Uh oh! Ken (Rockwell that is) is doing it again...
Posting some of his "not so scientific" comparisons between the Nikon D300/D700, a Canon 5DII and his latest fav: the Leica M9.
Some comments from my side:
- Ken will never touch Capture NX 2 and thus will never give all his Nikon comparisons the best RAW converter that produces sharper images than Adobe CameraRAW and also corrects for CA. No wonder that the results are in favor of the M9.
- Ken uses either a D300 as a D3x surrogate or a 12MP D700 to compare to a 18MP and 21MP camera. The argument in the first place being that the pixel pitch of the D300 is even higher than from the D3x (correct). But he completely forgets about the different AA-filters of the D300 and the D3x. And the Leica has no AA-filter at all. Other people on the web have already reported that the D3x has a slight edge in resolution over the M9.
But you have to give him one thing: The comparison without the benefit of CaptureNX and its auto CA correction shows the CA problems of the lens. And in that you can see that the Leica ELMARIT-M 28mm f/2.8 has less CA in the corners than the Nikon 24-70mm f/2.8 (at 28mm). Weeeell yes: those who can read e.g. the Photozone review of the Nikkor on a D3x here
know that this lens has a CA problem at wide angles.
But than: the Nikkor is a complicated zoom and the Leica is an easy fixed focal. Go ahead people, nothing (new) to be seen here...
Btw.: He also proves that the Canon 16-35mm f/2.8 L II is not the best performer at 28mm wide open either. But again: Nothing new.
Thomas (beware: Nikon-fanboy and moderator!) My Lens Reviews
, My Pictures
, My Photography Blog