Nikon D100 and Canon 10D : Saturation and Color issues.

I am about to go into the DSLR market and I have shortlisted these 2

DSLRs. A lab technician who has worked with files from both cameras

told me that he has found that images from the Canon 10D are "more

saturated and better" than those of the D100.

 

Is this true? Does the D100 images need more post-processing to

attain the 10D colors?

 

I don't want a Nikon-Canon war. Please No brand bashing!

Ali, I guess you can check usefull information on www.dpreview.com for digital equipment.

 

Particularly: http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/canoneos10d/page20.asp and http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/nikond100/page18.asp

 

You will be able to make your own conclusions from the pictures provided...

that would depend on how the cameras are set up. the 10D lets you record in either

RAW (the Nikon equivalent is NEF) where the camera/software/firmware does no

image processing, or as a jpeg where there is a lot of image processing? <P>In to be

some sort of color management. The D100 lets you record in either NEF, TIF or JPEG.

And of course there is the issue of sharpening. Turn it off or use one of the preset in

camera levels?<P>In addition, there is the colorspace the user chooses: sRGB is

going to be a lot more saturated (color range is compressed) than Adobe RGB (1998).

More than a few real color management don't think that either Canon or Nikon

actually adhere to the sRGB and Adobe RGB (1998) standards, that they use their own

flavors , particularly in sRGB. So this might be what your guy is seeing. It is also the

reason that most people who really know what they are doing shoot in either the NEF

or RAW format.<P>So the first bottom line is: without knowing how the

photographers in question have set up their cameras and workflows, not to mention

the situations in which they are working, it is impossible to make that judgment.

<P>The second bottom line is; All digital images, whether made with a camera or a

scanner, require post processing. And of course, to do that well, you need a

calibrated and profiled monitor so that what you are seeing on screen is an accurate

depiction of the data that is in your files.<P>You could also look at the question

conversely; Do Canon 10D images need more post processing to attain Nikon D100

colors?<P>

My question is can you live without a spot meter? The 10D doesn't have one.

I can live without a spot meter, as it has Partial Metering.

I've never used either of the cameras you mention above, but it strikes me that images without to much contrast or saturation, would offer more detail and be far better to work with in post processing, providing the lens is good and sharp.

I have a 10D.

 

The real question is "What lens system do you want to buy?"

 

The lenses you hang on the body and the flash unit you stick on top will make or break your images. You will also keep the lenses and flash longer than the body.

 

In terms of post processing: Consensus is that the 10D does little to no sharpening in the body, all images seem to need a healthy dose of USM to make them shine. I hardly ever make color adjustments. Low light (dark) detail is amazing. You can really "dig" stuff out of dark spots if you try (or need to).

Many people emailed me asking about my final selection! Just wanted to clarify that I made an error in my original post. In fact, I posted this for a friend who is about to go into the DSLR market and I had shortlisted these 2 cameras for him. He does not have access to the internet , so I was just helping him out there!

Thanks all for you very valuable answers. The final decision rest in the hands of my friend. DSLRs still WAY TOO EXPENSIVE for me!:-(