Ok, a bit confused here... Come on in Canon and Nikon folk...

[Dominantly]

Pull up a chair.


OK, so the only Canon I have ever owned (and still do) is the S5 IS. It's a great little camera, the macro work it can do makes it well worth the price all by itself. When I graduated up to a DSLR, I went Nikon. I personally enjoy the feel of them, and the cameras controls just feel more intuitive to me. I am currently shooting with a Nikon D90.



Now that I got that out of the way, the reason I am posting is because this afternoon I went to Best Buy and while I was there I picked up the Canon 50D that was on display, and I took a few shots.:meh: First thing I noticed was the color reproduction on the LCD display. The shots looked pretty damn good. I took various shots and was pretty amazed at the color and clarity I was seeing in camera. I will say though, while the colors look good, the camera reaffirmed my original dislike of the controls/layout.

NOW, it just so happened there was a D90 right next to it, I put down the 50D and took some shots of the same objects with the D90, and while it looked good, it just didn't have the same pop on the LCD.

Both were being shot wide open in Aperture Priority.



Now for the discussion, is it true (because I just did some reading) that Canon's are known for great reproduction of colors?
Anyone else experience something like this?

 

[PhotoXopher]

It's just the JPG preview, you can tweak all that in camera if you wish. Boost saturation, sharpness, contrast, etc.

 

[Derrel]

LCD color rendering is not what counts. Not sure if you had a chance to see this thread http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...-should-i-get-nikon-d3s-canon-1d-mark-iv.html

that had a head-to-head comparison of two cameras, a Nikon D3s and the Canon 1D Mark IV; both cameras were shot in JPEG mode, at factory default color settings, and used indoors under lower light levels.

The images are right out of the camera were shown--on video--but there was a decided difference in the overall "look" of the out of camera JPEG files.

One really,really needs to be aware that for a period of over a year, ONLY Nikon and Sony were making d-slr cameras with the new 920,000-dot LCD monitors, so when the Nikon D300 and Sony Alpha 700 cameras hit the market, Canon and Pentax, and even the older pro Nikon D2Xs and the pro-level Canon bodies were all using the older, much lower-quality 230,000 dot LCD screens. At that time, the LCD quality on the D300 and the Sony literally blew ALL the other cameras out of the water, in both pure detail resolving power, and in overall appearance.

I have yet to see an LCD that's as good as a profiled monitor, which is where I evaluate my shots. Both the D90 and the 50D use a 3 inch 920,000 dot Clear View LCD screen. Did you happen to compare any images on the *same* device???

 

[Dominantly]

So you are you saying that the 50D possibly had color/contrast enhancements adjusted in camera, OR that you could compensate by boosting the color in the D90?

I probably should have put the D90 in Vivid and compared it.

 

[Dominantly]

LCD color rendering is not what counts. Not sure if you had a chance to see this thread http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...-should-i-get-nikon-d3s-canon-1d-mark-iv.html

that had a head-to-head comparison of two cameras, a Nikon D3s and the Canon 1D Mark IV; both cameras were shot in JPEG mode, at factory default color settings, and used indoors under lower light levels.

The images are right out of the camera were shown--on video--but there was a decided difference in the overall "look" of the out of camera JPEG files.

One really,really needs to be aware that for a period of over a year, ONLY Nikon and Sony were making d-slr cameras with the new 920,000-dot LCD monitors, so when the Nikon D300 and Sony Alpha 700 cameras hit the market, Canon and Pentax, and even the older pro Nikon D2Xs and the pro-level Canon bodies were all using the older, much lower-quality 230,000 dot LCD screens. At that time, the LCD quality on the D300 and the Sony literally blew ALL the other cameras out of the water, in both pure detail resolving power, and in overall appearance.

I have yet to see an LCD that's as good as a profiled monitor, which is where I evaluate my shots. Both the D90 and the 50D use a 3 inch 920,000 dot Clear View LCD screen. Did you happen to compare any images on the *same* device???

I read something that said all Canon 3" LCDs prior to the 50D sucked, even on the $8,000 1Ds MkIII.
I wish I had been able to capture and save images to bring back home for comparison on my computer. If the Canon took SD cards I would go back and do just exactly that, but I believe they are CF only.

 

[PhotoXopher]

They are both processing the JPG files differently from the factory, that's the big difference you're seeing right now. I think the default on the D90 is 'Standard'.

 

[Dominantly]

Now I'm supremely interested in what the results would be on my PC.

 

[Derrel]

I always joke, "I'm the worlds' greatest photographer on the LCD!" Pictures often look great on the LCD. Slightly blurred shots look great! Slightly OOF shots look awesome!
The way the image looks on the LCD can be very deceptive: if the brighness is cranked up on the LCD, images look one way; if it is set to minimum brightness, images look another way. One or two years ago, there was a HUGE, really widespread problem of newbies who were using the LCD image as an exposure guide, and were shooting pics, evaluating based on the LCD's "look" and were then either grossly over-exposing or grossly under-exposing, because they had the LCD brightness turned too low in the first case, or had it cranked way up in brightness.

The way an image looks on the LCD of a camera probably has more to do with spontaneous camera sales and split-second purchasing decisions than we realize, at least among buyers who have no leaning one way or the other way. I think the camera makers are probably somewhat aware that a little bit more "juiced" LCD image will probably make the average Best Buy or Fry's camera buyer give one camera the nod over a competing model. A lot of camera sales is based on first-glance types of decisions.

 

[Moe]

I should have probably looked for the source of this before posting, but anyway...I remember reading something somewhere that said Canon's default settings are more saturated and sharper than Nikon's. This makes the Canon default jpegs look better to the average buyer than Nikon's. Seems you may have taken the bait, or at least you were tempted. I'm betting the RAWs wouldn't be as drastically different.

Take your memory card to Best Buy and take some shots in RAW on the Canon and bring them home. Keep us posted.

 

[matfoster]

The way an image looks on the LCD of a camera probably has more to do with spontaneous camera sales and split-second purchasing decisions than we realize, at least among buyers who have no leaning one way or the other way. I think the camera makers are probably somewhat aware that a little bit more "juiced" LCD image will probably make the average Best Buy or Fry's camera buyer give one camera the nod over a competing model. A lot of camera sales is based on first-glance types of decisions.

yes. good point. also, in reverse - they sometimes sell devices this way - the brochure graphics..no way was that LCD image taken on that camera/cellphone ;-)

 

[Dominantly]

Makes sense.
Derrel, I am also the worlds best photographer on the LCD, I know exactly of what you speak

I think it would be best to make all opinions on raw photos seen on the same computer screen, but I don't have the resources.

 

[inTempus]

You can't judge a cameras image quality by the LCD panel on the back. They're not color calibrated and what you see will not, under close inspection, look like it will on a color calibrated monitor.

The LCD panel on the 50D is nicer looking than the D90 IMHO. It really get's even better once you step up to the 7D or especially the 1D4... but that's really not important as few people measure the quality of the camera by the LCD images. It's really not all that important in the grand scheme of things.

The D90 will produce exceptionally high quality images. Side by side on a computer monitor you won't see much difference between the 50D and the D90 in terms of image quality. Technically speaking the D90 has better image quality, but that's on DXO charts and not in the human eye where the difference isn't something you'll see.

With all of that said, get the D90 if you like the controls better. Don't worry about image quality, the D90 has the best image quality of anything Nikon makes below the D700.

 

[lvcrtrs]

I always joke, "I'm the worlds' greatest photographer on the LCD!" Pictures often look great on the LCD. Slightly blurred shots look great! Slightly OOF shots look awesome!
The way the image looks on the LCD can be very deceptive: if the brighness is cranked up on the LCD, images look one way; QUOTE]

:smileys:

+1
I am truley laughing my you know what off. I love this thread. I was down the Conowingo and over heard some photog say pictures never look as good as they do on the screen. Someone else overheard it and I then heard them say "that guy said...". I'm thinking it's news for a lot of people. For me you are giveing validation that I am not crazy. Thank you.

 

[DaveAllen]

The difference in actual image quality out of the sensor between those two cameras is so slight most people would never see the difference. I personally prefer the D90...

 

[Dominantly]

You can't judge a cameras image quality by the LCD panel on the back. They're not color calibrated and what you see will not, under close inspection, look like it will on a color calibrated monitor.

The LCD panel on the 50D is nicer looking than the D90 IMHO. It really get's even better once you step up to the 7D or especially the 1D4... but that's really not important as few people measure the quality of the camera by the LCD images. It's really not all that important in the grand scheme of things.

The D90 will produce exceptionally high quality images. Side by side on a computer monitor you won't see much difference between the 50D and the D90 in terms of image quality. Technically speaking the D90 has better image quality, but that's on DXO charts and not in the human eye where the difference isn't something you'll see.

With all of that said, get the D90 if you like the controls better. Don't worry about image quality, the D90 has the best image quality of anything Nikon makes below the D700.

Thanks for the post, I appreciate your input on this as I know you've got quite some experience with Canon.
I already own the D90. I was actually shopping for lenses and a flash yesterday and picked up the 50D on a whim. I just wanted to post about it because I wanted to know more about the difference I saw in store.
When shopping for my D90 I had also picked it up, but never shot it (that store didn't have a power connection for it).