Complicated Nikon vs. Canon question...

[max_rockman]

First off, I've asked this on many different photo boards before and always have

a rough time of explaining what I'm trying to do.

 

First, I own and use a Nikon D200 camera with an SB800 flash. I'm not a

professional photographer but I got extremely lucky and the camera fell into my

hands for free.

 

 

A friend of mine shoots with a Canon Rebel (I don't remember the model but I

know the body cost her $500ish from B&H) Her website is http://weneversleep.net

and all her work is done with that camera.

 

I love the way her photo's come out. I'm not speaking about composition or photo

editing though. The actual setting's on her camera (and the Canon camera in

general) produces a very fine textured and nicely lit photo. When I shoot with

my Nikon, the photo's come out very crisp, but the lighting is always different

and the textures are not there. The depth of field is also very different. It

looks almost like there's a grayish filter over everything? I'm talking about

candid shots by the way, nothing studio related.

 

Here is a set she shot at a sweet sixteen:

 

Also, http://www.lastnightsparty.com has photo's shot with a Canon Rebel that

all come out the same way.

 

the photo's are all immediately imported from her camera, they don't have any

touch ups on them.

 

My Nikon photo's all look "more real" I understand that Nikon and Canon SLR's

shoot different photo's but I'm wondering if it's possible to make my Nikon

shots come out closer to those of the Canon. Either in the camera itself, or in

photoshop (if its simple... I'm not a whiz with the program.)

 

 

Sorry this is so long but thank you thank you thank you if anyone takes the time

to read it and respond.

 

 

max

[darrengold]

Max,

 

It's difficult to answer without seeing some examples of your photos.

 

Regards

[StuartMoxham]

I could be useful for you to show some examples of your work and what it is you don't like about each image. It could be something as simple as uploading a custom tone curve to the D200 or changing the level of in camera sharpening or saturation. You could always get the canon if that is an option.

[zacker]

Not to sound crass, but...maybe shes just a better photog?.. im not trying to be mean.. she might understand more about lighting and the camera settings more than you..or, shes using better lenses... or there is something wront with your camera? or its dumb luck as shes just using the cam in Point and shoot mode, or shes shooting fully manual and your not? or her in cam processing is set better than yours? I think mire info is needed.. and just looking at her shots doesnt do it for us. post some of your work and we can help more.

[JosvanEekelen]

Why not do a side by side shoot and compare the camera's settings (shutter speed and aperture value). Lately I had a chance to compare pictures I took with an EOS 10D with a fellow traveller who used a Nikon D70s, pictures looked very similar. I'm a Canon user, more or less by chance, but I'm still under the impression that I could obtain similar results with other brands.

[max_rockman]

It took me a while to figure out how to respond to this heh, in response to the better photographer comment, it's possible. I've shot BW film for upwards of 7 years (as a hobby) and just (as of 5 weeks ago) bought the digital.

 

here are 3 randomly shot photo's using my D200.

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/telnin/alex.jpg

 

In this first photo, I don't like how the subject's face came out semi-glossy and how parts of the subject are out of focus. I feel that the Canon produces much softer photo's and the shadows it creates are much 'blacker'. I understand that playing around with different aperture's will fix my focal points.

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/telnin/tom.jpg

 

Again, in this photo the shadow is large and very light. The skin tones also came out very pasty instead of warm.

 

http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/telnin/sara.jpg

 

I like this photo a lot, but the quality of the photo itself is quite different from that of a Canon.

 

 

I hope i'm not leading anyone in the wrong direction, I'm not looking really for help with photographic composition and settings that will make the photo's themselves come out better or worse. I just want to know how to get my Nikon to take photo's that emulate that of a Canon.

 

I didn't buy the Canon because I've used Nikon for so long and I do enjoy how the Nikon photo's come out for most things. However, I shoot a lot of candid photo's at parties a lot and for those I'd like to have the shots come out like the Canon produces them.

 

Thanks for the responses so far.

 

max

[max_rockman]

On top of everything, the Canon photo's just seem a lot sharper. I read the dpreview.com article and adjusted my default sharpness but it's still different than the nikon. Examples are blades of grass or strands of hair. The Nikon picks them all up but they don't seem as crisp as the canon. You can almost see the grain in the strands of hair with the Canon photo's. (In reference to any photo taken on either of the two listed sites above)

[max_rockman]

Another example of the Canon vs. Nikon

 

http://www.lastnightsparty.com/prelolla/slides/IMG_4325.html

 

the texture of the matted wall is very very clear. The Nikon doesn't pick that up-- it would come out as a solid wall with small areas of texture and a flash bounce mark.

 

 

 

 

(Is it possible to edit posts on these boards?)

[frank_dzambic]

Just for kicks, why don't you and your friend set up a shot where you're both shooting the exact same composition, at the exact same exposure (same f/stop AND shutter speed) simultaneously with each camera? Then compare the results. Even accouting for Canon's inherent superiority over the Nikon (kidding, sorry) I can't believe the images would be too much different under those identical conditions.

 

If they are, and if you're comparing jpg's, then at least you'll be in the position to pinpoint exactly what the differences are. Does one have more contrast than the other, more sharpening, more colour saturation, etc. Those paramaters should be adjustable on the camera.

 

But the main thing is you'll be comparing shots taken under identical lighting conditions shooting the same subject.

[jean_marc_liotier]

Try comparing RAW files from both cameras. The JPEG files they produce are the result of much processing of the raw capture. Different choices of sharpness, color tone, saturation, contrast, gamma curve and proprietary rendering algorithms all produce a large variance in the end product. They may be part of the difference you perceive. Many of those parameters are user selectable so you once you isolate the interesting ones you might begin to have a handle on producing something closer to your taste. From what I have read, the flash exposure calculations also differ quite a lot between Canon and Nikon - I am only familiar with the Canon side...

[JosvanEekelen]

Max, as a Canon user I am not familiar with Nikon, but (depending on the camera's settings) Canon seems to prefer fill-in flash settings, trying to use some ambient light as well. Can this be a cause for the differences? Otherwise try to shoot RAW with both systems and compare these pictures, thus ruling out camera settings.

[thomas_hardy1]

Hi Max, interesting problem you have. Your friend with the Canon seems to use light a little differently than you. In your picture of the fellow in his dorm room? do you see how bright his face is with the stark shadow behind him? Too much light IMO.

 

Now, look at all those photos from your friend with the Canon. It looks to me like she's using flash that is just enough to illuminate the subject. That is why you notice the quick falloff of light behind the subject. I think you may not be focusing correctly also. Use only the center focus point to make sure your subject is in focus.

 

Your friend may be an experienced photographer who has shot weddings, parties, etc. They sometimes use light shaping or softening devices, along with off the camera flash to give a much more pleasing appearance to her candid type shots.

 

 

If your lens is up to snuff (not inherently soft) you should be able to do the same things as your friend. Ask her what she does or watch her work if you have the opportunity.

 

If you're interested in this type of photography look at the wedding and social forum. People post photos there all the time, and they are HAPPY to help someone who is truely interested in improving.

 

Light improving devices like this:

 

http://store.garyfonginc.com/index.html

 

helps with informal portraits (that's what you're trying to do you know) you just need something to help acheive that goal.

 

Last suggestion shoot more available light if you can. get one of those cheap 50mm 1.8 lenses which cost about $80. (you may already have one) and practice with that.

 

From what I hear, A D200 is a FINE camera.

[troyammons]

Nothing worng with nikon. acutally i prefer Nikon lenses.

 

Sort of OT.

 

One effect I find interesting that the Canon 10d,20d,300 etc etc can do is this effect. I have never seen another Dslr produce an effect quite like this.

 

http://heida.deviantart.com/

[leicaglow]

I need to get out more!<g> Two things I notice: a) I think the Canon flash may not be as strong, thus illuminating the foreground and causing the background to go darker. You might reduce exposure by a 1/3 or 2/3 stops and see if that gives you the result you want. When an image is slightly underexposed, like your friend's, it causes the subject to appear more saturated. b) It looks like she's using a wider lens than you. This gives a more spontaneous angle of view.

 

Does she use an off-camera flash? Have you tried using your D200 flash without the SB800, or turning down the output of the SB800?

[thomas_hardy1]

Check out this site. She uses a Canon but doesn't make a big deal about it. She just shoots.

 

http://www.sh1ft.org/shutterbug/

[scott_eaton]

The Nikon shots Max is referring to look a bit higher in contrast than the Canon shots.

 

If anything, Nikon users tend to whine a bit that 20/30D and Rebel 300/350 shots with default JPG settings look soft compared to Nikon. RAW is where it really matters, and I have noticed default Nikon in camera settings tend to produce a bit 'harder' images.

[Troll]

Why don't you just sell your free Nikon and buy a Canon? You'll come out ahead financially.

[messer_john]

She is probably shooting with the pop-up flash. It has a smaller reflector, as a result you get hotter up front, and more falloff. (Less even light distribution). Your Nikon is actually taking technically better shots. You could try making a snoot for your flash to see if that works. (Make sure you leave enough airspace, the flashes throw some heat.

[dave wyman]

Yeah, yeah, yeah. You just want us to see the cool party shots and brag about scoring a fancy camera for bupkus!

 

If you shoot party pics, too - "I shoot a lot of candid photo's [sic] at parties" - then show them. Instead, you treat us to a picture you made in a dorm room.

 

If you haven't made any party photos with your freebie camera, then come back and ask your question when you've got something to show us.

 

Otherwise, you come off sounding like a troll. For sure there would be no difference in the quality of photos between a Nikon and a Canon, and anyway, who is really gonna care when the photos are of tattooed and pierced body parts, and half-dressed party-goers? ;-)

[max_rockman]

Thanks Dave.

[nico_.]

Your friend might be using some the predefined modes for portraits, flash etc. The Nikon D200 lacks these "features" completely since it is assumed you know what you're doing when you buy a camera of this calibre. If you don't and all you're interested in are JPGs that look "fine" (lots of contrast and saturation?) right out of the camera without any fuss, a D50 would probably your safest bet. The D200 in auto mode (shooting menu->optimze image) produces rather flat pictures that lack a certain snap. Try and play a bit with the tone curves as well as with the color modes and see if you manage to get some improvement. Take good care of the WB used, your second picture looks too cold. You could use warmcards (http://www.warmcards.com) to get a more pleasing rendering of skin tones. BTW, your first picture is clearly out of focus. I have no idea what the problem with the last pictures is. Looks fine to me. The textured wall of the last picture is so well defined because that's where the focus lies. The guy doesn't look sharp to me. But maybe I'm wrong, the JPG shows a lot of compression artefacts.

[max_rockman]

Yeah, the first picture of the guy was out of focus but i took it at max resolution so when i resized it, it cleared up a bit. I think I sharpened it once too in fireworks.

 

again, i really dont know much about photoshop so it limits the effects I can do after my camera shoots the image.

[david_george2]

Max, Just a thought. My brother has had cannon cameras his whole life and I have used Nikon professionally starting 1972. We both now shoot digitally. Seems to us, that with similiar settings and lenses, it comes down to the photographer.

 

You will get different opinions, but most are just that opinions and may not be set in fact, but they do have merit. I did change some of the defaults on my D50 and he changed them on his cannon. It is hard to compare unless like us we shot the same subject at the same time and then argue about which is better. I am a firm beliver that Nikon ed glass is much better than cannon and yesterday he agreed after blowing up some pictures. Some will agree some won't.

 

He does not post photos anywhere. Says he does have time (retired from GM).