usayit
No longer a newbie, moving up!
- Joined
- Nov 15, 2003
- Messages
- 9,521
- Reaction score
- 347
- Can others edit my Photos
- Photos OK to edit
My feeling is that Canon designers are pretty darn conservative when it comes to producing RAW files. Out of the camera, the RAW files have very little "pop". The files it produces captures an extraordinary amount of detail and information. They make the assumption that a certain amount of post-production adjustment (unsharpen mask, layers, contrast, brightness, color balance etc.) is necessary to take full advantage of what the camera (and lens) has to offer. It leaves a huge amount of control and decision making to the photographer.. not the camera. For me it reminds me of using a B&W enlarger with the least contrast filter. Also, Photographers I have met that are used to shooting slides find this a bit unnerving...
One major example, is the perceived "sharpness". Many have pointed out to me that the RAW files viewed straight from camera don't seem tack sharp. Well.. sharpness is a perception thing all related to the final presentation of the photograph. Different print sizes will require different amount of sharpening and Canon's conservative stance allows the photographer to decide.
On the other hand, we have people who shoot in JPG mode. There is a lot more valid comparisons between camera bodies when comparing files shot in JPG. Each camera will run the capture through an internal processor that sharpens.. adjusts contrast.. balance .etc.. This is where the camera plays a more important role in the final image.
My personal biased opinion, I still prefer what Canon has to offer in both their RAW files and their equipment. It feels comfortable. As for JPG comparison, I rarely shoot in JPG and never made the comparison between Nikon and Canon.
BTW.. I agree.. all this brand pissing contesting is silly... Either brand will offer equipment that 90% will never make us feel "limited". On another board, people were comparing the Epson R-D1 versus the Leica M8 rangefinders. With the price difference of approx $3500 and a name like Leica involved you would think that the thread would be reduced to a pissing contest... it didn't.. in fact many M8 owners expressed the value and performance of the underdog Epson. Perhaps we can learn something from that.
One major example, is the perceived "sharpness". Many have pointed out to me that the RAW files viewed straight from camera don't seem tack sharp. Well.. sharpness is a perception thing all related to the final presentation of the photograph. Different print sizes will require different amount of sharpening and Canon's conservative stance allows the photographer to decide.
On the other hand, we have people who shoot in JPG mode. There is a lot more valid comparisons between camera bodies when comparing files shot in JPG. Each camera will run the capture through an internal processor that sharpens.. adjusts contrast.. balance .etc.. This is where the camera plays a more important role in the final image.
My personal biased opinion, I still prefer what Canon has to offer in both their RAW files and their equipment. It feels comfortable. As for JPG comparison, I rarely shoot in JPG and never made the comparison between Nikon and Canon.
BTW.. I agree.. all this brand pissing contesting is silly... Either brand will offer equipment that 90% will never make us feel "limited". On another board, people were comparing the Epson R-D1 versus the Leica M8 rangefinders. With the price difference of approx $3500 and a name like Leica involved you would think that the thread would be reduced to a pissing contest... it didn't.. in fact many M8 owners expressed the value and performance of the underdog Epson. Perhaps we can learn something from that.
