Canon vs Nikon - Stereotypes

[goodguy]

Things like the sensor tech are also short term - 5 years or so ago Canon was totally ruling the roost sensor wise - now its Sony (Nikon uses sony sensors and Sony have sunk something like 5 times the R&D money into sensors than the others just because they wanted in on the market so had to come to the table with something outstanding to get a foot in) in a few years it could be Pentax!

Pentax also use Sony sensors, and from reports I've heard their agreement with Sony restricts them to sensors 2 years old or more. They have on occasion managed to eeke a little bit more out of the sensors than Sony or Nikon did.

Dont know about that 2 year thing but Pentax makes excellent cameras, I do wish they will start making FF cameras!
It will be nice to have a fourth option and not just Nikon, Canon and Sony.
The more competition the better it is for us users/customers.

 

[W.Y.Photo]

When people can look at the finished photos and identify the brand of camera they were shot with, WITHOUT that brand information being given to them or otherwise discerned via EXIF or any other means, then it will be a question worth asking.

You actually can, greens appear very differently between Nikon and Canon. It's not hard to spot on unedited images between the higher end models.

 

[runnah]

When people can look at the finished photos and identify the brand of camera they were shot with, WITHOUT that brand information being given to them or otherwise discerned via EXIF or any other means, then it will be a question worth asking.

You actually can, greens appear very differently between Nikon and Canon. It's not hard to spot on unedited images between the higher end models.

Poppycock.

 

[Braineack]

yeah, you just look for the one lacking any DR/recovery, or noise at low ISO.

 

[Buckster]

When people can look at the finished photos and identify the brand of camera they were shot with, WITHOUT that brand information being given to them or otherwise discerned via EXIF or any other means, then it will be a question worth asking.

You actually can, greens appear very differently between Nikon and Canon. It's not hard to spot on unedited images between the higher end models.

Smells like a giant load of BS to me.

1st, who would be showing unedited "FINISHED" images, especially if they're using a higher end model?

2nd, how would you know what hue and luminosity the real-life green was to begin with, in order to discern what the camera may have done to it, let alone what post processing may have done to it?

Back to reality: Show me the people who look at random images printed or online who can pick out the Nikons from the Canons just by viewing the photos.

 

[waday]

 

[W.Y.Photo]

When people can look at the finished photos and identify the brand of camera they were shot with, WITHOUT that brand information being given to them or otherwise discerned via EXIF or any other means, then it will be a question worth asking.

You actually can, greens appear very differently between Nikon and Canon. It's not hard to spot on unedited images between the higher end models.

Smells like a giant load of BS to me.

1st, who would be showing unedited "FINISHED" images, especially if they're using a higher end model?

2nd, how would you know what hue and luminosity the real-life green was to begin with, in order to discern what the camera may have done to it, let alone what post processing may have done to it?

Back to reality: Show me the people who look at random images printed or online who can pick out the Nikons from the Canons just by viewing the photos.

1st off I'm in no way saying that the difference is important or even very noticable.. Just that it is discernible.

1. Well, noone in their right mind, and that's why it doesn't really matter.

2. For anyone who wants to know, all that matters to discern the difference is that the tone of the green in two identical images from a Nikon and a Canon tends to appear darker and more subdued from the Canon (I could have this mixed up it may be the other way around) This is a very slight variation but will appear time and time again if you reproduce the experiment.

So, it is nearly impossible to tell once the image has been processed, but the difference is still a fairly important factor as it is comparable to the differences of color reproduction on film.. The aesthetic of each camera may work better for different sorts of shots, and the RAW data from the greens can slightly affect the way you can process the image. (But in a negligable amount)

So you're right, post processing basically makes that whole variation of color a mute point.

I'd also like to correct myself.. I said they appear very differently, I was being dramatic, they only look slightly different.

I just wanted to throw one technical difference between the two cameras in here.

 

[runnah]

When people can look at the finished photos and identify the brand of camera they were shot with, WITHOUT that brand information being given to them or otherwise discerned via EXIF or any other means, then it will be a question worth asking.

You actually can, greens appear very differently between Nikon and Canon. It's not hard to spot on unedited images between the higher end models.

Smells like a giant load of BS to me.

1st, who would be showing unedited "FINISHED" images, especially if they're using a higher end model?

2nd, how would you know what hue and luminosity the real-life green was to begin with, in order to discern what the camera may have done to it, let alone what post processing may have done to it?

Back to reality: Show me the people who look at random images printed or online who can pick out the Nikons from the Canons just by viewing the photos.

1st off I'm in no way saying that the difference is important or even very noticable.. Just that it is discernible.

1. Well, noone in their right mind, and that's why it doesn't really matter.

2. For anyone who wants to know, all that matters to discern the difference is that the tone of the green in two identical images from a Nikon and a Canon tends to appear darker and more subdued from the Canon (I could have this mixed up it may be the other way around) This is a very slight variation but will appear time and time again if you reproduce the experiment.

So, it is nearly impossible to tell once the image has been processed, but the difference is still a fairly important factor as it is comparable to the differences of color reproduction on film.. The aesthetic of each camera may work better for different sorts of shots, and the RAW data from the greens can slightly affect the way you can process the image. (But in a negligable amount)

So you're right, post processing basically makes that whole variation of color a mute point.

I'd also like to correct myself.. I said they appear very differently, I was being dramatic, they only look slightly different.

I just wanted to throw one technical difference between the two cameras in here.

Balderdash!

I've heard Canon does reds "better" but that is such a subjective, non-quantifiable statement that it holds no water with me.

 

[W.Y.Photo]

Well, It's just what I was taught about the difference back in school. I think some technician ran a bunch of experiments on it after hearing that the camera's sensors interpret greens differently. I remember seeing color charts and whatnot showing that the green of grass was aesthetically different depending on which camera you use.

I agree. The statement that one or the other makes "better" color based of of slight variations is subjective and quite honestly ridiculous due to the camera's ranges of colors that they portray being virtually identical. I do think it's good to consider the differences if you are, say, shooting green objects against a green backdrop or working heavily with the color that shows variation from camera to camera.

 

[gsgary]

yeah, you just look for the one lacking any DR/recovery, or noise at low ISO.

And you can tell it's the plastic look of Nikon shots

 

[gsgary]

Years ago when I shot my 1Dmk1 and then 1Dmk2 you could tell which sports shot were Nikon especially with grass sports

 

[W.Y.Photo]

I can tell the Nikon look in my images because pffft... who'd wanna shoot with Canon?

 

[goodguy]

yeah, you just look for the one lacking any DR/recovery, or noise at low ISO.

What ?
You want to tell me Nikon cameras has sensors which can produce photos with much better Dynamic Range/Recovery and are much cleaner in high ISO?
Wow, I didnt know that, YAY to Nikon LOL

 

[gsgary]

I can tell the Nikon look in my images because pffft... who'd wanna shoot with Canon?

Not me I shoot with Leica and Sony

 

[runnah]

I can tell the Nikon look in my images because pffft... who'd wanna shoot with Canon?

Not me I shoot with Leica and Sony

Never heard of them, any good?