Another boring Canon vs Nikon thread !

[sami_palta1]

Last weekend I have travelled to another city for shooting winter festival and some sites together with my two friends.

Changed my older 5d2 with a brand new 6d.

Took EF 24-70/2.8L, 100-400 II/3.5-5.6 and Tokina 16-28/2.8 with me.

 

Today we exchanged pictures and I was shocked. Pictures which my friends taken were way brighter than mines. Results were obvious and no need to discuss about. One of them use D5 with 24-70/2.8 mainly and other guy used D7100 (DX) with kit lens 18-135/3.5

 

I can understand the results of D5 an be brighter but also the results of 7100 were much better than mines.

 

Now I am thinking where am I doing wrong?

 

I shoot raw and edit them withLightrom 4.

 

Or is it only a sensor issue ?

 

Thanks

 

Sami

[Wouter Willemse]

Dear Sami,

"Brighter" to me would be either a tendency for your Canon to underexpose, or for your friends' Nikons to overexpose - I think this is not very likely since both brands have light meters that are accurate enough in normal scenarios. It's extremely unlikely to be a sensor issue. The internet likes to act like there is some vast difference between the brands, but in reality, the differences are all very subtle.

In this sense, there is also very little difference between a D5 or D7100 - unless you were at very low lightlevels (above ISO6400 more or less), where the D5 probably would pull ahead.

 

So, my guess is to take a good look at how you process the raw files. Especially when shooting raw, there are no real differences between Canon or Nikon files, so there is little reason why you could not get your files to look like those from your friends with a bit of effort. This, of course, assuming you got your exposure right.

[peter_arbib1]

I agree, look at your editing workflow.

You may not be setting your highlights or midtones bright enough.

I sometimes edit darker than the picture was in real life.

Use the Histogram in your editing software to adjust the midtones and highlights...

In Lr your can DRAG 4 or 5 areas directly ON the histogram.then use the sliders to fine tune.

 

Could you post your image?

[Sandy Vongries]

When out with other people while taking photos, I have always been the only photographer, and I don't go on photographer excursions. For those who do, and know the other participants, wouldn't it be interesting to trade cameras for a few shots. It might answer some of the questions people post.

[ShunCheung]

This sounds more like an exposure issue. You could have such differences between two Canon cameras, even cameras of the same model. Instead, will you have any chance to compare your exposure with your friends using Nikon, i.e. aperture, shutter speed, and ISO settings? It is best to use the histogram to evaluate exposure. If you use a computer monitor or tablet, monitor calibration can contribute to the issue.

 

Even without any camera, you can always find a "sunny 16" situation to see whether your camera's meter is giving the right exposure.

[Norma Desmond]

I have a friend who's constantly telling me what his computer is doing wrong and how messed up it is. Funny thing is, he's very anti-computer and considers himself a humanist. I've been telling him for years that he may suppose he thinks more highly of humans than computers, but he's giving the computer an awful lot of power over the human who's operating it. I'm heading over to his house this morning to help him update his software and show him how to back up his work! :)

 

RAW files often require a bit of work in order to get out of them the potential that's there.

[Mark Keefer]

Sounds like you were underexposing. If you are using the in-camera meter, you may want to look at your metering modes and really learn how these affect your photo.

Meter Modes

• Evaluative
  
• Partial
  
• Center Weighted Average
  
• Spot
  

Which setting you choose will change what your meter through the view finder is telling you is perfect exposure.

Read up on this and then do some experimenting.

 

Learn to look at your histogram and how to read it, that will tell you if the overall photo is underexposed or overexposed.

 

I have used the Canon 6D shooting professionally as a second shooter working with Nikon guys.

The 6D when doing proper exposure will give acceptable images. I know the comparisons. I have also shot weddings with it as a primary shooter and gotten excellent results.

 

On a side note:

 

If you are comparing the 6D to a Nikon 5D, that is Nikon's high-end camera, it is in the class of the Canon 1DX Mark II.

Also, Nikon has had an advantage of being able to pull stuff out of the black (Underexposed) images and can easily recover in post.

Canon will show the noise more and if you push it too much, you may see banding in the black, while the 6D is pretty good at low light high ISO, it still really helps to nail the exposure in camera if you are trying to get good shots.

 

In my opinion, I would not envy the D7100. The 6D is an excellent camera and a step up from the 5D MK II, you just need to get a little more familiar with setting it up right. When properly exposed, your images should be great.

 

Canon has improved this with the Canon 5D Mk IV, and it was not until I went to the 5D MK IV that I did not envy the Nikon guys for that ability.

Still, Nikon is using those great Sony sensors, so they will have a bit of edge in some regards to low light noise over Canon. Still the Nikon guys did like the great color the 6D was giving them.

 

But one of the Nikon shooters I was with was using the D5 and pulling off great shots at 6400 ISO when all I had was the 6D and did not want to shoot over 2000 ISO for indoor shots for fear the noise would not be acceptable for these guys. Yes, I wished I could get results like the D5 was giving. These are two different classes of cameras.

Edited February 14, 2018 by Mark Keefer

[JDMvW]

Sometimes the grass really is greener on one side or the other

But I'm another who thinks most such differences effectuate about 3-5cm behind the camera. :)

[BeBu Lamar]

Not necessary which one is better they are just difference. If you like the bright pictures then increase your exposure.

[sami_palta1]

Bright used as the meaning of "VIVID" here in my post ...

And I can't have it by just increasing the exposure ...

[Mark Keefer]

wouldn't it be interesting to trade cameras for a few shots.

I agree. I have gotten to do that sort of working with Nikon shooters, not really a swap, I got to do a whole gig shooting with a Nikon 750D. It was an easy learning curve, the lenses twist on opposite of Canon, lol, and a few other small differences. It was great trying it out and it was a nice camera to work with. I think it would be a great experience for a lot of folks. Now I need to shoot with some Sony A7R3 shooters. :rolleyes:

[William Michael]

Bright used as the meaning of "VIVID" here in my post ...

And I can't have it by just increasing the exposure ...

 

That is achieved in the Post Production of the Image File.

 

***

 

I think it is possible that there is an underlying unhappiness with Canon gear. It appears, according to one of your previous posts, that you really wanted to buy Nikon Gear, but instead you settled for buying a 5D Series.

 

Whilst I think that the issues you have are mostly all, if not all, exposure and post production related - it might be very important to realize that if there is an underlying disgruntlement with a particular tool one is using, then the best results will never, ever come.

 

REF: [LINK]

 

WW

[JDMvW]

I have always heard, and believe, that the main differences in Nikon vs Canon jpgs is the default degree of saturation and amount of sharpening.

Reset the parameters, but shoot RAW anyhow.

 

It's like the reason why Pepsi always won taste tests over Coke -- ditto for cheap wine over expensive -- if there is more sugar, people will prefer it in a blind test if the sweetness is not so great as to hit you in the face

[Norma Desmond]

only the real thing

[jdebever]

Fred, in my experience Dreft gives a brighter result.

 

Sami,

 

Either you learn how to process your raw files, or stop mingeling with nikonites.

Option 2 might be easier, but if you don't learn how to process your files, even buying a nikon wont help.

j.

[Jochen_S]

I know nothing about Nikon and don't own Lightroom myself. What I noticed at work: SOOC DNGs from my crummy Samsung SLRs look awful and off (colors wise). Profiling what I shoot with Xrite passport color checker and the LR plugin for it is a huge step towards bearable rendering, also for the Pentax clone of the Samsungs and even for the M8.

Color is a nasty thing in general. - I recommend getting hold of a really calibrated screen first and later (after studying LR's controls & capabilities in manual & tutorials) of a makeshift mentor type, to stare at it and boss you around. - I happened to bump into seasoned press men and pre-digital graphics designers whose opinions (upon CMYK individually +/-) I surely treasure at least half a dozen lunches. Wet color darkroom or old school drum scanner operators would be worth asking too.

A quick way to punchier Canon colors might be visiting Ken Rockwells site and following his camera setting recommendations?

[paddler4]

Bright used as the meaning of "VIVID" here in my post ...

And I can't have it by just increasing the exposure ...

 

In one word: processing.

 

You are shooting raw. That means that regardless of the camera, the degree of vividness is almost entirely a function of processing. If they are shooting raw as well, then none of the cameras is doing anything to boost vividness. If they are shooting jpeg, then the in-camera processing in their cameras is adding more of this then you do in your postprocessing.

 

Blaming this on the brand of camera is just distracting you.

 

I shoot routinely with people who use all manner of Canon and Nikon cameras. I can't tell which was used for which until I am told.

[Marcus Ian]

While processing is a HUGE part of it, it is NOT the only part. With Canons (in particular 5D2, but 6D as well), shooting 'to the right' (ie. with the exposure set to ~ +2/3) yields more usable Raws, with easier, 'poppier' exports in LR. Learning to optimize the behavior of your eqp will give you much more satisfying result.

 

If you shoot at +0, or gawd forbid - 1/3->2/3, your raws will be harder -> much harder to pop in LR - requiring more extensive post, and yielding noisier imagery, to get similar results.

[dcstep]

Sami, post one of your files before and after processing and we can make suggestions. We'll give you suggestions on how to "brighten" things up. It's unlikely that it's your camera brand.

[sami_palta1]

Friend used polariser and I couldn't...

 

These are friend's pictures:

 

 

 

 

And below are mine:

 

Do you think difference is only about editing ?

[Dieter Schaefer]

Friend used polariser and I couldn't...

That certainly will have some influence on the images. But not enough to explain the differences.

Do you think difference is only about editing ?

Mostly, yes. It's too bad that your friend's images don't come with the EXIF data - they would provide a clue as to how far your friend's and your exposures differ. But I am fairly certain that something quite similar to your friend's image can be pulled out of your RAW files as well (despite me being unfamiliar with exactly how much processing Canon RAW files can endure before falling apart). Why don't you ask your friend how exactly the images were processed? Or better yet, have him show you on yours?

Edited February 23, 2018 by Dieter Schaefer

[dcstep]

Yeah, absolutely, you're underexposing everything. Have you compared camera settings? That'd be a starting point.

 

Some people are so scared of blowing out highlights that they underexpose. Many look at the "blinkies" and try to use settings where there absolutely nothing blinking. That's WAY too conservative. Realize that the in-camera previews are based on small jpeg files embedded in the RAW file. The RAW file has significantly more dynamic range than that crappy jpeg. I have a little bit of blinking going on in most of my shots. Expose To The Right. ETTR means to expose at as high an EV as you can without blowing out important highlights.

[William Michael]

. . . and, by the way. contrasting the two shots of the sled, the lighting scenario is entirely different.

 

WW

[dcstep]

Looking out the arch, it looks like your exposure was correct, but you didn't pull down the highlights as much as your friend.

 

The friend is pretty good. Why don't you ask him or her to walk you through how they expose and what they do in post? I help friends with stuff like that all the time. It's NOT the camera.

[Dieter Schaefer]

Some people are so scared of blowing out highlights that they underexpose. Many look at the "blinkies" and try to use settings where there absolutely nothing blinking. That's WAY too conservative. Realize that the in-camera previews are based on small jpeg files embedded in the RAW file. The RAW file has significantly more dynamic range than that crappy jpeg. I have a little bit of blinking going on in most of my shots. Expose To The Right. ETTR means to expose at as high an EV as you can without blowing out important highlights.

but you didn't pull down the highlights

 

Maybe this will help the OP to visualize what's going on and to what extent highlight-recovery is possible when shooting RAW. The image below was shot with a Nikon D810.

This is the image at the exposure setting the camera gave me - processed with no correction at all.

Nothing is blown out and in principle, I could live with the image. Maybe the wall on the right is a tad too dark - pushing the shadows a little would take care of that but might bring up a bit of noise too.

 

This now is the image 2 stops over the metered exposure - pretty much all the snow is blown out but now the wall has a more "open" shadow (however fake that might look). Overall, the image is "washed out".

 

Pulling the exposure down 2 stops adjusting highlights and shadows to taste and I end up with the one below. Nothing is blown out but this is about as much highlight recovery as is possible in a RAW file. In the histogram is a small blip on the far right that is just to the left of being blown; just. Instead of having to push shadows in the "correct exposure" image, the overexposed one allows me to actually pull them down a little - less noise that way.

Lastly, if instead of pulling the exposure the full 2 stops back, I had ACR have it's way and just selected "Auto". Here's the result. Exposure pulled back 1 1/3 stops, highlights, whites, contrast, blacks and shadows adjusted to give almost the same result as my "to taste" image above. A bit brighter overall, and a tad less contrast. I generally avoid the "Auto" function for that reason - but it never hurts to give it a whirl and undo it if one doesn't like the result.

The amount of highlight recovery possible depends on the camera - I don't know how much is possible with a Canon 6D. But it is easy to find out - just take a series of shots with increasing amount of overexposure dialed in; then see how much can be recovered in the RAW conversion process.

Edited February 24, 2018 by Dieter Schaefer

[model mayhem gallery]

You said you upgraded from a 5D2 to a 6D. I have used both and I think the 5D2 even though it may be older is a better camera than the 6D. Just because it is newer doesn't mean it is better. If I remember correctly the 5D2 is capable of faster shutter speeds than the 6D and has better low light performance and better dynamic range. The 5D2 is also a Titanium body where the 6D is aluminum and plastic. I own both a 5D2 and 5D4 and love them both. I see much more of a difference with between L-series glass and third party or lower priced lenses than I see between my 5D2 and 5D4.

[model mayhem gallery]

I have seen guys with cheap camera and cheap kit lenses make their work look like it was shot on an $8000 camera after editing it in Lightroom.

[Sandy Vongries]

I have seen guys with cheap camera and cheap kit lenses make their work look like it was shot on an $8000 camera after editing it in Lightroom.

Using a fine tool of any kind is a pleasure - to those who feel the same, they are well worth the price. There is little doubt that lesser tools can produce good results after extraordinary extra efforts have been applied, but where is the fun in that? I prefer trying to get it right the first time, or sometimes not. Name of the game!

[mark_stephan2]

I own the Nikon D7100 and D7200 and other Nikon bodies plus I own the 6D and 70D. The pictures taken with the Nikon's I've mentioned always look sharper to me but I think that has to do with the lack or a AA filter. I also own a D800 and D700 which have AA filters and the D800 is probably my second best camera looking at pictures straight out of the camera.

[Robin Smith]

. If I remember correctly the 5D2 is capable of faster shutter speeds than the 6D and has better low light performance and better dynamic range.

 

It has 1/8000 instead of 1/4000, but this it unimportant for most people 95% of the time. I don't think I have ever shot at 1/8000 except to check it works. The 6D has better low light performance and slightly better dynamic range. About a stop better in low light noise over the 5DII (ISO 6400 in 6D roughly = 3200 in 5DII).

[Robin Smith]

I like the pictures: where is it: Turkey? Armenia?

[Norma Desmond]

I have seen guys with cheap camera and cheap kit lenses make their work look like it was shot on an $8000 camera after editing it in Lightroom.

I wouldn’t consider my camera cheap, but it’s less expensive than $8,000, including lens. I’ve never considered trying to make a photo of mine look like it was shot on a more expensive camera. I make my photos look like what I want them to look like and, more importantly, express what I want them to express. The purpose of my photos is not to represent the gear I used to take them with. I don’t make photos with that in mind and don’t look at photos with that in mind, either.

There is little doubt that lesser tools can produce good results after extraordinary extra efforts have been applied, but where is the fun in that?

A few things here.

 

Less expensive tools aren’t necessarily lesser tools, depending on what’s being done with them.

 

So-called “lesser tools” can produce good results even without extraordinary extra efforts. I’ve seen a whole lot of better photographs taken with less expensive cameras than some of the boring or downright bad photos I’ve seen taken with expensive gear, and that’s without much post processing at all. A lot of photographers spending fortunes on gear and time researching and talking about gear would be producing better photos if they put more effort into vision, expression, storytelling and other things that matter to the result, which is not a hymn to equipment but rather a compelling photo. ;)

 

Some people consider hard work fun. When I’m heavily involved in doing some creative post processing, which can be hard work, I’m having fun. Also, some parts of photography (and art) aren’t fun. To many photographers and artists, there’s a lot more going on. War photographers are probably not having a whole lot of fun. Michelangelo, when he was breaking his back painting the ceiling, probably wouldn’t have talked in terms of fun. He would have talked in terms of drive and a love for his craft. Which doesn’t necessarily translate as a love for his gear.

[maleenJ]

Interesting discussion!

[Dieter Schaefer]

I like the pictures: where is it: Turkey? Armenia?

Canada, Kootenay National Park.

[peter_rowe]

>> Do you think difference is only about editing ?

Oh yes, absolutely:

http://www.optikvervelabs.com/peter/wall.jpg