colors of canon more vivid ??

hi all,

 

I (as many others) am troubled with making a decision between canon

and nikon DSLR.

I found a refurbished canon 10D on the net for roughly same price as

nikon D70s.

 

At first I was as good as convinced as on getting the D70s, but after

some more surfing I came upon this article with a comparison between

the 2 camera's which left me doubting again.

 

http://galleriet.akam.no/album154

 

I find that the canon has more vivid colors but less detail, whereas

the nikon is the opposite, less color but more detail.

I also find that the colors of the canon give a more "pro" like feel

to the photo's. So canon's color range is either more then that of

nikon or the photo's are just edited with photoshop or are suped up

by some other means.

 

I personaly find the canon colors more striking.

I did tons of research between the 2 and found that there is really

not that big a difference

-ISO setting canon 100-3200 vs nikon 200-1600,

-max shutter Canon 1/4000 vs nikon 1/8000 (though I will hardly find

myself using 1/8000)

-and weight of canon being aproxx 200gr. heavier.

-max pixelsensors on canon 118.000 and for nikon 130.000

-exposure compensation goes from +2 to -2 on canon and on nikon from

+5 to -5

 

Also as an added note I find that when browsing the pictures on this

site (and other sites) the canon photos again look more "pro" like.

So I wonder do I go for an "outdated" canon 10D or for the latest

nikon and correct the color problems with filters (if possible)??

As far as pricin goes the canon pack I picked out goes for 1313,- and

nikon for 1194,- a difference of 119,-, though that is not the

biggest problem as I am willing to spend around that amount.

 

So if anyone could help me to clarify this it would be much

appreciated

 

PS: I plan to get either of them with sigma 18-200mm

D70 if in JPEG mode, you can set color enhancement to Vivid, and can apply sharpening, there are other options to process in-camera photos so they will look perhaps like a Christmas Tree ornaments, etc. RAW will always be true photo. Ask yourself, do you need to take real photos, or you want to alter them to please for sale? You can do it with D70 to some degree, and with post-processing to any degree.

Neither camera has "more vivid" colors in the digital world...sure maybe straight out of the camera, unprocessed images have variation in terms of saturation etc. but even this is highly customizable through the cameras settings ( if you want the camera to do it). With minimal curve adjustment in a program like picture window pro or photoshop either camera can produce snappy, stunning images in the right hands.

If you are trying to decide, I would suggest you focus on ergonomics and feel and the aspects of the canon or nikon slr system that are most relevant to the kinds of pictures you want to take. Lens selection? Flsh system? etc.

 

 

Cheers, Keith

I prefer the Nikon look over the Canon one. But neither is bad, just different. To be honest, I wouldn't fret over it much and get whichever camera's handling you like better. And I'd rather have a new D70 than a used 10D.

 

In any case, they hyperzoom you have chosen will be the limitting factor in image quality for you, not the sensor.

Dear Khalkid

 

You noted : " ...I did tons of research between the 2 and found that there is really not that big a difference ..."

 

Between cameras and lenses etc and the pictures taken with them it is mainly the differences in the art and brain of the one behind the camera. Not in the gear.

 

I can take beauties with a pinhole camera, and so can anybody with a slight konwledge of photography, AND - more importantly - a keen sense of composition and art.

 

One camera will be lighter thn the other, one will be cheaper, one will have a better this or that. NONE of this matters when you take pictures (once you are a bit comfortable/aquainted with your gear).

 

I think you are obsessing too much about a mere technicality, namely how vivid to set your photoshop levels, sharpening levels, ... (you do not use filters on DSLRs; one can do this in phshop much more readily, except for polarizers of course); you worry needlessly about buff when you could be out seeing and taking pictures.

 

Getting an 11 times third party zoom will limit your results, however, and is not the smartest move on your part. A 3 times zoom 17 - 55 sounds much smarter, unless you rather want to start out with just 3 primes ...

Hi frank uhlig,

 

I think you have a good point on your "minor technicality" issue.

The subject already crossed my mind a few times but never left a conclusive awnser.

 

And I think i finally made up my mind and decided to go for the D70s

 

except the issue of the lens ... Probably everyone would reccomend primes, and agreable the quality is better but I decided that convenience also counts for some.

In the beginning I plan to use a very versatile lens because I dont yet have a favorite field of photography. (I enjoy all from architecture to portret to nature) As soon as I do I will get a prime or a smaller zoom appropriate for the field.

I don't think you'll see much difference between the two with a cheap 18-200 zoom. The lenses have a big impact on picture quality!

 

So if you choose the lens as a starter to get better ones later you're back on the system level. Nikon has it's edge on wide angle and Canon on Tele. Nikon has a better flash system, controlling slave flashes with the pop-up flash where you need the most expensive Canon flash to controll others is one of them another is how E-TTl behaves on high contrast subjects especialy when you focus and recompose.

But you can get a battery grip with vertical release for the Canon and the Canons Pentaprism viewfinder is a bit brighter than the Nikons Pentamirror one.

 

I think you should try out both bodies in a shop and then decide which one works best for you. Both have their strenght and they handle quite differently and you have to find out what feels better in your hands.

 

Hm, come to think of it, the Konica Minolta Dynax 5d has a unique feature, too. Built in antishake! It may fall in your price range.

PS: I plan to get either of them with sigma 18-200mm

 

Well, it won't matter which camera you get if you put a cheap super zoom lens on it like that. Lenses make the photo, colors and sharpening can be adjusted post exposure.

With either of them you can just shoot raw and adjust the saturation and tone parameters after the fact. BTW, have you ever seen the results from one of these "hyperzooms?" Everything looks soft and slightly smudged because correcting for abberrations over that great a range is not economically feasible. The only good hyperzoom on the market is the canon 28-300L, and it costs roughly twice as much as a new 20D body.

Canon's default saturation is +1, while Nikon defaults to 0. This is the origin of the "More Vivid Colours".

 

Easily fixed in post-production or by changing settings in the camera.

 

Apart from the ISO 100 and 3200 on the 10d, the D70 is clearly superior, with a larger buffer, support for DX lenses (the 10d doesn't support EF-S lenses) better flash support, much faster write times and much faster on/off speed.

 

I also wouldn't waste your money on the 18-200. That's a super-zoom, and it's best matched with a low-end body rather than spending cash on a better body and putting an inferior 'do-everything' lens on it. The D70 kit lens (18-70 AF-S DX G) is distinctly superior to the 18-200 anyways, being sharper and having notably faster AF, matched even with the cheap 70-300 AF-G would give a kit that handily outmatches a super-zoom like the 18-200.

<I>I don't think you'll see much difference between the two with a cheap 18-200 zoom. The

lenses have a big impact on picture quality!</i><P>

 

I don't think you'll see much difference even with superb lenses. Any differences in color or

saturation can easily be adjusted in post-processing -- which is vital if you want to get the

best out of your images. The D70 is a bit newer than the 10D, but overall, the cameras are

very, very similar in what they can produce. As Frank said, the final image is much more

dependent on the photographer than the camera, especially with these two cameras.

People, I'm little sick about discussions of cheap or not lenses, cheap or not cameras... Pictures are in your heads and your eyes...

 

Look at some of my pictures captured by Oly C750. And, of course, alow to all of us to see your captures...

 

www.ai.sanu.ac.yu/~jsaric/jsphorizon

 

Regards to all of you!

 

P.S. I have already EOS 20D and cheap Sigma 18-200 mm DC

Don't believe anyone who says there is no difference between the 20d and D70 image qualities(Cant comment on the 10d because I have no experience). I had deluded myself into thinking the D70 was the ultimate APS camera for over two years, until I also acquired a used 20d a month ago. The 20d is light years ahead of the Nikon in terms of color, autowhite balance and noise. Since I own both cameras and have no reason to be biased toward one over the other (if anything I should be biased toward Nikon as I own a whole nikon system and only a solitary 20d) I have done side by side comparisons between the same shots taken with similar lenses. Nikon cannot get skin tones right, no matter what you do and what WB you set it to. With Canon skin tones are DEAD ON even with AWB. Same goes for most other colors. One truly remarkable thing about the Canon is how it can maintain good color accuracy under poor artificial light if you choose a custom white balance. I did a lot of tests and in each one the colors came out spot on. Bravo Canon! Everything about the Canon is superior - Noise, white balance, color accuracy. Of course to the casual eye they may look the same - in reality they are anything but.

 

I am also discovering that Canon's ergonomocs are superior and the control placements (including the thumbwheel) are a joy to use. I have no experience with the D200, but from what I have heard color quality/accuracy is not a huge leap over the D70.