Something I heard about Canon...true?

[derek_deboer1]

Hi there,

 

I was reading some reviews of the Canon SD600 (looking for a digital camera for

my wife) and stumbed upon these comments by a photographer. The forum/review in

question is located at:

http://forums.slickdeals.net/showthread.php?sduid=0&t=387941

 

Anyways, one of the posters said the following:

 

"Look at the equipment that Canon makes, they make electronics, so Canon makes

really good electronics and this translate very well to their cameras. Nikon

makes professional lenses and machines that use them (like cameras). Nikon makes

a superior handing camera and they're much more intuitive to use. The quality of

the glass in their cameras are also superior. Their lineup of cameras is also

superior to Canon's."

 

Fair enough, but I would imagine that a lot of Canon users would disagree. The

part that really got me was this though...

 

"Yes, Nikon doesn't make everything that goes into it's cameras. Most Nikon

recording chips or CCD come from Sony. But that's not to say Nikon isn't a

superior Camera making company. Canon definitely sell MORE cameras because they

sell everything electronics (copiers, printers, scanners and things like that).

Nikon makes lens and good glass. Like microscopes, and binoculars. Ask any

photographer and they'll tell you that your picture quality is dependent on the

quality of the glass. Every use one of those disposable cameras and wonder why

they suck? It's the same film (meaning same resolution) but the quality just

suck?!? Glass is the answer.

 

As for the picture quality between Nikon and Canon, I definitely agree that

there's a difference when you look at them close. Why? Nikon records you the

real pixels. Canon softens the picture and therefore looks better CLOSEUP. But

modifying pixels before you get them is never a good thing."

 

I was wondering if I could some input from you photographers out there whether

this is true or not? Do the cannon CCD's 'modify' the pixels? I have noticed

that the SD600 images are indeed softer. A quick quality comparison between the

models I'm looking at (SD600 vs Nikon S9) can be found here:

 

http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

 

Thanks a bunch.

[Charles_Webster]

You could probably search "Canon vs Nikon" and find hundreds of posts taking both sides of this argument. The best way for YOU to decide this is for YOU to go to a shop and try similar cameras from each manufacturer. Then YOU can decide whether one is better than the other. Since "better" is purely subjective, it's up to YOU to decide.

 

<Chas>

[derek_deboer1]

To be honest, I wasn't trying to spark a Nikon VS Canon debate. I was curious if Canon modifies the pixels.

[JosvanEekelen]

Somewhere in the old Rob Galbraith' forums is a message from Canon's Chuck Westfall that Canon RAW files (of the *0D models) are somewhat modified. I don't know whether this is true for the 1 series as well. Take into consideration that the data straight from the sensor is probably always modified, if only to take out hot pixels, etc.

 

Of course this whole issue and the statements you refer to are nonsense. Both Canon and Nikon make fine cameras. It's just a matter which items you compare, sometimes Canon wins, sometimes Nikon. Both companies (and a few others as well) make quality lenses and ditto cameras.

[aaron meyer]

Nikon "G" lenses, Canon "L" lenses, Zeiss lenses, Minolta (now Sony) "G" lenses, Leica lenses, etc are all superlative lenses. To say that Nikon has better glass than Canon is foolish. The best Canon glass is essentially equal to the best Nikon glass, which is essentially equal to Zeiss glass, which is... You get the idea.

 

No digital camera with the exception of the Sigma DSLRs using the Foveon X3 sensor record the "actual pixels". None. Both Nikon and Canon use a standard CCD with a Bayer RGB filter that has to be de-mosaic-ed by software processing to achieve an image since each pixel only records one color (i.e. red, green, or blue). Sharpening must be added by software either in-camera or in post-production. Typically professional use prefers to have the image come out of the camera with minimal sharpening whereas most consumers prefer to have a very sharp, contrasty, highly-saturated image straight out of the camera without having to post process. Nikon's consumer cameras pander a little bit more towards consumer attitudes, Canon has chosen to stick closer to their DSLR image processing.

 

Finally, in a point and shoot camera, with very, very, very rare exceptions, you will never find the best of any manufacturer's lenses.

[mark u]

Opinions on the internet are free, and usually worth the same. Both Canon and Nikon use Sony sensors in their P&S cameras like your SD600.

[NK Guy]

"Nikon records you the real pixels. Canon softens the picture and therefore looks better

CLOSEUP. But modifying pixels before you get them is never a good thing."

 

Nikon records real pixels and Canon somehow "modifies" them?

 

What a pile of unmitigated garbage. Sure, like whatever system you want. But reaching up

your arse and pulling out meaningless drivel like this is a waste of everybody's time.

 

Canon and Nikon both make good products. Buy whichever you find works better for you

and what suits your needs.

[NK Guy]

And just to clarify my previous post - I'm disdainful of the nosensical quoted comments, not

the original poster.

[dave_powell2]

The "real pixels" idea also doesn't wash because all cameras do some internal processing before they save image files. You can get around a lot of it by shooting RAW, if the camera supports it.

 

If you want to see just how MUCH internal processing a camera does, put it on a tripod and shoot the same scene in JPEG and then RAW. Then open both files. You'll probably be amazed at the difference. I once tried to adjust a Canon RAW file to match the corresponding JPEG taken at the same time, and found myself backing off, because I was wiping out TOO much image data in the highlights.

 

Just another angle on this!

 

Dave

[athinkle]

Canon also makes binoculars, and Nikon also makes scanners. Just thought I'd throw that into the mix.

[les]

Well, the quoted opinion is expressed in rather clumsy English, with several errors (spelling and grammar). While I care little for details like that - it probably represents the general level of thinking for the gentleman who produced the "opinion" in the first place. It is hard to treat an opinion seriously, when the language used leaves much to wish for, indicating rather low standards of thinking.

[tito sobrinho]

Since 1956, I've been exposing film from 35mm up to LF (8x10),and getting a little tired of the wet darkroom.

 

Last month after reading a lot about PS digital cameras, and examining my daughter's A620, I've decided to buy a Canon A630 ($250.00) with its swivel LCD. It requires 4AA batteries, features an optical viewfinder, pocktable, excellent lens. Went to S.America and had a ball taking pictures of family & friends.

 

The batteries, are available in any drugstore, as opposed to the headache of having to carry the battery charge.

 

If the camera malfunctions...I just toss it in the garbage, a heartbreaking option for a $5,000,00 camera.

[mark pav]

<i>"Do Canon cameras soften the pixels?"</i>

<br><br>

 

Canon cameras do tend to have more aggressive noise-reduction algorithms and, strictly in this sense, that statement could be true to a certain extent.

[derek_deboer1]

Thanks for the answers guys. I've spent a lot of time researching digital p&s's and I think the SD600 may win out - if not for the price alone.

 

Thanks again for everyone's input, and have a Merry Christmas.

[phule]

I would propose that a better camera for your wife would be the SD700 IS. Same form-factor but with Optical Image Stabilization.

[adam rosser]

Recent Canon point and shoot and DSLRs are noted for much LESS agressive noise reduction

and softening than other manufacturers.

[adam rosser]

Recent Canon point and shoot and DSLRs are noted for much LESS agressive noise reduction

and softening than other manufacturers.

[johnclinch]

I had a Canon Ixus 400 which I think had a fairly strong anti-aliasing filter which I think leads to a smoother look but some smearing of low contrast fine detail.

 

However overal I think the images were great and its a shame it broke.