Another boring Canon vs Nikon thread !

Discussion in 'Canon EOS' started by sami_palta|1, Feb 14, 2018.

  1. That certainly will have some influence on the images. But not enough to explain the differences.
    Mostly, yes. It's too bad that your friend's images don't come with the EXIF data - they would provide a clue as to how far your friend's and your exposures differ. But I am fairly certain that something quite similar to your friend's image can be pulled out of your RAW files as well (despite me being unfamiliar with exactly how much processing Canon RAW files can endure before falling apart). Why don't you ask your friend how exactly the images were processed? Or better yet, have him show you on yours?
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2018
    sami_palta|1 likes this.
  2. Yeah, absolutely, you're underexposing everything. Have you compared camera settings? That'd be a starting point.

    Some people are so scared of blowing out highlights that they underexpose. Many look at the "blinkies" and try to use settings where there absolutely nothing blinking. That's WAY too conservative. Realize that the in-camera previews are based on small jpeg files embedded in the RAW file. The RAW file has significantly more dynamic range than that crappy jpeg. I have a little bit of blinking going on in most of my shots. Expose To The Right. ETTR means to expose at as high an EV as you can without blowing out important highlights.
    sami_palta|1 and William Michael like this.
  3. William Michael

    William Michael Moderator Staff Member

    . . . and, by the way. contrasting the two shots of the sled, the lighting scenario is entirely different.

    sami_palta|1 likes this.
  4. Looking out the arch, it looks like your exposure was correct, but you didn't pull down the highlights as much as your friend.

    The friend is pretty good. Why don't you ask him or her to walk you through how they expose and what they do in post? I help friends with stuff like that all the time. It's NOT the camera.
    marc_bergman|1 and sami_palta|1 like this.
  5. Maybe this will help the OP to visualize what's going on and to what extent highlight-recovery is possible when shooting RAW. The image below was shot with a Nikon D810.
    This is the image at the exposure setting the camera gave me - processed with no correction at all.
    2017-06-25-D8A24940-D810-1 copy.jpg
    Nothing is blown out and in principle, I could live with the image. Maybe the wall on the right is a tad too dark - pushing the shadows a little would take care of that but might bring up a bit of noise too.

    This now is the image 2 stops over the metered exposure - pretty much all the snow is blown out but now the wall has a more "open" shadow (however fake that might look). Overall, the image is "washed out".
    2017-06-25-D8A24941-D810-1 copy.jpg

    Pulling the exposure down 2 stops adjusting highlights and shadows to taste and I end up with the one below. Nothing is blown out but this is about as much highlight recovery as is possible in a RAW file. In the histogram is a small blip on the far right that is just to the left of being blown; just. Instead of having to push shadows in the "correct exposure" image, the overexposed one allows me to actually pull them down a little - less noise that way.
    2017-06-25-D8A24941-D810-3 copy.jpg
    Lastly, if instead of pulling the exposure the full 2 stops back, I had ACR have it's way and just selected "Auto". Here's the result. Exposure pulled back 1 1/3 stops, highlights, whites, contrast, blacks and shadows adjusted to give almost the same result as my "to taste" image above. A bit brighter overall, and a tad less contrast. I generally avoid the "Auto" function for that reason - but it never hurts to give it a whirl and undo it if one doesn't like the result.
    2017-06-25-D8A24941-D810-4 copy.jpg
    The amount of highlight recovery possible depends on the camera - I don't know how much is possible with a Canon 6D. But it is easy to find out - just take a series of shots with increasing amount of overexposure dialed in; then see how much can be recovered in the RAW conversion process.
    Last edited: Feb 23, 2018
    marc_bergman|1 and sami_palta|1 like this.
  6. You said you upgraded from a 5D2 to a 6D. I have used both and I think the 5D2 even though it may be older is a better camera than the 6D. Just because it is newer doesn't mean it is better. If I remember correctly the 5D2 is capable of faster shutter speeds than the 6D and has better low light performance and better dynamic range. The 5D2 is also a Titanium body where the 6D is aluminum and plastic. I own both a 5D2 and 5D4 and love them both. I see much more of a difference with between L-series glass and third party or lower priced lenses than I see between my 5D2 and 5D4.
    sami_palta|1 likes this.
  7. I have seen guys with cheap camera and cheap kit lenses make their work look like it was shot on an $8000 camera after editing it in Lightroom.
    sami_palta|1 likes this.
  8. Sandy Vongries

    Sandy Vongries Administrator Staff Member

    Using a fine tool of any kind is a pleasure - to those who feel the same, they are well worth the price. There is little doubt that lesser tools can produce good results after extraordinary extra efforts have been applied, but where is the fun in that? I prefer trying to get it right the first time, or sometimes not. Name of the game!
    sami_palta|1, andy_szeto and dcstep like this.
  9. I own the Nikon D7100 and D7200 and other Nikon bodies plus I own the 6D and 70D. The pictures taken with the Nikon's I've mentioned always look sharper to me but I think that has to do with the lack or a AA filter. I also own a D800 and D700 which have AA filters and the D800 is probably my second best camera looking at pictures straight out of the camera.
    sami_palta|1 likes this.
  10. . If I remember correctly the 5D2 is capable of faster shutter speeds than the 6D and has better low light performance and better dynamic range.

    It has 1/8000 instead of 1/4000, but this it unimportant for most people 95% of the time. I don't think I have ever shot at 1/8000 except to check it works. The 6D has better low light performance and slightly better dynamic range. About a stop better in low light noise over the 5DII (ISO 6400 in 6D roughly = 3200 in 5DII).
    sami_palta|1 likes this.
  11. I like the pictures: where is it: Turkey? Armenia?
  12. I wouldn’t consider my camera cheap, but it’s less expensive than $8,000, including lens. I’ve never considered trying to make a photo of mine look like it was shot on a more expensive camera. I make my photos look like what I want them to look like and, more importantly, express what I want them to express. The purpose of my photos is not to represent the gear I used to take them with. I don’t make photos with that in mind and don’t look at photos with that in mind, either.
    A few things here.

    Less expensive tools aren’t necessarily lesser tools, depending on what’s being done with them.

    So-called “lesser tools” can produce good results even without extraordinary extra efforts. I’ve seen a whole lot of better photographs taken with less expensive cameras than some of the boring or downright bad photos I’ve seen taken with expensive gear, and that’s without much post processing at all. A lot of photographers spending fortunes on gear and time researching and talking about gear would be producing better photos if they put more effort into vision, expression, storytelling and other things that matter to the result, which is not a hymn to equipment but rather a compelling photo. ;)

    Some people consider hard work fun. When I’m heavily involved in doing some creative post processing, which can be hard work, I’m having fun. Also, some parts of photography (and art) aren’t fun. To many photographers and artists, there’s a lot more going on. War photographers are probably not having a whole lot of fun. Michelangelo, when he was breaking his back painting the ceiling, probably wouldn’t have talked in terms of fun. He would have talked in terms of drive and a love for his craft. Which doesn’t necessarily translate as a love for his gear.
  13. Interesting discussion!
  14. Canada, Kootenay National Park.
  15. >> Do you think difference is only about editing ?
    Oh yes, absolutely:
    Mark Keefer likes this.
  16. I was asking Sami, actually, Dieter, but I realize I wasn't clear. Thanks for your response anyway.
  17. Turkiye Robin ... Border with Armenia (Ruins of Old Ani Town). 50 kms to Kars City

Share This Page