Did Nikon screw up?

Started May 22, 2013 | Discussions thread
John Cerra2
Regular MemberPosts: 287
Like?
Re: Buy the 5DIII because...
In reply to SubPrime, May 25, 2013

SubPrime wrote:

John Cerra2 wrote:

I don't know if I agree with the idea that it is widelyregarded that Canon's jpegs are ooc better than than the Nikon jpegs. I do think it is widely believed that the Canon jpegs out more saturated and more sharpened at factory specs.  I can change the in camera settings to emulate the saturation.

It's not the saturation that makes Canon's OCC JPED's so popular - it's the color rendition, which you cannot emulate.  And yes, the Canon JPEGs are indeed regarded as much more appealing than the yellow cast laden Nikon version.  It might not be a big a deal with sports where skin tones are not as critical and getting the action.

I can't make a  valid comparison for several reasons. First, I think the lab guys ruined the shots that got published. Nobody would buy Canon if that was what its color rendition was like. Second, I think the arena saved money by buying cheaper replacements as the lights needed replacement. I know the lighting was uneven by a stop and by the look of the lights I thought they were varying temperatures.  Finally, in thinking about it, I am not really an out of the camera guy. I shoot everything in raw, that is my work flow. I grew up having a dark room.... I do shoot the basketball games in both and give the school pr guy the jpegs.  He has a stylized approach to using the photos that is much different than what I do.

Most people used two cameras, one with a long tele and one with a shorter zoom. I can use just the one camera, and crop tighter on down the court shots.

You could and maybe that suffices for your needs, but anyone can crop.  Plus, big glass is so sharp that it allows significant cropping ability - more so than the 70-200.

You missed the point. Somebody shooting a 300mm prime doesn't need to crop. Buif if you are standing on one baseline, a 300mm is of limited use unless you are shooting at half court or beyond. That was why they needed a second camera, to shoot their side of the court.  The 70-200 offers a one camera compromise. And while everyone can crop, the high resolution of the d600 means it can crop better.

I tried both my 180 f2.8 and 300 f4 Nikkors. A little sharper, but I missed shots I get with the zoom.

My favorite is actually shooting the forecourt with a 20 mm f2.8.

Even at 3200 iso, the d600 matches anything in the Canon line line, I have numerous 24x36 in prints that are wonderful iq  cropped.

That might be true, but seriously, if the D600 was really as suitable for sports as a D4 or 1DX,

My point wasn't that it matched those cameras  Rather that for the $1500 net I paid for the camera, it's wrong to say Nikon "screwed up.". In fact, if they put the D800 AF in the d600, it would be very interesting argument on the what camera to buy. Further, in situations where speed or build quality isn't an issue, the d600 can outperform both cameras you mention in certain ways.

I am not sure you will get a Nikon at the D700 place in the line going forward.

There's always reason to be optimistic.   Nikon are in the business of making money after all, and they need sales to do that.

-- hide signature --

Currently shooting aD300s, a D200, D70 and N50. Have a 'F.'
Also shooting with Konica 35mm SLRS (T3 and FT-1) with numerous Hexanon Lenses. Printer: Canon i9900.

Reply   Reply with quote   Complain
Post (hide subjects)Posted by
(unknown member)
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum PPrevious NNext WNext unread UUpvote SSubscribe RReply QQuote BBookmark post MMy threads
Color scheme? Blue / Yellow