EOS 5D Mark II vs D3X vs Alpha 900

Just passed by this, thought others would be interested. http://www.luminous-landscape.com …s/cameras/big-three.shtml

Real shocker!

Canon 5D2 and Nikon D3X are roughly equivalent, though users that need pro AF and weather seals are minded to spend the money and get the Nikon.

Sony is not on the radar yet, thus the price.

I would say 5D Mk II at ISO 6400 is slightly better than Nikon D3x. And Canon 5D Mk II's ISO 12800 may not be good for landscapes, but definitely quite useable for small to medium prints (5x7 or even 8x10). ISO 25600 photos are still useable for 4x6 or web posting.

I am not surprised at all by these findings. He should throw the D700, D3, and 1DsIII in there for kicks. Plus the original 5D and 1DsII for some real FF high ISO noise shootout goodness . I love the luminous landscape.

i don't get it...
5d2 is clearly better than the other ones!
atleast if you compare the 100% crops of this pic:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images87​/setup.jpg

5d2 iso 50:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images87​/canon-50.jpg
D3x iso 50:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images87​/nikon-50.jpg

nikon is somehow out of focus?

and if you compare 5d2-s iso 50 to sony's iso 100 you can see that sony has deeper colors:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images87​/sony-100.jpg
BUT! if you compare 5d2 iso 100 to sony iso 100 then the canon is much better!
so why do i need to spend XXXX more cash on the others if i can buy fully featured 5d2 for less $$

would like to see 5d2 shooting the same pictures at these places tho':
http://imaging.nikon.c​om …p/d3/d3x-sp/en/index.html

mäger wrote in post #7095610
i don't get it...
5d2 is clearly better than the other ones!
atleast if you compare the 100% crops of this pic:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images87​/setup.jpg

5d2 iso 50:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images87​/canon-50.jpg
D3x iso 50:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images87​/nikon-50.jpg

nikon is somehow out of focus?

and if you compare 5d2-s iso 50 to sony's iso 100 you can see that sony has deeper colors:
http://www.luminous-landscape.com/images87​/sony-100.jpg
BUT! if you compare 5d2 iso 100 to sony iso 100 then the canon is much better!
so why do i need to spend XXXX more cash on the others if i can buy fully featured 5d2 for less $$

would like to see 5d2 shooting the same pictures at these places tho':
http://imaging.nikon.c​om …p/d3/d3x-sp/en/index.html

I agree... and its quite obvious.

Interesting comparison - I think the 5D2 sits in the same company as the D3x at least in terms of noise. I noticed the Nikon focus being off on a couple of the low-ISO shots but I think that relates to testing errors rather than a camera issue. Or maybe the 5D2's "ancient" AF system is more accurate.

Why, in the 3 camera shootout page, is the a900 image smaller than the 5DII image and the D3x image - surely for fairness they should all have same length setup??? At ISO 100 it looks to me like the D3x wobbled or was not focussed.
Shame Canon did not update the AF on the 5DII....would have bought one...not now though.

I seriously doubt that anyone could spot the difference in output from these 3 cameras is the same shot was taken with all three, printed to A3 (or A2) and placed on a wall. Sure there'll be a slight colour space and contrast interpretational difference. But I doubt that anyone could spot much more. I think the difference between 21mp and 24mp is just bragging rights. In terms of sharpness, there's still a way to go with full frame sensors. If we assume that the 15mp 50D is the pixel pitch max, then 38mp is the upscaled full frame size. At which point, our lenses will most likely become the problem.

Neilyb wrote in post #7095966
Why, in the 3 camera shootout page, is the a900 image smaller than the 5DII image and the D3x image - surely for fairness they should all have same length setup??? At ISO 100 it looks to me like the D3x wobbled or was not focussed.
Shame Canon did not update the AF on the 5DII....would have bought one...not now though.

Well, I have to interject on the AF on the 5D. My earlier comment was part sarcasm, but I will say this: I have the 5D. I have a 40D. I've owned the 1D3 as well (as well as the 30D, XT, XTi, 10D, and 1D2, but those are past history). The 5D, for all its warts and wrinkles, gave me a higher keeper percentage in Servo shooting than does my 40D or my (defective blue dot) 1D3. Obviously, a properly working 1D3 would have outperformed the 5D in this test, but mine was not working correctly and was promptly returned.


Likewise, at least with the center AF sensor, the 5D performed very close to the 40D in terms of focusing in very dark situations. My best estimate is that the 40D can AF in situations about 1/3 stop darker (if that even) than the 5D. It's only with the perimeter AF points that the 40D surpasses the 5D's AF capability.

While I'd like to have seen the cross sensors at all 15 AF points, I can't find a lot of fault in the accuracy of the 5D's AF system with the exception of those outside AF points in low-contrast situations. The Mk II has the same system as my 5D, and it's a proven performer. It's not top-of-the-line, but it works well.

He also has a newer review:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com …cameras/a900-5dmkii.shtml

wait a second... but ken rockwell's comparison clearly shows the D3x blowing the 5DMKII out of the water...

Yeah...good old Ken.

Tom W wrote in post #7095935
Interesting comparison - I think the 5D2 sits in the same company as the D3x at least in terms of noise.

Maybe in terms of statistical noise. However, the 5d has a much better looking noise pattern in OOF areas in my opinion.

disorder wrote in post #7096622
wait a second... but ken rockwell's comparison clearly shows the D3x blowing the 5DMKII out of the water...

Doesn't Thom Hogan's review also support that statement too?