Thoughts on differences between Canon and Nikon DSLR image quality--specific!

[LizardKing]

Alright guys. Didn't mean to start all this discussion. I always forget how people tend to overreact and create a big deal out of nothing in phorums.
I won't argue with you, since you all seem to have way more experience than me and I'm not even in disagreement.

Now, I could be wrong, but I definitely believe that -in photography- you get what you pay. Kit lenses are fine, but there's a whole bunch of lenses out there better than the kit lenses, and sometimes they're not even that much more expensive.

It all depends on the needs and budget of the OP.

Regards,
LizardKing

 

[fjrabon]

Now, I could be wrong, but I definitely believe that -in photography- you get what you pay. Kit lenses are fine, but there's a whole bunch of lenses out there better than the kit lenses, and sometimes they're not even that much more expensive.

So, you get what you pay for, except some times? Im not really sure what any of what you're saying even means now. If you're saying more expensive = better quality, which is what your first statement means, then you're just wrong. Like I said earlier, the main reason the kit lens is cheap is because they make a lot of them. The main reason the 10-24 wide angle zoom is $1000 is because they don't make very many of them. It's a well known concept. Economies of scale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

 

[KmH]

Kit lens is really a misnomer, because kit lenses are just consumer grade lenses.

Camera makers usually have 3 grades of lenses: Consumer, Prosumer, and Professional.

All 3 grades of lenses have technical limitations the photographer has to be aware of and work within.

No doubt, camera makers make many more consumer grade lenses, than prosumer lenses, than professional lenses.

In fact, the camera makers make the vast majority of their total photography gear sales revenue, and profits, from all the less expensive consumer grade gear they sell.

 

[fjrabon]

Kit lens is really a misnoner, because kit lenses are just consumer grade lenses.

Camera makers usually have 3 grades of lenses: Consumer, Prosumer, and Professional.

All 3 grades of lenses have technical limitations the photographer has to be aware of and work within.

No doubt, camera makers make many more consumer grade lenses, than prosumer lenses, than professional lenses.

In fact, the camera makers make the vast majority of their total photography gear sales revenue, and profits, from all the less expensive consumer grade gear they sell.

yeah, I mean if he was comparing the kit lens to like a $3,000 pro grade lens, that's another matter. My main issue was he was comparing them to other more expensive consumer grade lenses, notably the 50mm f/1.8 prime. Which is a good lens and all, but not like categorically different. Same deal with the D7000. It's a consumer grade camera, it has more features, but it's not going to run circles around a D5100, like he tended to imply. And it makes 0 difference image wise, since the D7000 actually uses the same exact sensor as the D5100.

 

[LizardKing]

I never compared the kit lens to any other particular lens. Maybe you should re-read that carefully.
But now, since you talk about the 50mm... I don't think the f/1.4G is a consumer lens... isn't it? but yet again, I could be wrong.

Of course you are loosing the zoom capabilities, but the price's similar and no matter what you say I don't agree the IQ of this 50mm is the same as a kit lens set to 50mm.
I'm aware I'm just starting and am nothing but a beginner to all this, but if you're telling me that a kit lens at the 50mm has the same IQ than a prime 50mm f/1.4... I just don't agree.

Anyway, doesn't make any sense for me to keep this discussion.
Have a nice day!

Regards,
LizardKing

 

[fjrabon]

I never compared the kit lens to any other particular lens. Maybe you should re-read that carefully.
But now, since you talk about the 50mm... I don't think the f/1.4G is a consumer lens... isn't it? but yet again, I could be wrong.

Of course you are loosing the zoom capabilities, but the price's similar and no matter what you say I don't agree the IQ of this 50mm is the same as a kit lens set to 50mm.
I'm aware I'm just starting and am nothing but a beginner to all this, but if you're telling me that a kit lens at the 50mm has the same IQ than a prime 50mm f/1.4... I just don't agree.

Anyway, doesn't make any sense for me to keep this discussion.
Have a nice day!

Regards,
LizardKing

the 50mm f1.8 is consumer grade. the f/1.4 is semi-pro. However, the 50mm f1.4 doesn't fall into what you were talking about with "slightly more expensive than the kit lens" since it's like 3 times as expensive as the kit lens. BUt even the 50mm f/1.4, the biggest thing you're paying for is the f stop number. at f/8 you'll have a lot of trouble telling the 50mm f/1.4 from the f/1.8 or even the kit lens set at 50mm.

I'm not saying the image quality is the exact same, just that you won't really be able to tell the difference at normal apertures. THe reason it's more expensive isn't IQ, it's the aperture and the fact that fewer are made.

 

[Nikon_Josh]

Now, I could be wrong, but I definitely believe that -in photography- you get what you pay. Kit lenses are fine, but there's a whole bunch of lenses out there better than the kit lenses, and sometimes they're not even that much more expensive.

So, you get what you pay for, except some times? Im not really sure what any of what you're saying even means now. If you're saying more expensive = better quality, which is what your first statement means, then you're just wrong. Like I said earlier, the main reason the kit lens is cheap is because they make a lot of them. The main reason the 10-24 wide angle zoom is $1000 is because they don't make very many of them. It's a well known concept. Economies of scale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

This is interesting, I haven't really thought of it in this way before! It is true that optics wise, consumer grade lenses are pretty darn good.

But well of course build quality and a wide aperture play a part too? Not to mention R and D??

It is highly complex to design 2.8 zooms for example, the 70-200 2.8 is a design masterpiece from Nikon and I think its expense is in part because of the R and D and tank like build quality! But I can see what you mean, alot less 70-200's will be built and sold than 55-300's for example.

 

[djacobox372]

I never compared the kit lens to any other particular lens. Maybe you should re-read that carefully.
But now, since you talk about the 50mm... I don't think the f/1.4G is a consumer lens... isn't it? but yet again, I could be wrong.

Of course you are loosing the zoom capabilities, but the price's similar and no matter what you say I don't agree the IQ of this 50mm is the same as a kit lens set to 50mm.
I'm aware I'm just starting and am nothing but a beginner to all this, but if you're telling me that a kit lens at the 50mm has the same IQ than a prime 50mm f/1.4... I just don't agree.

Anyway, doesn't make any sense for me to keep this discussion.
Have a nice day!

Regards,
LizardKing

the 50mm f1.8 is consumer grade. the f/1.4 is semi-pro. However, the 50mm f1.4 doesn't fall into what you were talking about with "slightly more expensive than the kit lens" since it's like 3 times as expensive as the kit lens. BUt even the 50mm f/1.4, the biggest thing you're paying for is the f stop number. at f/8 you'll have a lot of trouble telling the 50mm f/1.4 from the f/1.8 or even the kit lens set at 50mm.

I'm not saying the image quality is the exact same, just that you won't really be able to tell the difference at normal apertures. THe reason it's more expensive isn't IQ, it's the aperture and the fact that fewer are made.

Prime lenses break the "three grades theory," there are only two grades with prime lenses, consumer and pro. Macro lenses break this theory even more, with there typically being only one version available.

 

[fjrabon]

Prime lenses break the "three grades theory," there are only two grades with prime lenses, consumer and pro. Macro lenses break this theory even more, with there typically being only one version available.

It's true in the sense that you're really not going to get a better 50mm prime than the f/1.4 but build quality wise it's closer to Nikon's consumer grade than it is the pro grade lenses. While pros use the 50mm f/1.4, I don't really think of it as pro grade, it's just the better 50mm prime Nikon makes. I actually think Sigma makes the best quality 50mm prime out there, the one that it seems like most pros use if they use a 50mm prime a lot.

 

[skieur]

Hi all,

My first post here, so, hi.
Has anyone else noticed the image difference between Canon and Nikon as far as color and sharpness goes?

Thanks for you thoughts!

Sure if you put Canon and Nikon images of the same controlled conditions photo side by side, you will discover that the Canon image is slightly sharper BUT with more picture noise and that the Nikon image is slightly LESS sharp but with LESS picture noise. Either problem can be worked around in postprocessing.

In the area of colour Nikon tends to be warmer toward orange and Canon tends to be cooler toward blue and grey. Again, though this can easily be adjusted in post.

skieur

 

[fjrabon]

Hi all,

My first post here, so, hi.
Has anyone else noticed the image difference between Canon and Nikon as far as color and sharpness goes?

Thanks for you thoughts!

Sure if you put Canon and Nikon images of the same controlled conditions photo side by side, you will discover that the Canon image is slightly sharper BUT with less picture noise and that the Nikon image is slightly LESS sharp but with more picture noise. Either problem can be worked around in postprocessing.

skieur

did you mean canon is sharper but has more noise?

 

[skieur]

Hi all,

My first post here, so, hi.
Has anyone else noticed the image difference between Canon and Nikon as far as color and sharpness goes?

Thanks for you thoughts!

Sure if you put Canon and Nikon images of the same controlled conditions photo side by side, you will discover that the Canon image is slightly sharper BUT with less picture noise and that the Nikon image is slightly LESS sharp but with more picture noise. Either problem can be worked around in postprocessing.

skieur

did you mean canon is sharper but has more noise?

OOPS! I edited it. Canon is sharper but has more noise.

skieur

 

[usinjin]

No way that can be fixed in Photoshop. I better sell off all my Canon gear and buy Nikon before the whole photographic world figures this out and the Canon stuff devalues so much that it will be absolutely worthless.

Thanks for the heads up!

That's a little unfair to the OP. I think what he was saying is that he prefers the way Nikon chooses autoexposure. Which is kind of valid. If you're choosing between two cameras and one chooses the exposure you like without fiddling with it, then I think that's a legitimate reason to prefer one brand over the other. Sure, if you completely equalize the settings between the two cameras, you get virtually identical images, but part of what you're paying for is how it autoexposes, unless you always​ shoot 100% manual. He also stated very clearly it was a preference, as opposed to him saying that Nikon was categorically better. Kind of a straw man you're going after here.

Sorry, but he never mentioned auto-exposure, nor would have mattered if he had. His opening post is a litany of subjective comments that culminate in, "there's a fairly noticeable difference between them", followed by a quest for a software upgrade to his Canon to make the photos come out like a Nikon. The bottom line: This is yet another Noob Nikon vs. Canon thread, with a subjective preference of one over the other, as if there really is one to speak of.

Looking at the direct comparison page, he reinforces his original post by stating again that he likes the Nikon shot better. Fine with me, but I just ain't seeing it, especially not with the knowledge that the image file from either camera is just step 3 in a much longer series of steps from conception to final product in making a photograph. As a contributive step towards the final product, this step means VERY LITTLE to the end result. Feel free to disagree, but hear me out.

Yeah, there are subtle differences, especially if you go the actual page and drill down to pixel peep it. There, we find that in some areas of the photo toward the rear, the Nikon is sharper, while in other areas toward the front, the Canon is sharper. In the sweet spot between them, there's no difference that I can detect. Again, that's at pixel peeping level AND that's before any kind of sharpening is applied in post, which it certainly will need to be, no matter which DSLR is being used. As for color and saturation, it's so minimally different that it's a matter of no significance whatsoever, especially since the images still have to go through processing of some sort to be usable.

And let's talk about that a little bit, while we're at it. For anyone who's THAT anal about the minimal differences we're talking about here, why in the world would they NOT shoot RAW and NOT post-process them with Photoshop, Lightroom, aperture, or some equivalent software? And as soon as you drop that RAW file into the processing phase of making a photograph, those minor differences don't mean boot as you work it to your subjective level of perfection, including any and all subtleties in color, sharpening and all the rest of it. I'm not talking about spending hours on it either; I'm talking bout minimal, standard adjustments that are the norm for any image processing from a DSLR. If he cares THAT MUCH that these subtle differences are really bothering him enough to seek out a software upgrade for his Canon camera to make it produce Nikon RAW images, then he's going to care ENOUGH to tweak his images in post, just like we all do.

The infinitesimally small differences here at camera file step between two similarly capable cameras by the two major manufacturers mean NOTHING to that overall process, and the end results he's seeing of finished photos are the subjective results of the photographers making the images he's looking at via their own preferred processing techniques. Keith nailed that aspect of the situation much more succinctly, but I'm happy to expound upon it here.

The whole Canon vs. Nikon "controversy" is some of the dumbest bullspit in photography conversations that can be found, as far as I'm concerned. The differences are negligible to the point of silliness, and this is just another one.

YMMV

You're right. I really wasn't that clear. I'm a noob, can't help it.

I really didn't mean to imply that a minor detail in a photo meant to me that Canon was inferior to Nikon. I really just wanted to point out some differences I'd noticed and discuss it with some more camera-savvy people. I have no intention of getting rid of my Canon gear at all. I just want to learn more about some of the finer details between the cameras from the two companies. I understand the differences are very subtle, and really are a matter of preference. I'm not trying to ask "which one's better."

Also, I'm not about to go all "which lens is better", but it was helpful to hear some lens recommendations so thanks all for those.

That's all.

 

[Dao]

OP, the color different sometimes is because of how the camera was tuned (In JPEG output only). You can adjust your camera settings to make the color of the photo more vivid right out from the camera if you shoot jpeg.

Of course, you may notice that there are different pre-defined profiles you can choose such as Portrait, Landscape ... etc.

Camera ouput different sometimes not just varies from Brand to Brand. When Nikon D40 was released, some reviews said the output color is more vivid than the previous models such as D70/70s and D50.

 

[LizardKing]

the 50mm f1.8 is consumer grade. the f/1.4 is semi-pro. However, the 50mm f1.4 doesn't fall into what you were talking about with "slightly more expensive than the kit lens" since it's like 3 times as expensive as the kit lens. BUt even the 50mm f/1.4, the biggest thing you're paying for is the f stop number. at f/8 you'll have a lot of trouble telling the 50mm f/1.4 from the f/1.8 or even the kit lens set at 50mm.

I'm not saying the image quality is the exact same, just that you won't really be able to tell the difference at normal apertures. THe reason it's more expensive isn't IQ, it's the aperture and the fact that fewer are made.

I agree with you... maybe IQ is not the best word to describe what I was saying... My mistake...
I was trying to say that, using in the wider apertures (let's say from 1.4 to 4, at least), you can take pictures you can't even dream of with a kit lens. Specially in low-light conditions. You have also a better quality in the construction and optics, I believe. And the price's not 3 times... A kit lens is about 300U$s I believe, and I bought a new Nikon 50mm f/1.4G for 475U$s... If I remember correctly, I've even seen some kit lenses that were about 400-500U$s.

About the camera discussion, after reading several reviews here in this phorum and all over the internet... I believe the D7000 is the best choice, if you don't want to go full frame. D5100 and D90 are, for example, great camera... But if you're upgrading from a Rebel, maybe D7000 is a better choice. That will leave you closer to the full frames, for a future upgrade.