Canon vs. Nikon colors

U

USLatin

Panamaniac
Ok... let me just start s conversation, don't put too much weight on my initial post.

I am looking at the Nikon user thread and the Canon user thread.. this is my only reference for comparison... but:

Does Nikon saturate more? For some reason I seen to think that the Canon pictures are overall... in average, more realistic color wise... am I just too drunk and up too late or is there some truth to this?


EDIT: It might obviously not be saturation and something a bit more specific to the balance of each color... gama curves... etc... maybe something as slight as lens coating... who knows.. well I don't, that's why I am asking. :)
 
Last edited:
Not trying to have a Canon v.s Nikon debate since I think they are both companies that should be considered when buying a new DSLR due to their low noise sensors and excellent lens options. (which you are going to be stuck with once you start investing in on or the other)

That being said, here is a qoute from ken Rockwell (whom I rarley disagree with) talking about the new 5d Mark II:

I've already ordered a 5D Mark II for myself an hour after I heard about it! Why? Simple: I prefer the way my Nikons handle for fast shooting, but I prefer the color rendition and fine detail of my old 5D over anything from Nikon for shooting landscapes. On my old 5D, the colors I get in JPGs with +3 and +4 saturation straight out of the camera just look incredible; see the example galleries linked from the old 5D review. My Nikons, in VIVID and +3 saturation look punchy, but they just don't have the delicate finesse along with the punchy colors I get from my Canons when cranked. My D3 isn't going back in its box for people and action shots, but the newspaper-bred D3 and D700 have probably just gotten knocked into the can by the 5D Mark II for serious landscape shooters.
 
It has often been said (which I agree with) that Nikon photos tend to look more organic, more film-like. While Canon photos look sharper with an inherent digital crispness. So, this might have to do with lenses, sensors etc. But, you are right to notice a delicate aesthetic difference between the two camps.

Personally, I love 'em both for two very different reasons.
 
Given the thread title, have you already narrowed your search to one of these two? I ask because there is no reason, if just starting with the dSLR world, to not also consider Sony with it's full frame A900 or the one I have with great reviews, the A700. Also, as we can see from Mino's posts, the Olympus stuff is nice too. Just my 1.5 cents worth .....

Larry
 
Was he looking to buy one Larry? Maybe I misread but I thought it was just an observation.

Let me start this off saying I totally agree with the content of this thread thus far, but when it comes to Sat and other processing level details.....I put little faith in a brand. With all the PP that goes on with photos today....I think most of the work of the folks in here is done in post. And while I agree with the quote from Ken, how many people actually shoot in JPEG? Maybe it's more than I think, but I always shoot RAW and process later.

For what its worth, I've always thought that Canon's have a sharper image on just about any platform....but I like to use Nikon's. Canon cameras just feel weird to me and frustrate me when I use them. To each their own.
 
Thanks for the posts guys!

Ok, let me see if I can keep my head straight and take advantage of all of your posts...

DivotDan said:
Was he looking to buy one Larry? Maybe I misread but I thought it was just an observation.
Click to expand...

No, but I AM toying with the idea... I might be able to get a nice discount and start a little business that would pay it off. So I guess I am looking, hopefully I will be able to follow through... but I should read up anyway. To address your usability/control point... I have no clue... though I have always heard good things about the Canon wheel... I am going to try to play with them at every store I find and bring my SDHC cards with me. :)

AlwaysLearning, totally man... I should look into them hoverer I am looking into Red, specifically getting a S35 or FF35 Scarlet when I can and at that point the only glass that would work would be Nikon or Canon as far as I can tell...

The thing is that I would LOVE to be able to invest into Zeiss ZF glass... manual lonf focus throws with finessed mechanical feel is what I need, plus the reviews put them on par with the sharpness of Super Speeds! Also there is a cool company RPlenses.com, that removes the click on the aperture ring allowing you to use opend them in between stops, pull aperture in a shot if it were necessary, and also puts very nice gears on the focus ring that people say feel solid and stay on... and finally the guy adds a hood on the front of each of them to make them be able to take clip on matte boxes which may come in handy, may help with flares when using without a MB, and also makes them look kinda cool :D... hehe... oh, and he was a pleasure to talk to when I spoke with him on the phone!

So... OBVIOULSY due to the Nikon mount and ZF glass being Nikon mount that gives the D90 the upper hand for me... BUT... I am not so sure I like the color better...


EGproductions, I am glad you brought that up, cause I agree with him, that is exactly my sentiment... well not from experience, but after looking at the first 110 pages of the Nikon thread (not done getting through it yet), and having looked at the whole Canon thread I wondered if it was the base on which people were working that made the Nikon thread look over saturated for my taste. Obviously this is a matter of personal taste... and I should check out what I could do in post with some RAW D90 photos... but it is always better to get as close to your intended final product as you can before you have to tweak... less work, faster workflow, and you are closer to the sweetspot so you end up CC'ing a tad less... not that it would matter when you have RAW files and we are talking about a little color blance and a little saturation...

Rick, it is funny to hear that, and if that is indeed the sentiment then I am surprised... but what surprises me is not the specific qualities you point out but that people believe Nikon is more film like... maybe due to grain structure? Is that why? Because I would say that the colors of Canon make me think that they are closer to a tru color representation making me lean towards Canon... though maybe it is too sharp, but I could blur a tad... add grain? Anywho... I should take a closer look at this while I finish looking over the Nikon thread! Thanks for pointing it out.


So... to sum up my thoughts at this moment... I saw Canons being used in the high fashion world a lot more than Nikons which were practically not there...maybe that's why I seem to be partial to them? I've been trained by the relentless fashion industry posting adds all over town, magazines etc to the point where we couldn't escape them no matter how hard we tried... BUT... as Rick said... if Nikons are said to be more FILM like... maybe some automated tweaking in PS and a Nikon would give me what I want?

What do I want? Realistic representation. That is for sure... I want to capture things the way they are and know I am there with my camera set to 0's accross the menu... knowing that I can push in-camera either way, same for post... document, capture high bit-depth, and be able to "create" in any direction I feel like...

Additionally I REALLY want to get something as close to a S35 sensor so I can get used to that format for film. I would be super exited to get a $1,000 body that can give me a close to S35 sensor... D90 comes up again... but what are my options if I chose Canon? Can I still get live view and a ~1Mill pixel LCD for reviewing? Video would be nice but it is just a toy in a DSLR and the D5 is $2500! What should I check out on the Canon camp? And what would it be like to have to use a Canon to Nikon mount adapter?
 
Last edited:
This is from iposinditos on Nikon's thread page 226. I like the colors much more like this. I asked him what his settings and PS process was.

Unknown_89_by_iposiniditos.jpg
 
Here's a photo I took a while back with my Nikon for the DOF contest:

1177128058.jpg


The only thing I did in post was adjust the gamma curves.
 
Excellent example Tom, love the colors on your shot.

An other loverly Nikon example

Adam Gonzalez said:
Nikon D200
Nikkor 18-70 @ 62mm::F4.5
Nikon SB-600 Wireless Off Camera w/ Umbrella

Here is the original:

MistyOriginal.jpg
Click to expand...

This image basically puts to rest ANY worries I had abut Nikon color... If I can do this in-camera then I can be a happy camper. The D90 is pulling ahead...
 
The truth is that you can't look at specific pictures and say "oh I like the colors on that, what camera was that shot with?" You have to do side by side comparisons to see which "out of camera" color information you like better. What I took out of what Ken was saying was that it seems to him that there is more color information with the Canon to begin with so when the saturation is increased (be it in JPEG or RAW) it will give you smoother, less punchy results. That isn't saying that the factory settings of Canons are more or less saturated than Nikon. Nikon could be by default more saturated. Even if the general conseus is that Nikon is more organic, the Canon 5D (and now probably the 5D Mark II) is said to have a very organic feel as well.

In response to you looking for a camera that is going to give you an realistic or accurate representation of what your eye sees, I don't know if that's what you should be looking for. Its true you want a lot of dynamic range and vibrant yet natural colors but the idea of a picture (in most cases) is to enhance reality and let the viewer see something in an idealized or surreal way. If people wanted to see realistic pictures then 24p wouldn't be the modern day filmmakers new best friend.

I haven't had much experience using live view but the idea is that you can frame things and see a dof preview on the LCD. I believe focusing is done by zooming in and probably edge sharpening to check focus. I don't see myself using it much but who knows it could be very convenient and useful.

If you are looking for something to match an s35 sensor, then you will want a cropped sensor camera 1.6x or 1.5x. If you want a full 35 you will want a full frame camera (no crop factor).

Zeiss just released a 50mm F1.4 for the Canon EF mount. Its overpriced and if you take a look at Ken Rockwells 50mm Comparison tests Zeiss does not have the sharpest lenses or best lenses optically (althout they might be better suited to filmaking for lack of breathing or other reasons) If you are thinking to use lenses for both the red cameras and a DSLR Nikon might be better since the last I heard Red was planning but didn't make a mout for Canon EF lenses. The reason this mount wasn't so easy to make is because the aperture on Canon don't have a manual overide, meaning you have to use the camera to set the aperture.
 
Lots of info, thanks for the post.

It helps to see it that way... I wonder why it is that Canon would have more chroma info and how that would work... if it has to do with the way that their RAW is stored or if theyr photosites are bigger or otherwise less noisy. However, the cat picture does at least help in that it showed me that what I like is possible out of the camera since is is untouched. I have a very good idea of what I can do to it in post.

I am quite certain that I want a realistic representation because I know how much I can do to a RAW file, and added to modest in-camera settings I know I will have enough power to do my craziest stuff.

I always try to get close to the line between believable and surreal... I like to push it as much as I can while making the audience still believe it was real and only captured. I like having that effect where someone goes holy-smokes look at this thing and not look at this picture. I will certainly try new things and compose and grade the crap out of stuff going for that extreme artistic representation of a subject, but I know that my main goal is that fine line.

The ZF's have very long focus throws, and are said to feel brilliant for the cash... they are also quite fast and super sharp... If I am so lucky to get a S35 or FF35 Scarlet then I will certainly benefit from being able to share lenses.

I might however get a cheaper 18-70mm AF lens or something about that range and try to stay affordable, that way I have something to hold me over and something I can use in case I want or need speed and versatility... perhaps also something with VR if it doesn't get too pricy but more importantly something that performs well and doesn't make me lose time and detail with pinch/punch adjustments... but a zoom with AF in case I need it...
 
USLatin said:
Should I look at a D200 instead of a D90?
Click to expand...

I love my D200. Here's what I will say, the D200 feels better in my hand and has more of the manual button's and adjustments that I would expect from a true pro-sumer camera than what you get with a D90. The D200 is better compared to the D300. That said, the sensor in the D300 and D90 whomps the D200 in low light. The crazy thing with this "economic downturn" that everyone is buying into...is that all these cameras are selling used for stupid low prices. D200's for $500-600, D90's already for like $700-800, and D300's for $1100......what's up with that!

Good time to be a buyer, crappy time to be a seller. I'm feeling both at the moment. I have 2 DVX's up for sale. I wanted to get the cash from them to go FX with Nikon, but those things wouldn't sell at the moment if I had Gold Club "Dancers" modeling them.

Edit: As I type this someone finally replied to my ad. W00T
 
What's the retail price for the D300?

I did feel that the D90 didn't seem to have "enough wheels and buttons" to compare it with the Canon counterpart whatever that was based on cost... perhaps a used D300 would work... but what is the retail of a 300? Isn't it about $2,000 to $2,500? If I am right then that is a WHOMP of cash for me... I should try to play with these much more and I will anyway if I get to consider getting one... again several things need to fall into place for me to get a DSLR
 
I love my D200 too. It's definitely got more control than the D90. I would say instead of spending the 2k on the D300, get a D200 with a nice piece of glass. :)
 
USLatin said:
What's the retail price for the D300?
Click to expand...

Most places are doing $1500 for body only. For a used one, a quick look on Fred Miranda shows dudes selling from like $1075 to $1250.......usually with varying number of shots. I always say buy as used as possible with it comes to DSLR bodies.
 
So what's the sensitivity of the 200? Can you use 1600?

I need to know retail because if I get a DSLR it will be directly from them with a discount... that's all I can say :lipsrseal
 
Yeah, agree with Tom for the most part. Although, it looks pretty good in B&W. Very Tri-X style. I usually choose to stay away from it in color shots. The issue you get is in low light there is very noticeable "digital grain" compared to the D300 or D90 sensor performance......esp in the dark areas of the photos.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top