1. OCAU Merchandise is available! Check out our 20th Anniversary Mugs, Classic Logo Shirts and much more! Discussion in this thread.
    Dismiss Notice

Canon v Nikon

Discussion in 'Photography & Video' started by irR4tiOn4L, Nov 28, 2012.

  1. irR4tiOn4L

    irR4tiOn4L Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    3,084
    Location:
    Carlingford, Sydney
    Hey everyone, provocative title but simple question; disregarding the usual camera aspects completely, have people found that there is such a thing as a canon or nikon 'look'? If so, what do you think it is comprised of and what is it caused by, and which do you prefer?

    I've always found from my friends' and father's Nikons that they seem to have a cooler colour temperature and less saturation, and from my Canon and friends' canons that they have warmer tones and a livelier picture. I've never investigated if that was really true and whether it was a property of the lenses (doubtful), jpeg processing (probable) but it influenced my choice of camera.

    Now that I'm contemplating the otherwise superior D600, I find that, surprisingly, this imagined or barely-perceptible difference is standing in the way. Am I kidding myself or do a series of lenses and cameras from these companies really produce fundamentally different pictures even with RAW processing?
     
  2. Quadbox

    Quadbox Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    6,679
    Location:
    Brisbane
    If you're shooting RAW, then any such suggestion is nonsense. Saturation and colour temperature are entirely post processing parameters
     
  3. OP
    OP
    irR4tiOn4L

    irR4tiOn4L Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    3,084
    Location:
    Carlingford, Sydney
    That's what I reckon is the case too. But some people insist there's a colouration to the lenses, or some such quality between sensor and output.
     
  4. Frozen_Hell

    Frozen_Hell Member

    Joined:
    Sep 11, 2002
    Messages:
    3,031
    Location:
    Cairns
    You can mess around with the saturation, colours, sharpening in-camera with pretty much any brand and it'll modify how jpegs output. Or shoot RAW and not give a toss what the camera would've picked and decide for yourself how you want your photos to look.

    You can't take photos with a camera that you haven't bought yet. The longer you wait, the more photos you'll miss out on taking.

    Until you can quantify what the minute differences are yourself, who cares what other people say? The only way you can really tell usually is to pixel peep and compare shots of the same thing side-by-side.. but unless you work for dpreview it makes absolutely sfa difference to the photos you'll take.
     
    Last edited: Nov 28, 2012
  5. ^catalyst

    ^catalyst Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    12,018
    Location:
    melbourne
    Yeah equipment does certainly have a look, even when shooting RAW. But the amount of adjustment you get with lightroom or whatever means you can do what you want.

    Very little in it shooting RAW.
     
  6. sconosciuto

    sconosciuto Member

    Joined:
    Nov 11, 2009
    Messages:
    520
    Location:
    Back in the USSR
    ^ What he said. Basically if you're shooting RAW, it's irrelevant.

    And some words of wisdom from our dear friend Ken:

    http://www.kenrockwell.com/tech/nikon-vs-canon.htm
     
  7. dche5390

    dche5390 Member

    Joined:
    Jan 22, 2007
    Messages:
    3,446
    Location:
    Sydney
    There is a difference. Always.

    But it has never, and will never, ever matter.

    Most people, can never tell the difference. And I've been fooled many times thinking a particular image was shot by a certain brand, only to be utterly wrong.

    Post processing makes a lot of difference. I will swear that Nikon RAWs have more greenness to them than Canon. But it doesn't mean I cannot adjust this in post.

    On the review LCD however, certain cameras of certain brands display much more pleasing jpeg previews than other cameras of certain brands. All subjective.

    Fuck it. Have froyo. Be happy.
     
  8. Quadbox

    Quadbox Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    6,679
    Location:
    Brisbane
    And so it began :p
     
  9. kwax

    kwax Member

    Joined:
    Dec 1, 2005
    Messages:
    1,455
    Location:
    Sydney 2177
    in my opinions. nikons are more green and more sharp/perfect look
    canons are more warm and have a more authentic organic look.

    Thats my opinion. I shoot nikon. It does the job and i get paid. Will getting a canon make me more money? I dont think so.
     
  10. smorter

    smorter Member

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2011
    Messages:
    431
    Location:
    Melbourne, AU
    It's not just Canon vs Nikon that's different

    Every single camera within the Canon range has a slightly different output in RAW, even with the exact same settings

    It's because the built in tonal curves inherent to the camera is different for each camera

    They also have different colour filters, hardware etc.

    I have 7 Canon DSLR's and not a single pair of them will give the exact same output even in RAW on same settings
     
  11. Modafroman

    Modafroman Member

    Joined:
    Jul 10, 2002
    Messages:
    10,057
    Location:
    Brisbane
    This so much. Doesn't really matter what you have, cameras within the same market bracket will be basically the same, and give you great files.

    ^

    Theres a discernible difference between 5Dc, 5D2 and 5D3 files. 5Dc tend to look more natural/film like, 5D2 looks a bit more digital and 5D3 looks like a hybrid of the first two, at least in my mind/experience (not that i've shot a 5Dc, but just from photos i've seen).
     
  12. Deftone2k

    Deftone2k In the Darkroom

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2002
    Messages:
    16,018
    Location:
    Newcastle
    The biggest difference I notice is skin tones.. since I stare at skin tones all the time.

    Use what feels good and suits your needs.

    They all take photos, thats the main thing.
     
  13. Hi-tek

    Hi-tek Member

    Joined:
    Jun 18, 2004
    Messages:
    1,348
    Yeh there's a difference... but it's more so to do with the lens IMO. Even amongst the same brand (e.g a 70-200mm @ 135 vs a 135mm prime.) Given the same settings and lighting conditions... they're both off slightly.


    Whatever.. money buys skills. True story.
     
  14. iXeR0

    iXeR0 Member

    Joined:
    Sep 1, 2001
    Messages:
    1,356
    Location:
    Melbourne 3195
    Yeah, there are differences. I think some of my Nikon lenses have a green colour cast. Nikon does tend to come off a bit cooler than Canon. Some lenses are warmer than others.

    Some differences are more obvious, ie. comparing kit lenses to pro. Just like some posters above, within Nikon, I notice different models have slightly different looks.

    So yes, there are differences but if you shoot RAW, it isn't likely to matter much.
     
  15. allmightyvictor

    allmightyvictor Member

    Joined:
    Aug 23, 2003
    Messages:
    143
    Location:
    Sydney
    I've definitely noticed different colour cast in lenses even from the same brand an example would be the Sigma 50mm vs Sigma 85mm 1.4s, the 50mm for some reason requires +200K adjustment in WB to match the 85.

    Biggest difference I've found in sensors was the default Adobe Standard profile for the D600 and D3. This was an absolute pain to fix up!

    If you shoot RAW, I wouldn't pick and choose what camera/lens to buy based on the so called 'colouration', you can quite easily make the 'colour' of any lens/camera combo to look the same as any other in post processing. This means you can skip reading a large chunk of most camera reviews :p
     
  16. Athiril

    Athiril Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2003
    Messages:
    4,115
    Location:
    Tsumagoi-Mura, Japan
    Canon goes to +4 saturation.
     
  17. OP
    OP
    irR4tiOn4L

    irR4tiOn4L Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    3,084
    Location:
    Carlingford, Sydney
    Btw and on an unrelated note, does anyone know how the 5D mk2 and 5D classic match up in terms of low light/high iso noise performance when the photos and noise reduction are compared/processed equally from a raw file?

    I want to know if the 5D mk2 has inherently significantly better noise performance or if that is largely the result of better jpeg in camera processing.
     
  18. ^catalyst

    ^catalyst Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    12,018
    Location:
    melbourne
    More samples, better snr per inch? Am I wrong here?
     
  19. OP
    OP
    irR4tiOn4L

    irR4tiOn4L Member

    Joined:
    Nov 25, 2004
    Messages:
    3,084
    Location:
    Carlingford, Sydney
    You also need to factor in more light per pixel on the 5D classic.

    With a resolution 2x that of the 5D classic, if that relationship held, the 5D mk 2 would have twice as good noise performance.

    But, in fact, it appears to have similar if slightly better noise performance - which is likely due to sensor advances but mostly due to processing chip advances.

    Comparing output between the two in Raw should show the differences in noise performance.
     
  20. ^catalyst

    ^catalyst Member

    Joined:
    Jun 27, 2001
    Messages:
    12,018
    Location:
    melbourne
    what size is your output?
     

Share This Page

Advertisement: