Canon vs Nikon color.

<p>Hi everyone,</p><p>Recently, Me and my old friends , Whom are also shutter Ka'chk sound addict, Are

having this discussion about what color is more accurate, Canon or nikon? Then it evolved into what is the more

beautiful color, canon or nikon? Then into what color you like. Of coarse the canon owners said canon, and

nikon, nikon.</p><p>I said, the color I like best is my own color. I dont really like canon color or nikon

color, Nikon is too colored , and canon is too red. Long ago I discovered that I dont have to stick to the

default color style set by each manufacturer, By using WB shift in my canon. </p><p>My setting on my 350d/xt is

B5/G4 WB shift, contrast set to1 of 5, sharpness 3 of 5, saturation 4 of 5. This would make the general color

output from you camera ,look different . Try it.</p><p>I would like to encourage those who are new or eveyone who

havent change those parameters in the camera, To do so.</p><p>Thought , I'd like to share.<br></p><p><br></p>

<p>the beauty of digital is that you can basically make it anything you want. until digital came along, canon & nikon were fancy 'box' makers. now, they have to 'render'. so you're getting what a bunch of engineers and marketing guys think are the correct colors.</p>

<p>I set my color shift towards M/A. Sometimes, it just depends on the situation. My Canon is a little unsaturated for my taste, so I also bump up the saturation.</p>

<p>I'm with Hal. I prefer more saturation than what Canon typically sets as standard so I usually bump up the saturation as well. </p>

<p>to me, nikon glass always produced higher contrast and deeper color -- was especially noticeable when shooting (and underexposing) kodachrome (especially k25). canon has always been more neutral contrast/color.<br>

with digital you can adjust for any style in post. i usually boost the saturation/contrast a tad for canon images. on the flip side, though, if the subject is high in contrast nikon glass may be problematic. of course, again, you can compensate for almost anything in digital post.</p>

<p>"the beauty of digital is that you can basically make it anything you want. until digital came along, canon & nikon were fancy 'box' makers. now, they have to 'render'."</p>

<p>Canon and Nikon did make some nice "boxes", and the color rendition was controlled by film makers and by printers. Of course, there have long been folks who like to cross-process their film. </p>

<p>Yes, the photographer now has more control over color. But it also means that there's more to learn.</p>

<p>Interesting, now I shoot in RAW I really don't see an issue. You can put Nikon profiles into LR and get your Canon shots to look like Nikon and the other way round. Indeed if you spend a little time making a profile you can make any lens look like any other from a colour point of view.</p>

<p>Another thing, if you are a RAW shooter who exposes to the right then you need to set your picture style to Neutral, shoot the same image and look at the histogram as you change picture styles. Neutral gives you a decent bit more headroom.</p>

<p>Take care, Scott.</p>

<p>Mars,</p>

 

<p>At least for Canon — and I would assume Nikon has something similar — the

picture (forgive me) is muddied even further with “Picture Styles.” Basically,

they’re different ways of mapping RAW values into color. They can be applied in-camera to JPEGs at the moment of exposure or on the computer when processing RAW files. Variations with more and less

saturation, contrast, sharpness, and various hue shifts ship with the cameras; they have descriptive

names, such as “landscape,” “portrait,” and “neutral.”

There’s one, “faithful,” that’s a very close match to a colorimetric

rendering; it’s an excellent starting point for an ICC-managed workflow.</p>

 

<p>To complicate things even further, Canon makes available a Picture Style editor so you can

create your own.</p>

 

<p>And, as if <em>that</em> weren’t enough, Adobe supports even more variations on the

theme, including DNG profiles — and even that is, of course, ignoring all the other ways of

altering color, from playing with raw converter sliders to converter presets to Photoshop

actions…the list isn’t <em>literally</em> infinite, but it sure seems that way.</p>

 

<p>If there’re a particular look you have in mind, if you can put a name to it, a bit of

Googling will probably find some sort of preset for one of those methods to give it to you

automatically. Or, if your needs are more particular, it’s not hard at all to create one for

yourself.</p>

 

<p>So, when it comes right down to it, the manufacturer’s choice of color palette is only

relevant for those who use the defaults. And if you’re gonna make a multi-thousand-dollar

choice based on defaults…well, if that floats your boat, fantastic — but it sure

doesn’t make sense to me.</p>

 

<p>Cheers,</p>

 

<p>b&</p>

<p>Long before digital, there were similar discussions/arguments about Canon vs. Nikon lenses having a warmer or cooler cast. At one point or another there were even magazine articles testing whether there were such things or not. I frankly don't remember the outcomes too well, but my impression was that there really wasn't much significant overall difference.</p>

<p>I join with those above who suggest that in the digital age, you have so many variables and so many ways to control things like color cast, that the discussion becomes more or less moot.</p>

<p>This is a meaningless question in the end. Both cameras do an outstanding job of capturing color information. In addition, the non-camera variations in color (subject, ambient lighting, your personal preference in post) swamp any tiny, insignificant difference between brands. And those differences themselves are probably no greater than the differences among different cameras from the same manufacturer.</p>

<p>Moot it is.</p>

<p>Speak like Yoda you do ;)</p>

Always two there are.

<p>I know if I started back new again four three years ago when I was at the store choosing a Nikon or Canon, I would have chosen the former, not the latter.</p>

<blockquote>

<p> </p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p >Alan Green <a href="http://www.photo.net/member-status-icons"></a>, Dec 13, 2009; 10:39 a.m.<br>

to me, nikon glass always produced higher contrast and deeper color -- was especially noticeable when shooting (and underexposing) kodachrome (especially k25). canon has always been more neutral contrast/color.<br>

 <br>

What is neutral contrast?   Haven't  lenses changed some, coatings, etc.  since Kodachrome days? </p>

</blockquote>

<blockquote>

<p>Another thing, if you are a RAW shooter who exposes to the right then you need to set your picture style to Neutral, shoot the same image and look at the histogram as you change picture styles. Neutral gives you a decent bit more headroom.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>This is not quite true. The difference is related to the contrast setting in each picture style. In my camera (5DMkI) all of the default picture styles have the same contrast setting and as a result I get a very similar histogram (I use the RGB histogram). However I have created two custom picture styles, one high contrast and the other low contrast. The histogram for each is dramatically different.</p>

<p>I double posted sorry.</p>

<p>Ah Steven, I have only done it to my camera.<br /> <br /> <br /> On that Neutral has all settings, including contrast, at zero. I said what I did because if you compare Neutral and Faithful both have all four adjustments set to zero, but when you compare the two, Faithful is very red, all three channels are at least 1/3 stop higher than in Neutral and the red channel will clip long before the other two. In Neutral the three channels are closest to each other and furthest to the left, in my camera. So even when the contrast setting is the same you can still get a more accurate histogram of your RAW file by looking at the histogram for your Neutral set jpg thumbnail on my body.</p>

<p>For RAW shooters it is definitely worth spending ten minutes comparing picture style settings to get more accurate histograms of your RAW's in camera file.<br /> <br /> <br /> <br /> Take care, Scott.</p>

<p>On my 30D, I shoot on landscape set to +3 or +4 and the colors are sweet. Not over the top or muddied as some one said earlier.</p>

<p>I also shoot with a Zeiss 85 1.4 or the 25 2.8 for what ever it's worth.</p>

<p>I took out the new Olympus E-600. If set on "Vivid" the colors are wonderful, rich, and clean. Set to default, they look like doo doo.</p>

<p>I used to be a believer in setting the camera neutral and do everything else in post. Not so much anymore. I typically shoot RAW, try to get it right at exposure and do little as needed (color wise) in Photoshop.</p>

<p>I'm surprised nobody mentioned the only reason why different camera bodies may give different color: the Bayer filters. The spectral response of the green, red and blue filters are not the same on each sensor and this may give some small differences between color rendition in cameras. DxOMark actually measures this difference. It's there, but I have no personal experience to tell you whether or not it is relevant in any practical situation.</p>

<p>Why not spend a little time and calibrate your camera so the color comes out the way you like it?</p>

<p>Nikon's reds look too orange for my taste.</p>

<p>When I want to saturate my colour (1D Mk111) I under expose by .5-1.5 stops, then adjust slightly while developing. I shoot AWB on normal...</p>