D2X vs EOS: Table of Contents

Clicking a link on this page will show a picture containing page thumbnails.  You may also see all thumbnails at once (may load slowly, not on a high-speed server).

Each example was carefully chosen, and meticulously prepared.  All results were double-checked, and re-shot if even the most minor inconsistency was found.   This is quality analysis you can rely on.  The writing is professional-grade, with concise analysis.

Main Page

• How to read this article.  Notes on formatting of the article.
• Introduction to sensor size and pixel pitch, field of view, and depth of field.

Subjective Image Quality

• Four or more examples from each camera “in the field”. Includes actual-pixels crops from each shot.

Usability & Handling

• Rear LCD screen shots comparing size, color, brightness.
• Menu system and controls discussion.
• Size and weight considerations.
• Camera usability issues: viewfinder coverage, risk to settings, focus-area coverage/points/accuracy, mirror lockup, actual battery life, and more.

Resolution

• Resolution Chart and sensor size: The Sensor Size Conundrum: comparing the same lens on full-frame and 2/3 frame sensors.
• Detail in an outdoor mosaic with a complete aperture series for all cameras.
• Long lenses: the Nikon 200/f2 VR and the Canon 300/f2.8L showing sharpened and unsharpened crops from two finely-detailed areas.
• A field shot in Yosemite’s high-country.
• A “far field” shot in Yosemite’s high-country with difficult lighting.
• Fisheye: the Nikon 10.5mm/f2.8 DX and the Canon 15mm/f2.8 from f2.8-f16 on all cameras.

Noise

• Noise assessment from ISO 100 to ISO 3200 using both a Macbeth ColorChecker card and a “fall harvest” studio scene.
• Large actual-pixels crops of the “fall garden harvest” scene at ISO 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200.
• Canon 5D streaking and hot pixels.

Dynamic Range

• Studio setup examining overexposure headroom, highlight recovery, and ability to “push” an underexposed shot.

Color

• Macbeth ColorChecker card and gray-scale neutrality.
• A “warm sunlight” scene, showing different color rendition.
• A “garden harvest” scene.  Includes large examples and assessment of prints against original subject, side-by-side.
• A landscape scene from Yosemite’s high-country.  Includes large examples.
• A portrait with two different skin tones.

Long Exposures

• ISO 50, 100, 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200 tested at 1  minute exposures for all cameras with noise reduction on and off.
• A 4 minute exposure at ISO 100 for all cameras.

Depth of Field

• Depth of field with all three cameras at apertures f4, 5.6, 8, 11, 16, 22 with a center point, two foreground points and 3 background points: the most thorough and detailed analysis of this subject you’ve likely ever seen!
• Comparing background blur using the Nikon 58mm/f1.2 NOCT-Nikkor and the Canon 85mm/f1.2L at f 1.2, 1.4, 2, 2.8, 4, 5.6, 8, 11.
• Bokeh—appeal of the out-of-focus areas of an image.

Lens Evaluations

• Ratings and brief discussion of each lens based on actual use.
  Canon 24/f1.4L, 35mm/f1.4L, 50mm/f1.4, 50mm/f2.5 macro, 85mm/f1.8, 85/f1.2L, 100/f2.8 macro, 135/f2L, 180/f3.5L macro, 200/f2.8L, 200/f1.8L, 300/f2.8L IS, 400/f4 DO, 16-35/f2.8L, 17-40/f2.8L, 24-70/f2.8L, 24-105/f4L, 70-200/f2.8L IS, 70-200/f4L
  Nikon 10.5mm/f2.8 DX fisheye, 24/f2 AIS, Nikon 28/f1.4, 28/f2 AIS, 35/f1.4 AIS Nikkor, 35/f2.8 PC Nikkor, 50/f1.4D, 50/f1.8 Nikkor AIS (several variants), 58/f1.2 Noct-Nikkor, PC-Micro-Nikkor 85/f2.8, 85/f1.4D, 105/f2DC, 135/f2DC, 200/f2 VR, 12-24mm/f4 DX, 17-35mm/f2.8 AFS, 17-55mm/f2.8 AFS DX, 28-70/f2.8 AFS, 70-200/f2.8 VR, 200-400/f4 VR, 50-300/f4.5 ED AIS.
• Lens optical aberrations.

Conclusions

• Overall conclusions on the cameras
• A discussion of future directions.
• Thoughts on the choice of brand.

Raw file processing

• Discussion of the challenges in comparing cameras.
• Overview of raw converters used for this article.
• Image processing parameters used for this article.
• Reference list of raw-file converters.