Canon vs Nikon image

[marco_landini]

<p>Hi there.<br /> I know this is a controversial and over-discussed question, so, please, I beg your pardon...!<br /> I' m just here to share my impressions and to ask you what do you think about it.<br /> IMHO, I have the impression that, GENERALY SPEAKING, Nikon images have a sort of hdr-like feeling, and, to the other end, Canon images have a more natural and "film like" mood.<br /> I got a Nikon D90. I come from Nikon F series film cameras, with a lot of very good lenses. So, the natural shift has been to Nikon D system, of course...<br /> But all my digital images, to which I tend always to keep things in a conservative way ( I mean about raw development and PS editing) , they all seem to be quiet artificial.<br /> So, my curiosity about Canon images....<br /> I' ve taken a look to a lot of pictures in photography forums, and, please believe me, I guess 8 times to 10 which image was taken by Nikon and which one by Canon...<br /> As I said, trying to explain my feelings the best I can, I would say I have the impression that Nikon images have a kind of hdr-like and "hi frequency" peculiarity. And Canon images give me a more natural and "film-like", not too much edited, impression.</p>

<p>Waiting for your kind insults....<br /> Cheers,<br /> Marco</p>

[JDMvW]

<p>If you are using the jpg versions, then a lot of processing has been done in either Nikon or Canon systems. The "brilliance" seems to be set higher in Nikon, and more neutral in Canon, but you can set either system to yield the kind of results that please you.<br>

Things like sharpening can be changed from the defaults - and I suspect sharpening somewhere along your work flow is a factor in the "hdr' effect you're seeing.</p>

[Hector Javkin]

<p>You can use the camera's settings to change the look, as JDM said, or you can process it with a photo editing program. And if you edit with Photoshop, Lightroom or Aperture, you can get a huge variety of pre-prepared looks in color or black and white from the <a href="http://www.niksoftware.com/nikcollection/usa/index.php?view=intro%2Fmain.shtml"><strong>Nik collection</strong></a>, which recently had a huge price reduction.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Whatever the difference would be, it's not due to the tripod, bag or filter used.... but placing a thread as potentially hazardous as this one in the wrong forum, rather than the casual forum, might be a saving grace.. ;-) <i>Moderator: Moved to the Canon vs Nikon Forum.</i></p>

<p>I've heard people talk about this difference so often. And well... even if the difference is there, it's yet another good reason to say that a bit of post-processing is simply needed to get the best out of your files. Plus, worth noting that both Canon and Nikon changed their defaults too - in the days of the D70, Nikons had very neutral-cold images and little sharpening, while the EOS350D sharpened a lot more and used more saturation. Nowadays, at the default settings, Nikons tend to be very saturated, and Canon a bit "calmer". And in both cases, it's just a style you can easily switch.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>I tend always to keep things in a conservative way ( I mean about raw development and PS editing) , they all seem to be quiet artificial.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Maybe invest more time in learning RAW development, and stay out of Photoshop (as most people tend to make matters worse by applying too much editing in PS, rather than staying calm). I do not feel my files look artificial, despite being shot with a Nikon (and indeed, I hardly ever use Photoshop). I would not immediately go to plug-ins (even if the Nik ones are very good and worth the money). Learn to use Photoshop without plugins to understand how things really work.<br>

If you cannot make a Nikon file "look natural", you first need to get a better understanding of your PP steps, and where the difference exactly lies between the look you want, and the look you currently get. And in case you feel switching camera systems is the easiest way to get there, by all means - do what you feel necessary. But also a Canon file needs a bit of PP, so sooner or later, you'll bump into the same problem.</p>

[Andrew Garrard]

<p>I switched from Canon to Nikon. I shot mostly raw in both, but I really didn't pay much attention to the difference in JPEGs (in fact, the JPEG settings are the one thing I've never really touched on my Nikons). That said, I went from a 300D to a D700, so maybe Wouter's report about a generational shift cancelled out in my case. There's much more of a difference in handling (mostly a preference for the way things work) between the two systems than in image quality, ignoring differences between specific cameras.<br />

<br />

If a disproportionate number of Nikon images are warm-balanced and hyper-saturated, that's probably because a disproportionate number of web searches for Nikon information hits Ken Rockwell's web site. :-)</p>

[starvy]

<p>Shoot RAW, tone down saturation and contrast and Photoshop and you will see the same images from Nikon or Canon.</p>

[sarah_fox]

<p>^^^ what Starvy said. The differences are very, very subtle. Nikon uses a bit heavier anti-aliasing blur. Canon has a bit more shadow banding. I wouldn't be able to pick out either of these differences from online photos, unless offered at full (or at least very large) resolution. While there may (or may not?) be some differences in the jpg images straight out of the camera, the end product after postprocessing on a RAW image is going to be indistinguishable.</p>

[m_tt_donuts]

<p>Pretty interesting if that is true it contradicts what I've seen. Everywhere I've seen comparing JPEGs at default settings Canon applies high sharpening and saturation while Nikon applies low. Time and time again you'll see users and reviewers comparing the camera's at "default settings" as if it is some scientific standard that every camera set to default produces an image in the same way when it isn't. It's like comparing one radio's Jazz setting to another as if they should sound the same and being so you can pick up on the nuances. Basing it on that the users and reviewers typically notice Canon produces a sharper and more colorful images when set to default (which makes sense since what I've seen Canons do apply high sharpening & saturation Nikon doesn't) but comparing the RAWs (which is the real truth) that's when one may find the RAW files show different.</p>

<p>If Nikon has changed that in the newer offerings, good for them. I've felt Nikons default of "Low" can not help their sales when people do try both at the store or rent both, take a picture and think Canons are sharper and more colorful and walk home with it. I've seen plenty of reviews also comparing the JPEG files of the camera's at "default settings" and they demonstrate Canons are sharper. Again, because Canon applies high sharpening by default, Nikon low. But they think it's apples-apples. That simply can't help Nikon sales.</p>

<p>This is the first time I've heard someone saying Canon gives the impression(s) of being unedited and natural and Nikon overdoing it but maybe Nikon realized they need to apply high sharpening and saturation as well for those reviewers and testers who do shoot the two side by side in jpegs.</p>

[steve_mareno1]

<p>I wonder how much of it has to do w/ the lenses? Older Nikon film lenses were known to be quite contrasty, while the Canon manual focus lenses were more neutral. Possibly it's the same w/ the digital lenses? I used to think my Nikon film lenses were as sharp as Leicas (I know, I know) until I put the photos side by side. It was the increased contrast that gave the illusion of being sharper than they were.</p>

[lex_jenkins]

<blockquote>

<p>"I' ve taken a look to a lot of pictures in photography forums, and, please believe me, I guess 8 times to 10 which image was taken by Nikon and which one by Canon..."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>I've see lots of photos in photography forums, and, please believe me, 8 out of 10 times I'm looking at the photographer's post processing skill or in-camera JPEG choices rather than their camera brand.</p>

<p>The last Nikon dSLR that produced enough characteristic quirks to be readily apparent to the experienced eye was the D2H, which couldn't cope gracefully with near-IR. Black fabrics looked magenta and skin color under most artificial light, other than incandescent, was ghastly. Moire with many fabrics and repeated patterns. Jaggies in hard diagonal edges, even with full resolution unsharpened photos.</p>

<p>There was a time when I could spot the differences between camera lenses - a long time ago. During the early 1980s when I was a college newspaper editor I could spot which staff photographer had submitted the photo without checking the name on the back of the print. The Nikon/Nikkor photos had odd, harsh doubling in out of focus areas - an effect later dubbed "nisen-bokeh". Photos from the one Canon shooter on staff had subjectively more pleasant, less busy out of focus areas. And nobody else on staff noticed or cared and thought I was imagining non-existent aesthetic differences.</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>"Waiting for your kind insults...."</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Well, okay, but I don't think you'll be too keen on it:<br>

<a href="

mother was a hamster and your father smelled of elderberries</a>.</p>

[marco_landini]

<p>Ah Ah Ah, Lex...! Great !</p>

<p>Thanks guys for your inputs.<br>

I have to say, to keep the question as simple as possible, I never use jpeg's, so, I' ve never compared Canon jpeg's to Nikon ones. I only use Raw's. The images I looked at in photography forums I guess they all come from Raw captures.<br>

The differences I can percieve between Nikon and Canon images, for which I said Nikon pics look more "artificial" and somehow hdr-like, are regarding "hi frequency" ( can I say that ...???) images : stone walls, rocks, scenes with a lot of hard and "closely-woven" dense details. Maybe, in this kind of subjects, the camera reacts causing some artifacts that produce a sort of "jagged" effect, giving the whole image a strong, hard, "artifacty "boosted look.</p>

[marco_landini]

<p>...And, I can see this difference expecialy on pictures taken at short focal, wide zooms.</p>

[Wouter Willemse]

<p>Marco, if you don't mind, but your posting history seems to consist only of "complaining" about this "artificial HDR-like look" of Nikon photos. And each thread seems to end with people not really seeing the problem you describe.... so, sorry, but I am afraid this will again so the same way....<br>

Last time you posted numerous photos to explain your point, and nobody seemed to see the problem you were talking about. Sure, we can again discuss how you perceive jagged edges and hard contrasts, but to what end? I will just simply point out a photo like <a href="/photo/16992436">this one</a> (yes, a Nikon, shot with a wide-ish Nikon lens, processed with Nikon software)... Would you really want to tell me that photo looks boosted and edged?</p>

<p>If you feel Canon handles this stuff better, why not switch to Canon, and be done with it? Because the problem you find with Nikon files being harsh and Canon being more natural... look at the reactions so far: people aren't sharing your opinion.</p>

[Landrum Kelly]

<blockquote>

<p>I have the impression that, GENERALY SPEAKING, Nikon images have a sort of hdr-like feeling, and, to the other end, Canon images have a more natural and "film like" mood.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Holy cow! The end of the world is at hand. Let me go out and sell all of my Nikon gear RIGHT NOW and go back to Canon.</p>

<p>I like both brands. The images are whatever I bring to them.</p>

<p>Right now I have three rather simple-minded snaps of a house on my main page. (Click on my name or just <a href="/photodb/user?user_id=423641"><strong>CLICK HERE</strong></a>.) They were shot as JPEGs as I went for a stroll, they have no artistic value, and they are products of my simple mind and minimal processing.</p>

<p><a href="/photo/17063014&size=lg"><strong>HERE</strong></a> is the best of the lot--and the least processed.</p>

<p>Now that you have looked at them, tell me where the HDR components are so that I may exterminate them.</p>

<p>--Lannie</p>