Input please: Another Cannon v. Nikon debate... with a twist.

[Soocom1]

OK. So most who have read my posts know that I have had a hard time lately, but have been getting inspired (pushed) by a friend to do her wedding.
I was hesatant especially given recent equipment problems with all my cameras and lenses, making flat and quite frankly uninteresting phots.

So to help (inspire) me, she let me borrow her Nikon D300 for a week and try it out.

What I did was take both my 1D MkIIn and my 5D and put them against the D300, taking the same image. The end result so far has been that the Nikon is reproducing skin tones much more lifelike and natural, whereas the Canon is hitting earth tones almost dead spot on.

The color profiles are obviously different and the WAY that the two companies render color is obviously different with different parameters.

I am starting to become more convinced but hesitant to either work with or completely switch out from Canon to Nikon. I will do more, but here is what I am asking ya'll.

From personal experience ONLY, what has anyone experienced with similar situations.. Pitting a canon v. a Nikon and the result?

The first is the Nikon. The second Canon (1D MKII N).

The cameras both were set to their respective "neutral" settings.

The Canon is washed out. But the trees were pretty close to that paleness.

 

[nokk]

the canon image as a whole looks brighter than the nikon. adjust your exposure settings so the exposures match more closely, otherwise they're not really comparable. the nikon skin looks a little too peachy to me. the canon skin looks overexposed.

if you want great skin tones straight out of camera go with fuji and shoot jpg. otherwise i don't really see enough difference between raw files from anyone (not just your images here) to choose one brand over another based on the look of the raw file. try a different profile in the raw editor, adobe standard or the default profile isn't always the best option.

 

[photoflyer]

I shoot Canon, but honestly, any brand, attached to good glass, in the hands of a skilled shooter can produce good and comparable results.

In post I spend a lot of time on details that I know full well in the end if the subject and composition aren't interesting simply do not matter.

 

[Original katomi]

Don’t know about weddings
IMO I would stick to the camera I know and can use without thinking where is.....button

 

[jcdeboever]

As said by above but not mentioned... what is the Canon Color Profile on? Try Neutral. Additionally, WB seems off a little on the Canon but could be my PC monitor as I haven't calibrated lately.

 

[weepete]

I also think your exposures are different here. What was the exposure settings for each shot?

I wonder if what you are seeing is differences in the metering more than the colour rendition here. I'd suggest putting both cameras on manual, and using the same exposure settings to evaluate it.

My experience with my 5Dmkiv is that the colour accuracy is very accurate, though I do know that Nikon can capture slightly more detail in the red channel.

 

[Strodav]

Nikon designs their own sensors and, IMHO produce the best stills IQ out there. If you look at independent testing, Nikon always comes out on top in terms of sensor performance. I know Nikon has Sony and others make their sensors for them, but for their higher end cameras, they are Nikon's designs. You can find several articles talking about the color space differences between the 3 major manufacturers and most of them say Nikon does a great job with flesh tones, but tends to over emphasize saturated reds. You can build your own color profiles in, say, Lightroom to calibrate your cameras to your preferred standard.

 

[Rickbb]

I don’t think brands can be compared like this, outside of a well equipped lab away. I’ve stood beside my daughter shooting the exact same scene with the exact same equipment and we get different results. Sometimes hers are better, sometimes mine are. My brother and his son shoot cannon and have done the same thing.

If your Cannon has started giving bad results and didn’t used to, maybe it’s time for a tuneup/service.

 

[Strodav]

Here's an interesting video by Tony Northrup on the differences in color science between the major camera brands.

 

[Soocom1]

Well to everyone, the settings were exactly the same on both cameras (to their respective systems that is.)

I tried it again on my dogs inside and saw little difference with flash, but outside it was substantial.

It could very well be that the camera is getting long on the tooth. But for my purposes, I am going to stick with this wedding with the Nikon and use the Canon as a backup.

 

[Dave Maciak]

I shoot Canon, but honestly, any brand, attached to good glass, in the hands of a skilled shooter can produce good and comparable results.

In post I spend a lot of time on details that I know full well in the end if the subject and composition aren't interesting simply do not matter.

Agree---it's the golfer not the club makes the diff!

 

[greybeard]

I think you could easily match the Canon to Nikon in PP. Shoot the camera you know best.

 

[mrca]

Do you think the bride could tell the difference in color rendering even with 2 photos side by side? Doubtful. I'd be less concerned with what the camera can do as opposed to your ability to consistently capture well exposed shots under difficult low light conditions and fast paced, suddenly appearing shots. Have you ever shot a wedding? Be aware, there are no do overs, blow or miss shots and they can't be repeated, gone for ever. You don't say if you are being paid. If so, do you have a contract? In CA before I left, 2 guys shot weddings and screwed them up and each was hit with a $40,000 judgment. I doubt they had insurance much less e&o. You don't say where the wedding/reception if one, is taking place. Is there low light and flash allowed in the church? If not, do you have fast enough glass and a camera with high enough useable ISO to capture well exposed shots with no camera shake/subject movement? Do you know how to use on camera flash? Cameras/lenses don't make flat uninteresting photos, the photographer does. One of my most awarded photos was taken with a 10 mp d200 and one of nikons 10 worst lenses per ken Rockwell. Can you get good exposure consistently? The above 2 shots look like they were taken with full control and plenty of time but one is over exposed. How are you metering? All that white snow and dark clothes could have fooled your meter. It's why I spot meter/focus on below the eye on caucasian skin then add 2/3 stop of light. Shooting a wedding is one of the most challenging things to shoot yet novice shooters don't realize the difficulty and that's not even expecting stunning photos, just sharp well exposed that if aren't captured is clearly less that a standard a court would find acceptable. Not trying to discourage you, just want you to know the skill level needed, minimum equipment requirements and the caution that a wedding isn't capable of a do over. I had a group of friends from a photo group that thought with 5 of them shooting the wedding, certainly they would get all the shots needed. Wrong, not a flash among them, kit lenses that wouldn't go below 3.5. Nearly every shot was blurry or underexposed or both. And it kicked one ladies butt so bad, she couldn't walk the next day. You might want to find out the church/reception locations, go there and see if you can get shots. If you can't then decline the shoot and avoid having disappointed a friend.

 

[Dave Maciak]

OK. So most who have read my posts know that I have had a hard time lately, but have been getting inspired (pushed) by a friend to do her wedding.
I was hesatant especially given recent equipment problems with all my cameras and lenses, making flat and quite frankly uninteresting phots.

So to help (inspire) me, she let me borrow her Nikon D300 for a week and try it out.

What I did was take both my 1D MkIIn and my 5D and put them against the D300, taking the same image. The end result so far has been that the Nikon is reproducing skin tones much more lifelike and natural, whereas the Canon is hitting earth tones almost dead spot on.

The color profiles are obviously different and the WAY that the two companies render color is obviously different with different parameters.

I am starting to become more convinced but hesitant to either work with or completely switch out from Canon to Nikon. I will do more, but here is what I am asking ya'll.

From personal experience ONLY, what has anyone experienced with similar situations.. Pitting a canon v. a Nikon and the result?

The first is the Nikon. The second Canon (1D MKII N).

The cameras both were set to their respective "neutral" settings.

The Canon is washed out. But the trees were pretty close to that paleness.

A clear winner

 

[Peeb]

Photography (for me) is a combination of both the user experience and the end result. If you are shooting for yourself, these are equally important, with perhaps the experience being even more important than the final image. If you are shooting for others, then the quality of the image must be your priority. Ergonomically, the differences between canon and nikon are minimal to me (remembering which direction to twist the lenses to mount, and/or zoom being the biggest). You appear to love the Nikon. If you are still pondering this some 2 months down the road (since OP), then my counsel is to go with Nikon, that you seem to prefer. Both are competent, but you like the Nikon images better. Use the gear that makes the images you want, since you want to make images for others.