Canon Colors

One thing Canon got going for it is the way they render an image. I recently purchased a used Nikon 7100 which is a little dated, but I needed a Camera that I could use with my collection of Manual Nikkor lenses. To me, this camera is way more sophisticated than any Canon camera I ever owned. I was set on switching to Nikon from Canon until I downloaded my images and noticed they didn't have that Canon punch. Maybe it was because I had the camera set to Standard, so I switched to Vivid ? Things improved a little, but I still had to go into Photoshop and edit every single picture to the way I liked it.

 

With that said, I ordered a brand new Canon 6D (original) with a Canon 24-105mm lens. I'll keep you posted.

What makes this kind of comparison difficult is that different cameras, especially from different manufacturers, use different defaults for saturation and many other parameters.

This is why I almost always shoot in RAW and tweak the images later.

 

In terms for us old film shooters, it's like comparing images from different films. I have found that you can tinker with the parameter settings and get the kind of image you want.

 

I was among those in first years of this century that thought that Nikon had the 'punch' in the default modes.

 

As for sophistication (whatever that may be in this case), I think that has more to do with the variables that are significant to YOU, and with a healthy dose of "imprinting" on whatever marque you started with.

Nikon uses the Sony made sensor that is also used in Pentax cameras. DXO praises this sensor as if they were getting a cut under the table, but I had to go with my eyes.

It's an unfair comparison if you're shooting jpegs with manufacturer settings. And, of course, the other question is whether you are viewing on a computer screen or the little viewing screen on the rear of the camera - which IMHO is good only for quickly determining if your histogram suits your intended shot. I typically shoot in RAW+jpg, one for quick & dirtyviewing and the other which allows me a full range of options on how I want it to look as a finished product. Canon's jpegs are "jazzier" than Nikon's standard ones, so I always do a touch of post processing to achieve the look I want for a shot.

One thing Canon got going for it is the way they render an image. I recently purchased a used Nikon 7100 which is a little dated, but I needed a Camera that I could use with my collection of Manual Nikkor lenses. To me, this camera is way more sophisticated than any Canon camera I ever owned. I was set on switching to Nikon from Canon until I downloaded my images and noticed they didn't have that Canon punch. Maybe it was because I had the camera set to Standard, so I switched to Vivid ? Things improved a little, but I still had to go into Photoshop and edit every single picture to the way I liked it.

 

With that said, I ordered a brand new Canon 6D (original) with a Canon 24-105mm lens. I'll keep you posted.

 

true, call it "colors" or image quality but I like the Canon images .... (I shoot RAW)

Edited May 11, 2019 by brett_w.

There is nothing wrong with your Nikon/Sony sensor. Looking at JPEGs is not a good way to judge a sensor or camera, Nikon/Sony sensors are fine and shooting RAW is the better way to go and then make your adjustments in post. I shoot with both Canon and Sony Sensors and I shoot RAW only with both. They are both good.

 

The truth is the manufacturer JPEG presets are a matter of preference and different people have different preferences to what looks good to them, even the monitor you use to view the images can affect how the images appear to you. Getting into a color calibrated monitors is an entire other conversation.

 

The straight dope is, if you want to get the full potential out of your camera's sensor, remove the camera training wheels and change the settings from Cookie Cutter JPEG to RAW.

 

If you insist on shooting only JPEG, then get used to being limited to the manufacturer's presets in the camera (those preset settings, will be baked into the JPEG) and if that is all that is important to you, "shooting only JPEG", then yes, go with the camera manufacturer that has the best JPEG presets that meets your liking and preferences.

 

It is a little more work but shooting in RAW opens the door to a lot more control of the final image. There is a little learning curve to get the hang of adjusting RAW files in post, but mastering this you will find this can be done quickly, especially if you use Lightroom and use presets or create your own. Do you know you there are Canon presets available to use in Lightroom and you can apply those to your NIKON Raw images if you want, or thousands of other presets or make your own.

 

Good luck on whichever way you go.

There is nothing wrong with your Nikon/Sony sensor. Looking at JPEGs is not a good way to judge a sensor or camera, Nikon/Sony sensors are fine and shooting RAW is the better way to go and then make your adjustments in post. I shoot with both Canon and Sony Sensors and I shoot RAW only with both. They are both good.

 

The truth is the manufacturer JPEG presets are a matter of preference and different people have different preferences to what looks good to them, even the monitor you use to view the images can affect how the images appear to you. Getting into a color calibrated monitors is an entire other conversation.

 

The straight dope is, if you want to get the full potential out of your camera's sensor, remove the camera training wheels and change the settings from Cookie Cutter JPEG to RAW.

 

If you insist on shooting only JPEG, then get used to being limited to the manufacturer's presets in the camera (those preset settings, will be baked into the JPEG) and if that is all that is important to you, "shooting only JPEG", then yes, go with the camera manufacturer that has the best JPEG presets that meets your liking and preferences.

 

It is a little more work but shooting in RAW opens the door to a lot more control of the final image. There is a little learning curve to get the hang of adjusting RAW files in post, but mastering this you will find this can be done quickly, especially if you use Lightroom and use presets or create your own. Do you know you there are Canon presets available to use in Lightroom and you can apply those to your NIKON Raw images if you want, or thousands of other presets or make your own.

 

Good luck on whichever way you go.

 

My P/T wedding photography gig wants me to hand in at least 1500 images per wedding. I can't see myself sitting in front of a computer on weekends, going through 1500+ RAW images. This was the deal-breaker for me. Plus I got a bunch of Canon AF lenses, flash, software etc. It's not that I won't continue exploring Nikon Products, but I think I'll stay on the safe side for now.

My P/T wedding photography gig wants me to hand in at least 1500 images per wedding. I can't see myself sitting in front of a computer on weekends, going through 1500+ RAW images. This was the deal-breaker for me. Plus I got a bunch of Canon AF lenses, flash, software etc. It's not that I won't continue exploring Nikon Products, but I think I'll stay on the safe side for now.

 

:rolleyes: Well having a lot of Canon flashes changes the dynamic of the thread to a different subject. Going back to the point of processing 1500 RAW images, That would be a lot of work if you were doing it one image at a time. You could apply a preset to all the images in a folder at once with not much effort, then export the batch at one time saving a lot of work. There are a lot of how to instructions on the web if you search.

 

Here are a couple links that might be interesting to get you started if you were curious and you might find it useful at some point. LINK LINK

Thanks Mark, I'll take a look.

Another lance for batch processing the RAWs. - I am not very experienced but at work we used Xrite colorchecker generated camera profiles during LR import, to match the colors of Samsung and Leica somehow. - The result on the Samsung files was kind of dramatic. - No clue how much Adobe neglected that brand compared to more popular ones. - JPEGs from a Pentax sister model looked better.

My P/T wedding photography gig wants me to hand in at least 1500 images per wedding. I can't see myself sitting in front of a computer on weekends, going through 1500+ RAW images. This was the deal-breaker for me. Plus I got a bunch of Canon AF lenses, flash, software etc. It's not that I won't continue exploring Nikon Products, but I think I'll stay on the safe side for now.

 

1500 images of a wedding? If say, the wedding lasts two hours, this gives you an average of 4.8s to recompose the next photograph. With that time constraint you might as well stick with JPEGs and automatic everything settings.

 

I was once asked to photograph the wedding of friends. I shot one carefully composed 36 exposure role of print film plus a couple of rolls of Kodachrome super8 movie film, and the bride and groom were happy with the results (especially considering the zero cost to them). I guess that I would not make it as a modern wedding photographer.

"...the wedding lasts two hours..."

A two hour wedding is not a wedding: it is a drink with friends (and a quick one at that). Just saying.