There's something about Nikon...

I've been a Canon user for all my photographic life. A few months ago I sold all my equipment to invest in a new camera and better lenses this fall. My objective was to get a Canon 60D, but after Canon released this product with a feature set that does not fit me (or many of the XXD line consumers for that matter), the skies opened. I'm now free to choose ANY camera system.

After reading and reading about many manufacturers (and being tempted by Sony's a55), I found myself pretty excited about the rumored features of the D90's successor, the D7000. If it ultimately is what it is rumored to be, I'll most likely get one with the Nikkor 16-85 (which I've read is one of the best standard zooms). So I started learning about Nikon nomenclature, DX, FX, VR, etc... I read reviews for the D90, D300s, D3x, etc and I was surprised about what follows.

I don't quite know how to explain it, but there is SOMETHING in the nikon images that I have discovered appeal more to my taste than the Canon images I have been experiencing for years. I feel it's something in the colors, but I can't put my finger on what exactly is different. All I know is that when looking at photos from different Nikon cameras, the images look more "real" to me. Has anybody experienced this before?

txabi said:

I don't quite know how to explain it, but there is SOMETHING in the nikon images that I have discovered appeal more to my taste than the Canon images I have been experiencing for years. I feel it's something in the colors, but I can't put my finger on what exactly is different. All I know is that when looking at photos from different Nikon cameras, the images look more "real" to me. Has anybody experienced this before?

Click to expand...

Maybe it's in the white balance. I've used both brands for years and I find that Canon seems to use a slightly warmer WB like Olympus, while Nikon seems is a bit more cooler. The cooler WB of the Nikons tend to be more natural to my eyes. But as we know...natural or spot-on colors may not always be appealing to everyone.
--
Stephen

I am not willing to say the images are better, but better to my eye. When I was looking at DSLRs I was pretty much set on Olympus (E620 and E30) but everytime I did a side-by-side in the store (took some of my CF and SD cards to the camera store to shoot test photos--mainly of my wife), I had to admit that despite my initial prejudice toward Olympus, I preferred the look of the photos out of the D5000.

Eventually, I gave in and bought a D5000 and have been delighted with it. Honestly, have never compared to Canon, but from my subjective experience there is a visible difference between Nikon and Oly jpegs straight from camera, and my preferrence is to Nikon.

txabi said:

I've been a Canon user for all my photographic life. A few months ago I sold all my equipment to invest in a new camera and better lenses this fall. My objective was to get a Canon 60D, but after Canon released this product with a feature set that does not fit me (or many of the XXD line consumers for that matter), the skies opened. I'm now free to choose ANY camera system.

After reading and reading about many manufacturers (and being tempted by Sony's a55), I found myself pretty excited about the rumored features of the D90's successor, the D7000. If it ultimately is what it is rumored to be, I'll most likely get one with the Nikkor 16-85 (which I've read is one of the best standard zooms). So I started learning about Nikon nomenclature, DX, FX, VR, etc... I read reviews for the D90, D300s, D3x, etc and I was surprised about what follows.

I don't quite know how to explain it, but there is SOMETHING in the nikon images that I have discovered appeal more to my taste than the Canon images I have been experiencing for years. I feel it's something in the colors, but I can't put my finger on what exactly is different. All I know is that when looking at photos from different Nikon cameras, the images look more "real" to me. Has anybody experienced this before?

Click to expand...

The Nikon 16-85mm VR lens and my Nikon 70-300mm VR II lens along with a Nikon 50mm f1.8 are serving me well. Yes, the 16-85mm VR II NIkon is razor sharp from one end to the other and the contrast is totally amazing. It's as if one were using primes instead of a zoom. Very solid feel and I get 3-4 additional f stops with VR II.

I took this the other night with the Nikon 16-85mm VR II at F 3.5/ISO 200/
1/30

I thought I should go out and get a fast lens for this type of work and while a Nikon 24mm f1.4 would be great it's $ 2,000.00. With the additional ISo of the D7000 you will have lots of fun.

The 16-85 is a very good lens, sharp, 'pro' (solid if you like) and the range it covers is really really useful. But it ain't fast.

Now that I've spent too much money on Nikon specific gear, I have to say that the images are better than anyone else, but tbh I couldn't tell the difference between a photo taken with an iPhone and another with a Hasselblad.

Matt

I once read a frase that I believe explains beautifully the difference between the Canons and the Nikons. Canon is the camera a engineer or scientist would buy. Nikon is the camera a lover of art would buy.
Personally...for me nikon produce more natural looking photographs.

You know that our brains have this ability to produce "facts" that go along with our desires ... . It's a way to keep us sane and justify our totally irrational decisions.

Although, getting a Nikon these days doesn't seem so irrational !

txabi said:

I've been a Canon user for all my photographic life. A few months ago I sold all my equipment to invest in a new camera and better lenses this fall. My objective was to get a Canon 60D, but after Canon released this product with a feature set that does not fit me (or many of the XXD line consumers for that matter), the skies opened. I'm now free to choose ANY camera system.

After reading and reading about many manufacturers (and being tempted by Sony's a55), I found myself pretty excited about the rumored features of the D90's successor, the D7000. If it ultimately is what it is rumored to be, I'll most likely get one with the Nikkor 16-85 (which I've read is one of the best standard zooms). So I started learning about Nikon nomenclature, DX, FX, VR, etc... I read reviews for the D90, D300s, D3x, etc and I was surprised about what follows.

I don't quite know how to explain it, but there is SOMETHING in the nikon images that I have discovered appeal more to my taste than the Canon images I have been experiencing for years. I feel it's something in the colors, but I can't put my finger on what exactly is different. All I know is that when looking at photos from different Nikon cameras, the images look more "real" to me. Has anybody experienced this before?

Click to expand...

--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

The colors of Nikon are very appealing for me. Second best is Olympus, then Canon.
They are more real. I guess not. Especially the skin colors.
--
Victor
Bucuresti, Romania
http://s106.photobucket.com/albums/m268/victor_petcu/
http://picasaweb.google.com/teodor.nitica/
http://picasaweb.google.com/vpreallize/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/v_petcu/

Well, I have also felt something similar that colours from Nikon are better than Canon but really I don't want to tell this to anyone because this is very subjective and besides I haven't really done any comparison tests between the two. But I can tell you what people in the lab told me where I order prints:

When I was picking up prints for the first time the man said the colours in my pictures were really good and asked me what camera I had and I said it was the cheapest Nikon - D60. And then he said that developing pictures from Canon is much more problematic because it's difficult to get the colours right and sometimes almost impossible to apply corrections so that the prints look good, he mentioned something about some colours looking good while others being off and hard to get them all right. He says he gets more or less the same amount of photos from both brands so he has a lot of material to base his opinion on. About half a year later, again he told me about how he notices every day that colours from Nikon are better than from Canon. Last month I collected a few prints from my holiday and asked for no corrections because I did some of my own effects to some photos while most were unedited. And there were two men working with the Agfa machine at the lab and they both said that it doesn't happen often that photos without any correction on their part turn out so well.

And when I chose Nikon a few years ago it was because I saw many prints from Nikon DSLRs and I loved the colours. I am a person who believes that the ultimate image quality can only be seen on prints on good quality photographic paper. Any camera can offer good colours for computer screens but paper is much more demanding. Print large, look closely and you will see the whole truth . Still, it's not the 100% naturalness seen on film photography but it's very close and it's possible that higher models get there even closer.

--
Michal.

I had the same experience. I shot with a Canon XSI for a couple of years, and I never quite got the results I wanted for some reason. Despite the lens investments I made in Canon, I recently switched over to a Nikon D90 with the 16-85mm lens and am much happier both from ergonomic and imaging standpoints. In JPG, I just like Nikon's default processing better than Canon's (and I tried for a long time to get what I wanted out of Canon's PictureStyles with not much success). In Raw, the D90's dynamic range is awesome.

So good luck with your choice. If you have a good feeling about Nikon, take the leap. There is something to be said for using gear that you are excited about and that speaks to you.

The old Penn Theater.
Kellogg Park, Plymouth, Michigan.
For many years I worked about 100 yds from there.

Nice to see the pic.
Nice to see it open again.

I assume you live near there?

digitography said:

Click to expand...

Modern Canon DSLRs have too much contrast IMO. At least at their default contrast settings. Whenever I work with a Canon image I wind up having to try and find a way to lighten up the darker midtones and tone-down the highlights. It's just excessive.

Nikon's images tend to have less contrast and are easier to work with.

Personally I don't advocate switching systems on a whim. Pick one and stick with it and accept the quirks of your chosen system.

RPCentral said:

I shot with a Canon XSI for a couple of years, and I never quite got the results I wanted for some reason.

Click to expand...

This makes me feel better, since I also had an XSi for 2 years and then sold it. Like you, I was never fully satisfied with the results I got, and I've been taking photos for years with different brands (curiously, for some reason, people in the Canon forums are very quick to tell you that you have no idea how to take photos if you're not happy with your results with a Canon dSLR, apparently it's some kind of sacrilege).

Considering the product lineup in the current market and what I'm seeing in most images from Nikons, there's a 99.99% chance I'll get that D7000, and I feel I will most definitely not regret my decision

txabi said:

RPCentral said:

I shot with a Canon XSI for a couple of years, and I never quite got the results I wanted for some reason.

Click to expand...

This makes me feel better, since I also had an XSi for 2 years and then sold it. Like you, I was never fully satisfied with the results I got, and I've been taking photos for years with different brands (curiously, for some reason, people in the Canon forums are very quick to tell you that you have no idea how to take photos if you're not happy with your results with a Canon dSLR, apparently it's some kind of sacrilege).

Click to expand...

They are right.

txabi said:

Considering the product lineup in the current market and what I'm seeing in most images from Nikons, there's a 99.99% chance I'll get that D7000, and I feel I will most definitely not regret my decision

Click to expand...

You are right.
--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

txabi said:

I don't quite know how to explain it, but there is SOMETHING in the nikon images that I have discovered appeal more to my taste than the Canon images I have been experiencing for years. I feel it's something in the colors, but I can't put my finger on what exactly is different. All I know is that when looking at photos from different Nikon cameras, the images look more "real" to me. Has anybody experienced this before?

Click to expand...

I don't think either is definitively better or more "real" than the other. I work with a lot of professionally-shot stock and have seen images from just about every Canon and Nikon digital body. The default JPEG output can vary greatly, of course, but at the raw level there isn't a huge amount of difference. Any differences seen in final images as displayed on line or printed is mostly due to post-processing, whether done in-camera or later, and the lens used.

That said, Canon and Nikon colors are definitely different. But either can be processed to more or less look like the other. Canon colors are generally more muted while Nikon colors are more saturated. Personally, as someone who does post-processing for a living, I find Canon files to be easier to work with because of this.

binary_eye said:

txabi said:

I don't quite know how to explain it, but there is SOMETHING in the nikon images that I have discovered appeal more to my taste than the Canon images I have been experiencing for years. I feel it's something in the colors, but I can't put my finger on what exactly is different. All I know is that when looking at photos from different Nikon cameras, the images look more "real" to me. Has anybody experienced this before?

Click to expand...

I don't think either is definitively better or more "real" than the other. I work with a lot of professionally-shot stock and have seen images from just about every Canon and Nikon digital body. The default JPEG output can vary greatly, of course, but at the raw level there isn't a huge amount of difference. Any differences seen in final images as displayed on line or printed is mostly due to post-processing, whether done in-camera or later, and the lens used.

That said, Canon and Nikon colors are definitely different. But either can be processed to more or less look like the other. Canon colors are generally more muted while Nikon colors are more saturated. Personally, as someone who does post-processing for a living, I find Canon files to be easier to work with because of this.

Click to expand...

To make pictures more muted with a D90 and work from there in RAW post processing what setting would you suggest?

Canon colors are generally more muted while Nikon colors are more saturated. Personally, as someone who does post-processing for a living, I find Canon files to be easier to work with because of this

For me, it's the other way around. at default Nkons cameras,(at least the new generation of nikon cameras D90,D300,D700) have very natural colors . They are not saturated . I even believe they are a bit muted . Contrary to this Canon Colors are more contrasty and Skin tone at default is a bit off compared to Nikons. I'am not a Nikon fanatic .

I have a Nikon and prefer Nikon over Canons but I just report what I see with my eyes. Just go to Imaging resource and use the comparator and compare Nikons D90 against Canon 50D and you will see what I mean . I'am not bashing Canon.They make excelent cameras and I like them. I just prefer Nikons philosophy in image reproduction in DSLR. In P&S territory its in my eyes a whole different story.

Modern Canon DSLRs have too much contrast IMO. At least at their default contrast settings. Whenever I work with a Canon image I wind up having to try and find a way to lighten up the darker midtones and tone-down the highlights. It's just excessive.

Now this is what I see IMHO.

AdobeRGB will do it. sRGB is much more saturated.

Of course you can desaturate color settings.

I use everything low on D80 in RAW, especially tone, then import with CNX2 the in-camera settings and work from there.

digitography said:

binary_eye said:

txabi said:

I don't quite know how to explain it, but there is SOMETHING in the nikon images that I have discovered appeal more to my taste than the Canon images I have been experiencing for years. I feel it's something in the colors, but I can't put my finger on what exactly is different. All I know is that when looking at photos from different Nikon cameras, the images look more "real" to me. Has anybody experienced this before?

Click to expand...

I don't think either is definitively better or more "real" than the other. I work with a lot of professionally-shot stock and have seen images from just about every Canon and Nikon digital body. The default JPEG output can vary greatly, of course, but at the raw level there isn't a huge amount of difference. Any differences seen in final images as displayed on line or printed is mostly due to post-processing, whether done in-camera or later, and the lens used.

That said, Canon and Nikon colors are definitely different. But either can be processed to more or less look like the other. Canon colors are generally more muted while Nikon colors are more saturated. Personally, as someone who does post-processing for a living, I find Canon files to be easier to work with because of this.

Click to expand...

To make pictures more muted with a D90 and work from there in RAW post processing what setting would you suggest?

Click to expand...

--
Renato.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/rhlpedrosa/
OnExposure member
http://www.onexposure.net/

Good shooting and good luck
(after Ed Murrow)

That's weird, I use to have an Oly E510, and that is the camera that produces the colors I like best. Oly JPEG engine is IMHO, marvelous! Its DR and noise properties may be behind, but in colors & tonality they're one step ahead.

But each to his own. Glad you enjoy the D5000 though

razormac said:

I am not willing to say the images are better, but better to my eye. When I was looking at DSLRs I was pretty much set on Olympus (E620 and E30) but everytime I did a side-by-side in the store (took some of my CF and SD cards to the camera store to shoot test photos--mainly of my wife), I had to admit that despite my initial prejudice toward Olympus, I preferred the look of the photos out of the D5000.

Eventually, I gave in and bought a D5000 and have been delighted with it. Honestly, have never compared to Canon, but from my subjective experience there is a visible difference between Nikon and Oly jpegs straight from camera, and my preferrence is to Nikon.

Click to expand...

--
Cheers, Reza