# Ken Rockwell is loving his 5D MK3 compared to his D800



## EvilTed (May 5, 2012)

Who'd have guessed it?

http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/00-new-today.htm

Me thinks he read all the crap we wrote about him on here, but regardless, you have to give him some props for speaking out in favor of the 5D MK3 over the D800 where it matters - taking pictures 

"The shooting experience is more important to me than technical image minutiae. If you worry more about test charts and pixels, the D800 wins, but if you're more concerned about getting the shot in the first place and how the image looks on the LCD, the 5D Mark III wins."

Ken, maybe you're not so dumb after all?



ET


----------



## rj79in (May 5, 2012)

He's not saying anything we didn't know ... anyhow, who cares


----------



## plutonium10 (May 5, 2012)

If Ken Rockwell praises a piece of Canon equipment, it MUST be good. ;D


----------



## rj79in (May 5, 2012)

plutonium10 said:


> If Ken Rockwell praises a piece of Canon equipment, it MUST be good. ;D



He he ... maybe there is some sinister motive of Ken behind it ... long live conspiracy theories ;D


----------



## kbmelb (May 5, 2012)

In his ISO comparison of a bunch of cameras, that included the D800 and 5DmkIII, The D800 image is nicer at 200 (I assume 100 too but he didn't test it) but by 400 the mkIII starts to look similar (maybe better?) even with it being interpolated up to 36MP. It is definitely the cleaner sharper image of all he tested after 400. Obviously he didn't push them to see what the shadow detailed offered. From what I have seen of the D800 images on the web, the extra detail the 36MP offers definitely helps define the detail in the shadows and it appears it controls color (noise) blotchiness better, almost as if it desaturates it, where the 5D3 in comparison doesn't (reducing color noise in post does a lot without losing much detail) and then it doesn't have resolving power of the 36MP. I know the D800 is better (at lower ISOs) but man folks are really cutting the 5D3 short in my opinion.


----------



## PeterJ (May 5, 2012)

rj79in said:


> He he ... maybe there is some sinister motive of Ken behind it ... long live conspiracy theories ;D


After a few recent threads maybe he's been checking his web referrer logs and seen a sudden influx from CR, his growing family are probably on caviar and lobster every night by now .


----------



## plutonium10 (May 5, 2012)

PeterJ said:


> rj79in said:
> 
> 
> > He he ... maybe there is some sinister motive of Ken behind it ... long live conspiracy theories ;D
> ...



Haha. I had forgotten all about his growing family.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 5, 2012)

EvilTed said:


> "The shooting experience is more important to me than technical image minutiae. If you worry more about test charts and pixels, the D800 wins, but if you're more concerned about getting the shot in the first place and how the image looks on the LCD, the 5D Mark III wins."



... but he goes on saying he likes the 5d3 better mostly because the removal of external af controls on the d800 is a "ergonomic backstep" from the d700, so the 5d3 is the only thing left to like. However, I can concur with the general thought: I got the 60d in spite of the d7000 having better specs because I like the 60d's usability better (and it's cheaper and running magic lantern).


----------



## plutonium10 (May 5, 2012)

Marsu42 said:


> ... but he goes on saying he likes the 5d3 better mostly because the removal of external af controls on the d800 is a "ergonomic backstep" from the d700, so the 5d3 is the only thing left to like. However, I can concur with the general thought: I got the 60d in spite of the d7000 having better specs because I like the 60d's usability better (and it's cheaper and running magic lantern).



I can't stress how much I LOVE the ergonomics of Canon's newer cameras. It's fun shooting with my 7D because the layout is just natural and comfortable. I'm sure most Nikonians would say the same about their cameras. ;D


----------



## bornshooter (May 5, 2012)

kbmelb said:


> In his ISO comparison of a bunch of cameras, that included the D800 and 5DmkIII, The D800 image is nicer at 200 (I assume 100 too but he didn't test it) but by 400 the mkIII starts to look similar (maybe better?) even with it being interpolated up to 36MP. It is definitely the cleaner sharper image of all he tested after 400. Obviously he didn't push them to see what the shadow detailed offered. From what I have seen of the D800 images on the web, the extra detail the 36MP offers definitely helps define the detail in the shadows and it appears it controls color (noise) blotchiness better, almost as if it desaturates it, where the 5D3 in comparison doesn't (reducing color noise in post does a lot without losing much detail) and then it doesn't have resolving power of the 36MP. I know the D800 is better (at lower ISOs) but man folks are really cutting the 5D3 short in my opinion.


iso 100 is not available on most nikon's


----------



## Astro (May 5, 2012)

i am worried... if ken rockwell likes the 5D MK3 then there must be something seriously wrong with the camera.

i bet the color saturation is way to strong on the 5D MK3 or it is shooting only small jpg files even when you have selected fullsize RAW.


----------



## plutonium10 (May 5, 2012)

Astro said:


> i am worried... if ken rockwell likes the 5D MK3 then there must be something seriously wrong with the camera.



Indeed. I sense a disturbance in the force.


----------



## DanielW (May 5, 2012)

When I first started reading the posts here (not long ago), I was a bit surprised to see that people here (everywhere?) don't like Ken. I always liked to read his reviews, funny at times, and like the way he speaks what he thinks in a simple way -- definitely not worried about pleasing -- in some sort of bottom line (kinda "just buy it" or "definitely a no-no"). People may have a different opinion, but that's his; can't blame him for saying. You know, it's hard sometimes to choose a camera or lens when you keep reading about "goods" and "bads" and have to weigh them all on your own, especially when you're just taking up photography like me and have no idea if that little extra on that camera, that will cost you $300 more, is important or irrelevant. Well, it helps me when he says "I'd buy it". Kind of a friend's advice for a beginner, not techie stuff. Maybe he's more suited for the less experienced and simple minded (me included...). Well, I like him! (Should I run for cover now?)


----------



## plutonium10 (May 5, 2012)

Yeah, his articles are like a friend's advice, simple and well put. But it's that one friend of yours who happens to have a moderately strong Nikon bias. Everybody has their preferences.


----------



## Chuck Alaimo (May 5, 2012)

this brings me back to some posts i made on other topics about how - if the specs are all that matters I'm gonna send my clients a report from a lab about the images and let them choose from that....

I do enjoy the turn around. Ken hated the mk3 in his first comparison review. I guess spending some time with it changed his mind...


----------



## risc32 (May 5, 2012)

I guess i can see why some dislike ken, but i really like what he does. A disturbance in the force for liking the mk3? what? he loved the mk2, and the mk1. sure he had gripes, but he picked both of them over the nikon counterparts. Other than his favorable review of the canon 28mm 1.8, i can't say that i'v ever really disagreed with his findings. Sure they guy is a bit silly, but so am i. Sure he might wear a fanny pack, with his white socks hiked up, with white sneakers and shorts.. oh, well. He's always chosen whatever tool gets the job done the fastest, the easiest. For him that's been the 5d line. me to.


----------



## neuroanatomist (May 5, 2012)

Egad, another KR thread. It's like a train wreck - I don't want to look, but I can't help it. :


----------



## D_Rochat (May 5, 2012)

DanielW said:


> When I first started reading the posts here (not long ago), I was a bit surprised to see that people here (everywhere?) don't like Ken. I always liked to read his reviews, funny at times, and like the way he speaks what he thinks in a simple way -- definitely not worried about pleasing -- in some sort of bottom line (kinda "just buy it" or "definitely a no-no"). People may have a different opinion, but that's his; can't blame him for saying. You know, it's hard sometimes to choose a camera or lens when you keep reading about "goods" and "bads" and have to weigh them all on your own, especially when you're just taking up photography like me and have no idea if that little extra on that camera, that will cost you $300 more, is important or irrelevant. Well, it helps me when he says "I'd buy it". Kind of a friend's advice for a beginner, not techie stuff. Maybe he's more suited for the less experienced and simple minded (me included...). Well, I like him! (Should I run for cover now?)



I recommend having a look through http://www.the-digital-picture.com/ . I enjoy his reviews and find them really informative. He does get into the technical nitty gritty, but also gives real world assessments. In his last few paragraphs he'll mention if he recommends it based on what you may already have, cost and over all quality of the product.


----------



## plutonium10 (May 5, 2012)

D_Rochat said:


> I recommend having a look through http://www.the-digital-picture.com/ . I enjoy his reviews and find them really informative. He does get into the technical nitty gritty, but also gives real world assessments. In his last few paragraphs he'll mention if he recommends it based on what you may already have, cost and over all quality of the product.



+1 to that! All my camera and lens decisions where made much easier by his website. The lens comparison tools, especially the side-by-side sharpness and vignetting ones, are also a huge help.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 5, 2012)

rj79in said:


> Its really amazing how KR can move between being a comic relief and a fly in the ointment so quickly!



The fate of every reviewer of anything... but looking at KR's success, I don't think he'll loose sleep over it


----------



## DanielW (May 5, 2012)

@ D-Rochat
Many thanks for the tip!


----------



## AJ (May 5, 2012)

It's because the saturation setting of the 5D3 goes to 11.

*Nigel Tufnel:* The numbers all go to eleven. Look, right across the board, eleven, eleven, eleven and...
*Marty DiBergi:* Oh, I see. And most amps go up to ten?
*Nigel Tufnel:* Exactly.
*Marty DiBergi:* Does that mean it's louder? Is it any louder?
*Nigel Tufnel:* Well, it's one louder, isn't it? It's not ten. You see, most blokes, you know, will be playing at ten. You're on ten here, all the way up, all the way up, all the way up, you're on ten on your guitar. Where can you go from there? Where?
*Marty DiBergi:* I don't know.
*Nigel Tufnel:* Nowhere. Exactly. What we do is, if we need that extra push over the cliff, you know what we do?
*Marty DiBergi:* Put it up to eleven.
*Nigel Tufnel:* Eleven. Exactly. One louder.
*Marty DiBergi:* Why don't you just make ten louder and make ten be the top number and make that a little louder?
*Nigel Tufnel:* [pause] These go to eleven.


----------



## Marsu42 (May 5, 2012)

AJ said:


> It's because the saturation setting of the 5D3 goes to 11.



 ... KR probably knows the Spinal Tap rockumentary, too and thus knows that people need some anchor to remember. In the movie, its 11, for KR its oversaturated images. As I wrote above, unless I'm very mistaken what he does is extremely clever - and the facts support this: He has a flourishing photo gear review site and doesn't even feel the necessity anymore to do the legwork and write factual reviews - see 5d3's af system!


----------



## 1982chris911 (May 6, 2012)

neuroanatomist said:


> Egad, another KR thread. It's like a train wreck - I don't want to look, but I can't help it. :



That comparison made my day


----------



## smithy (May 6, 2012)

plutonium10 said:


> D_Rochat said:
> 
> 
> > I recommend having a look through http://www.the-digital-picture.com/ . I enjoy his reviews and find them really informative. He does get into the technical nitty gritty, but also gives real world assessments. In his last few paragraphs he'll mention if he recommends it based on what you may already have, cost and over all quality of the product.
> ...


+2... It's probably the most concise and enjoyable real-world review site to read IMHO.



Marsu42 said:


> I got the 60d in spite of the d7000 having better specs because I like the 60d's usability better (and it's cheaper and running magic lantern).


I recently borrowed a friend's D7000 to see how a Nikon SLR camera would 'feel', having used Canon SLRs exclusively since the mid-90s. My first reaction was 'you must have tiny hands to find the D7000 comfortable to hold'. I found the handling and ergonomics of the D7000 appalling compared with my EOS 40D, although when it came to image quality (particularly at higher ISOs), it naturally blew my 5-year-old camera out of the water...


----------



## Marsu42 (May 6, 2012)

smithy said:


> I recently borrowed a friend's D7000 to see how a Nikon SLR camera would 'feel', having used Canon SLRs exclusively since the mid-90s. My first reaction was 'you must have tiny hands to find the D7000 comfortable to hold'. I found the handling and ergonomics of the D7000 appalling compared with my EOS 40D, although when it came to image quality (particularly at higher ISOs), it naturally blew my 5-year-old camera out of the water...



My issue with the d7000 was not so much grip size (it's about the 60d's, it's small, but just ok enough to get used to it) but I like to be able to switch everything with one hand like on the 60d. On the Nikon, the zoom and esp. iso button is on the left side - that alone would drive me crazy. I guess 5d and Nikon users are more used the left side buttons than I am, or they customize what they do.


----------

