle/look, compared to an old  C 200/1.8  model which I have used extensively for fashion and portrait. The old C 85/1.2 is superb but slow; the N 85 1.4 is a sharp and fast-focusing lens which always gets a decent shot.

- The 17mm TS/E on the 5DII is superb. If you want to use this lens, it's worth acquiring a camera for it.
 
- The 5DII does video. One day you may need that.


My feeling is if you want to photograph things, and in particular interiors or exteriors with highlights and shadows, you want the 5DII, if you want to photograph people especially working in low light or people who move, you want to use the pro Nikon. Both cameras can do either quite well, but each does one thing superbly.   I also believe that the old 5D may be superior to the 5DII for skin tone. As for the EOS-1 series, they're nice but not perfect. The D3x is still the closest thing to a perfect all round camera that can be found out there. And yes, I still use a 50mm on each camera most of the time.

Edmund

[eronald]

You can get the shift lenses over the counter at Yodobashi camera in Tokyo at the moment.
I don't think the Canon has anywhere near the bite of MF, but it has huge DR.
The 17 is built like a tank and huge, you might want to consider having a dedicated body here.

Edmund

My 5D2 arrives this wednesday. My 24 & 17TS's  sometime before xmas. If I get satisfied with these upgrades, most likely I will sell all my large format and hasselblad gear. I'm tired  of the wait. Canon seems to be coming back as the leader in photography. They may well venture into bigger formats and that will be the Armagedon for MF all together. I'm gonna miss shooting with a waist level finder. (sob!)
Thanks for short review.
Eduardo

[duraace]

Don't know if you have experience with thr D3 or D700, but can you say something about the low light (high ISO) performance about the Canon/Nikon? Is one noticably better?

I have a D3x, and a 5DII.

I regularly use the cheap 50mm lenses on both cameras. Theses 50mm lenses are addictive.

The D3x weighs a ton, is built like a hammer, focuses fast and accurately within a cm or so tolerance, and produces beautiful luminous images in any light.
The 5DII is fairly light, is solid enough for the real world, focuses decently but not really well, and seems to run out of light all too often.

In practice, the 5DII seems to have better DR to handle external architecture and interior architecture. The 17m TS/E lens is delightful.
In practice, the D3x does much better on portrait situations with a medium tele, due to the fast off-center focus points, and skin tone is something I prefer. I have run off full length portrait posters from the D3x Jpegs.


More subjective drivel.

- Direct-printed postcards from the Nikon look better.

- A quick test I did with a fast C telephoto (200/2) on the 5DII showed inaccurate focus acqusition. A set of tests I did with the N 200/2 on he D3x showed inferior sparkle/look, compared to an old  C 200/1.8  model which I have used extensively for fashion and portrait. The old C 85/1.2 is superb but slow; the N 85 1.4 is a sharp and fast-focusing lens which always gets a decent shot.

- The 17mm TS/E on the 5DII is superb. If you want to use this lens, it's worth acquiring a camera for it.
 
- The 5DII does video. One day you may need that.


My feeling is if you want to photograph things, and in particular interiors or exteriors with highlights and shadows, you want the 5DII, if you want to photograph people especially working in low light or people who move, you want to use the pro Nikon. Both cameras can do either quite well, but each does one thing superbly.   I also believe that the old 5D may be superior to the 5DII for skin tone. As for the EOS-1 series, they're nice but not perfect. The D3x is still the closest thing to a perfect all round camera that can be found out there. And yes, I still use a 50mm on each camera most of the time.

Edmund

[eronald]

Don't know if you have experience with thr D3 or D700, but can you say something about the low light (high ISO) performance about the Canon/Nikon? Is one noticably better?

The D3x is noticeably more usable. I don't know why. I had it set permanently at ISO 1600 in winter, 1250 or 400 now in summer.

Edmund

[BernardLanguillier]

The D3x is noticeably more usable. I don't know why. I had it set permanently at ISO 1600 in winter, 1250 or 400 now in summer.

Edmund

That might explain why you are seeing less DR with the D3x, it does shine very bright at ISO 100, but is IMHO more of an average performer above that.

Cheers,
Bernard

[eronald]

That might explain why you are seeing less DR with the D3x, it does shine very bright at ISO 100, but is IMHO more of an average performer above that.

Cheers,
Bernard

Bernard,

I'm quite aware that the D3x has tested for exceptional DR @ low ISO. The 5DII has incredible DR at lower ISO in practice; don't ask me why.

Ask me which camera I would rather carry with me, and it'll be the D3x, but ask me which I would rather take if I know I will hit a sun/shadow combo or an interior with lights in-frame, and I'd go for the Canon.  

In the same way, I prefer the Nikon 50 for people, but the Canon 50/1.8 has a lot of snap on things.

If you want to find out whether I'm right or wrong, just ask Canon to loan you a 5DII and do some images with light in-frame. Burnt-out highlights? Ha! Blocked shadows? Ha!

Edmund

[rethmeier]

I had a 5DII,sold it and got a D3x.
I know what I would rather use and I shoot interiors at 100ASA.
I prefer the weight of the Nikon.
Video doesn't interest me.
Neither does the 17TSE.
Best,
Willem.

[aaronleitz]

Bernard,

Ask me which camera I would rather carry with me, and it'll be the D3x, but ask me which I would rather take if I know I will hit a sun/shadow combo or an interior with lights in-frame, and I'd go for the Canon.  

If you want to find out whether I'm right or wrong, just ask Canon to loan you a 5DII and do some images with light in-frame. Burnt-out highlights? Ha! Blocked shadows? Ha!

Edmund

I've never used a 5DmkII but I have been using the D3x recently for interiors and it has far and away the most flexible file I have ever seen out of a 35mm DSLR. Rivaling MFD in my opinion. Amazing amounts of detail can be pulled from shadows and highlights and shadow noise looks very natural (no banding).

Can't wait till they put that sensor in a smaller body...

[rethmeier]

I second Aarons post.

See my previous post.

[eronald]

I know your opinion on architecture is more "professional" than mine; however, I really wonder what you don't like about that 17mm shift

Edmund

I had a 5DII,sold it and got a D3x.
I know what I would rather use and I shoot interiors at 100ASA.
I prefer the weight of the Nikon.
Video doesn't interest me.
Neither does the 17TSE.
Best,
Willem.

[JeffKohn]

I know your opinion on architecture is more "professional" than mine; however, I really wonder what you don't like about that 17mm shift

I just think it's extremely wide on full-frame, it's not a field of view I would want to use very often (though I think it would be a very useful lens for cropped cameras). Even with tilt/shift, when you get extremely close to a subject things can look unnatural, it's often preferable to back up if at all possible (though I realize it sometimes isn't). Even 24mm is pretty wide on full-frame; since making the switch from DX I've found myself wishing there were a 30-35mm PC-E to slot in-between the 24mm and 45mm (I have the Ziess ZF to fit that hole, but tilt/shift would be nice).

[ErikKaffehr]

Hi,

He says "does not interest", it's not the same as "does not like". It certainly implies "does not like" but not necessarily the same as "does dislike". It may just be that he feels the 17 TSE is not relevant for the kind of work he does.

Aside from that, thanks for sharing your experience.

Best regards
Erik

I know your opinion on architecture is more "professional" than mine; however, I really wonder what you don't like about that 17mm shift

Edmund

[eronald]

I find that every lens has its own "look" which is not quite determined by focal length.

The 17 is somehow nice indoors, and as a walkaround, shifted vertically slightly handheld shots have a different perspective. In Tokyo, I found it creates dramatic effects from the stacked and juxtaposed metabolic elements (bridges, walkways, sidewalks, skyscrapers, "flying" trains).

I was using the Nikon 17-35 before, but the lack of shift made it inflexible.

Edmund

I just think it's extremely wide on full-frame, it's not a field of view I would want to use very often (though I think it would be a very useful lens for cropped cameras). Even with tilt/shift, when you get extremely close to a subject things can look unnatural, it's often preferable to back up if at all possible (though I realize it sometimes isn't). Even 24mm is pretty wide on full-frame; since making the switch from DX I've found myself wishing there were a 30-35mm PC-E to slot in-between the 24mm and 45mm (I have the Ziess ZF to fit that hole, but tilt/shift would be nice).

[rethmeier]

Erik,
you are correct.
Not being interested doesn't mean I don't like it.
BTW,I can't use it anyway,because of the D3x.
For my super wide I use the Nikkor 14-24 and it's pretty good.
What I would really like is a new Nikkor 35 PC-E lens.
A lot of the time the 24PC-E is to wide and the 45 PC-E is to long.

[DonWeston]

As an owner of of a 5D2, with some concerns, am currently moving from L zooms to using primes due to sharpness and focusing issues, I was wondering if D3X users could comment on its tolerance of glass. I have always found less issue with my Nikons, and recently sold a D700 for lack of pixels and not much else. Still have my Nikon glass, ranging from primes and zooms. The D700 seemed very tolerant and did very well even with glass like the Tamron 28-75mm. With the 5D2, the extra pixels certainly put a higher demand on better glass, I feel.  The D3x is just too much camera for me to want to carry as I do mostly travel and landscape, and am waiting for a D700x version to be available if I find the Canon to have too many issues. I put my personal limit on using AF prime lenses, and will not resort to MF Zeiss or Leica primes. To recap, would D3x owners please comment, many thanks, Don

[Rob C]

Erik,
you are correct.
Not being interested doesn't mean I don't like it.
BTW,I can't use it anyway,because of the D3x.
For my super wide I use the Nikkor 14-24 and it's pretty good.
What I would really like is a new Nikkor 35 PC-E lens.
A lot of the time the 24PC-E is to wide and the 45 PC-E is to long.

For what it´s worth, I used to have a 35mm PC Nikkor that I used on an F4s. It was fairly crisp and I liked it, but it was always too narrow a field of view for what I wanted to do; would have liked a 24 PC but they only did a 28mm in those days and that wouldn´t have taken me to where I wanted to go either, so a waste of money. I did enjoy a straight 24mm (still do) but the missing vertical correction was a terrible restriction most of the time.

Hope you find what you want.

Rob C

[eronald]

I've used the 24mm PC-E Nikkor and was not impressed. The 17mm Canon shift is spectacular. If doing architecture, Canon seems to have the better cards at the moment, altho I much prefer the D3x as an all-round camera. By the time you move to shift lenses, the lenses probably count more than the body anyway.

Edmund

[eronald]

I've used the 24mm PC-E Nikkor and was not impressed. The 17mm Canon shift is spectacular. If doing architecture, Canon seems to have the better cards at the moment, altho I much prefer the D3x as an all-round camera. By the time you move to shift lenses, the lenses probably count more than the body anyway.

Edmund

[BernardLanguillier]

I've used the 24mm PC-E Nikkor and was not impressed.

What is it you didn't like about the 24 PC-E? I find mine to be pretty amazing but for a slight amount of distorsion easily corrected in PS.

Very sharp accross the field even when shifted.

This beind saig, a 17mm PC-E would be nice but I find that to be in fact probably too wide considering the very un-natural look of straight lines in the corners of such a frame when shifter. Do you use it as a regular 17 mm or with the shift functions?

Cheers,
Bernard