Is there a difference between Nikon pics and Canon pics?

[Lee510]

Do the images between different camera brands come out looking different if the same scene was taken under the exact same conditions (lighting, etc) and settings (f-stop, shutter speed, etc)? And, if so, are these looks recognizable? I.e. could someone spot a picture taken with a Nikon, versus a Canon?

 

[Big Mike]

could someone spot a picture taken with a Nikon, versus a Canon?

Probably not...unless some specific in-camera settings were applied that someone could recognize. And the lens has just as much (or more) to do with how an image looks, than the camera.

When you see a house, can tell if the builders used Stanley or DeWalt tools to build it? Definitely not...but you could probably tell if they were a master craftsman or not.

 

[Overread]

even within the same brand different cameras will give a different end product - even different lenses will give differing results.
As for telling which camera took what picture - heck no way is that possible just be looking at a photo - especaily on the net.

 

[Lee510]

even within the same brand different cameras will give a different end product - even different lenses will give differing results.

Could you guys elaborate on this? What differences are there? And how do these differences manifest themselves visually? Thanks!

 

[Big Mike]

Cameras & lenses, like any other precision instrument have tolerances. One camera might slightly overexpose while another camera (the same model) might slightly underexpose. They might both pass inspection if they are within the set tolerance.
Now apply that same theory to the lens, the electronics and everything else and you might end up with slightly different photos from seemingly identical set ups.

I would think that it's a very minor issue and not something to be concerned about.

 

[Overread]

visually a top range camera - like a canon 1d - will give you a cleaner and sharper image than a lower end rebel camera. Also pro len glass (lenses) will do similar as well.
There will also be minor differences in contrast and saturation as well.

that is assuming that in camera processing is kept off - with it on even more differnces are possible with the cameras.
In the end though its not anything really to worry about save that better kit will help give you more improved image results in the form of sharper and clearer (less noise) images. That is it at its most basic.

 

[sarahp]

Just a few things that popped to mind immediately -

ISO. An entry-level dSLR is going to have visible noise even at lower ISOs - like 400. Higher ISOs will show noise to the point that the image quality is greatly effected. The higher end/pro cameras, otoh, will show much less noise at every level and be more usable at higher ISOs....regardless of the lens being used.

Different cameras also vary in the number of available focus points. So, you could have a camera that only has 3 or 5 focus points, and a camera that has 50+. The same shot could come out completely different b/c the higher end camera is going to be able to pinpoint a much more specific focus point.

Lenses...well the difference can be the earth and the sky. A kit lens that runs f/5.6, even if it's set at 50mm won't give you the same rockin' bokeh you would get from a 50mm prime lens - like a 1.8 or a 1.4 - b/c of the difference in aperture settings. (Bokeh, if you're not familiar, is the term for the blurred out background in a photo.) The speed of the lenses (smaller f#, faster lens) also effects ISO & shutter speed, so really, that can make a world of difference when it comes to how the photo is actually taken.

 

[Lee510]

Thanks for the replies. I ask because I look at some of the pics on this forum, and they look so incredibly gorgeous (exposure, lighting,etc) that I wonder if that can be achieved with a low-end camera/lens. While my skill level is beginner, I'd like to think someday I would be able to take great looking photos without having to dish out big money for higher end equipment.

I realize it's the guy (or gal) behind the camera that makes the most difference in creating great photos, but at some point the equipment has got to matter, right?

 

[mrodgers]

....heck no way is that possible just be looking at a photo - especaily on the net.

Actually, I have seen many people here who were amazed when someone in-the-know started telling the OP what camera, aperture, shutter.... was used when the OP posted a photo on the net

 

[Big Mike]

Actually, I have seen many people here who were amazed when someone in-the-know started telling the OP what camera, aperture, shutter.... was used when the OP posted a photo on the net

There are applications that you can install that allow you to read EXIF info of images, if it's still attached to the image.

 

[SrBiscuit]

usually the better pics are taken with a nikon.







i kid, i kid.

 

[Overread]

Actually, I have seen many people here who were amazed when someone in-the-know started telling the OP what camera, aperture, shutter.... was used when the OP posted a photo on the net

yah but that is cheating

if anyone is interested Opera internet browser reads Exif as standard in photo files

 

[tirediron]

An image captured by a Nikon will be indistinguishable from one shot with a comparable Canon under identical circumstances using equivalent lenses. Where differences do manifest themselves in the quality of the lens used (An image captured with a $150 kit lens is unlikely to be as sharp, or 'contrasty' as one captured with a $1500 lens. Likewise some bodies have particular strengths; the D3 & D700 are renowned for their amazing high-ISO performance, while the 5D Mk II allows for huge enlargements because of its high resolution.