Color rendering of Canon and Nikon (need advice)

[tesla23]

Heres the thing: Nikon seems far more superior and offer better bang for buck cameras compared to Canon but i just dont like the color rendering. I owned a D610 and loved the depth and sharpness but the colors itself, i really did not like it.

Whether its overall landscape colors or skin tones in portrait shoots, it lacks a certain warmth. I have tried to "recreate" that certain warmth but simply could not get it.



Now i am at the point where i would consider a possibly outdated camera such as the 5d Mark III (nearly 5 years old now) over a newer Nikon such as the D750 or so. I wouldnt mind getting a newer Canon but Canon does not offer a newer camera in this price range so theres another reason why i dont know what to get.

ARRRGH!

 

[Julia Borg]

Whether its overall landscape colors or skin tones in portrait shoots, it lacks a certain warmth.

is it out of camera jpegs, or you are shooting raw and converting? which converter is it? what are the camera settings? and i need to ask, where are the sample images?

 

[tony field]

Heres the thing: Nikon seems far more superior and offer better bang for buck cameras compared to Canon but i just dont like the color rendering. I owned a D610 and loved the depth and sharpness but the colors itself, i really did not like it.

Whether its overall landscape colors or skin tones in portrait shoots, it lacks a certain warmth. I have tried to "recreate" that certain warmth but simply could not get it.

Now i am at the point where i would consider a possibly outdated camera such as the 5d Mark III (nearly 5 years old now) over a newer Nikon such as the D750 or so. I wouldnt mind getting a newer Canon but Canon does not offer a newer camera in this price range so theres another reason why i dont know what to get.

ARRRGH!

 

[tesla23]

Well, i have shot RAW-only and since i also used to shoot Canon as well, there defenitely is a difference in color rendition.

 

[BG454]

Well, i have shot RAW-only and since i also used to shoot Canon as well, there defenitely is a difference in color rendition./

But, as Julia Borg asks above, what raw convertor(s) are you using?

 

[tesla23]

Well, i have shot RAW-only and since i also used to shoot Canon as well, there defenitely is a difference in color rendition./

But, as Julia Borg asks above, what raw convertor(s) are you using?

No converters, i have imported them directly into Lightroom.

 

[Reilly Diefenbach]

Heres the thing: Nikon seems far more superior and offer better bang for buck cameras compared to Canon but i just dont like the color rendering. I owned a D610 and loved the depth and sharpness but the colors itself, i really did not like it.

That particular Sony sensor has fat juicy color like few others, especially if converted by LR/ACR Camera Standard or Adobe Standard. In threads of this type the fault usually lies with a monitor which is not adjusted properly.

 

[tesla23]

Whether its overall landscape colors or skin tones in portrait shoots, it lacks a certain warmth.

is it out of camera jpegs, or you are shooting raw and converting? which converter is it? what are the camera settings? and i need to ask, where are the sample images?

 

[tesla23]

Heres the thing: Nikon seems far more superior and offer better bang for buck cameras compared to Canon but i just dont like the color rendering. I owned a D610 and loved the depth and sharpness but the colors itself, i really did not like it.

That particular Sony sensor has fat juicy color like few others, especially if converted by LR/ACR Camera Standard or Adobe Standard. In threads of this type the fault usually lies with a monitor which is not adjusted properly.

RAW results do differ from sensor to sensor. As far as i know, Sony compresses RAW files in some capacity (check out those reviews on cameras from the Alpha series)

 

[Reilly Diefenbach]

Heres the thing: Nikon seems far more superior and offer better bang for buck cameras compared to Canon but i just dont like the color rendering. I owned a D610 and loved the depth and sharpness but the colors itself, i really did not like it.

That particular Sony sensor has fat juicy color like few others, especially if converted by LR/ACR Camera Standard or Adobe Standard. In threads of this type the fault usually lies with a monitor which is not adjusted properly.

RAW results do differ from sensor to sensor. As far as i know, Sony compresses RAW files in some capacity (check out those reviews on cameras from the Alpha series)

We're not discussing the Sony cameras, just the D610, at least so far. The 24MP Sony sensor in the D610/D750 has great color, as is known by tens of thousands of professionals and fussy amateurs.

 

[Julia Borg]

Whether its overall landscape colors or skin tones in portrait shoots, it lacks a certain warmth.

is it out of camera jpegs, or you are shooting raw and converting? which converter is it? what are the camera settings? and i need to ask, where are the sample images?

RAW only, no converters, post processing in Lightroom

just in case - Lightroom is a converter. when you are saying no convertors but Lightroom you are saying my converter is Lightroom.

color comes from Lightroom and from how you use it.

before you decide on color, try recommended converters: Nikon Capture (free) and Canon DPP (free).

 

[tony field]

Well, i have shot RAW-only and since i also used to shoot Canon as well, there defenitely is a difference in color rendition.

I don't happen to have identical shots on 5dIII and d750 handy. I see no difference in colour between these DPR camera shots (raw/iso 100) .... however, your eyes may have greater sensitivity for colour differences than mine.

The two shots are normalized for white balance and luminosity (on the Kodak grey scale just above the 13 on the step wedge. Monitor calibrated with i1pro.

Incidentally, Lightroom and Photoshop/ACR are "the same" raw converter.



--
Charles Darwin: "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
tony
http://www.tphoto.ca

 

[Julia Borg]

upper one is approx. 40% more saturated.

--
Julia

 

[Julia Borg]

RAW results do differ from sensor to sensor.

yes. that does not mean bitmap results can't be close enough. most of the color we call pleasing comes from light, exposure, raw converter and user, and not from sensor being Canon or Nikon or Sony.

Sony compresses RAW files

in their own cameras, yes, Nikon cameras are a different story. but even with Sony cameras, never saw that compression to affect color of skin or vegetation in any measurable way.

check out those reviews on cameras from the Alpha series

careful with reviews which offer technical details. one needs to be an expert to know what he is talking about, and a good educator and popularizer to write it in a way it is understandable for general audience. this is as rare a combination as it gets.

 

[tony field]

upper one is approx. 40% more saturated.

Yes, I see the Canon is slightly more saturated (I did not notice this until you mentioned it). Since both shots are in ACR, is this attributable to the slight differences in the colour interpretations model used by Adobe for each camera??

I do not "see" any difference in "colour" between the cameras. In other words, I perceive that both cameras would result in the same skin tone for images (other than slight saturation). Correct me if I am wrong.

--
Charles Darwin: "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
tony
http://www.tphoto.ca

 

[Julia Borg]

upper one is approx. 40% more saturated.

Yes, I see the Canon is slightly more saturated (I did not notice this until you mentioned it). Since both shots are in ACR, is this attributable to the slight differences in the colour interpretations model used by Adobe for each camera??

yes of course.

I do not "see" any difference in "colour" between the cameras. In other words, I perceive that both cameras would result in the same skin tone for images (other than slight saturation). Correct me if I am wrong.

much of the talk of color differences is lame. much as in 90+%

--
Julia

 

[tony field]

upper one is approx. 40% more saturated.

Yes, I see the Canon is slightly more saturated (I did not notice this until you mentioned it). Since both shots are in ACR, is this attributable to the slight differences in the colour interpretations model used by Adobe for each camera??

yes of course.

I do not "see" any difference in "colour" between the cameras. In other words, I perceive that both cameras would result in the same skin tone for images (other than slight saturation). Correct me if I am wrong.

much of the talk of color differences is lame. much as in 90+%

Incidentally, how did you come up with the "40% more saturated"? How might this translate into the saturation slider in PS ??



--
Charles Darwin: "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
tony
http://www.tphoto.ca

 

[Julia Borg]

upper one is approx. 40% more saturated.

Yes, I see the Canon is slightly more saturated (I did not notice this until you mentioned it). Since both shots are in ACR, is this attributable to the slight differences in the colour interpretations model used by Adobe for each camera??

yes of course.

I do not "see" any difference in "colour" between the cameras. In other words, I perceive that both cameras would result in the same skin tone for images (other than slight saturation). Correct me if I am wrong.

much of the talk of color differences is lame. much as in 90+%

Incidentally, how did you come up with the "40% more saturated"?

just a guess. as dad says, you are 35 only, you still have the right to have an opinion.

How might this translate into the saturation slider in PS ??

i would be trying saturation slider in ACR.

--
Julia

 

[RedFox88]

Whether its overall landscape colors or skin tones in portrait shoots, it lacks a certain warmth.

is it out of camera jpegs, or you are shooting raw and converting? which converter is it? what are the camera settings? and i need to ask, where are the sample images?

--
Julia

RAW only, no converters, post processing in Lightroom.

Dude, Lightroom is a raw converting program !

Camera settings have varied on the individual situation - anything specific you were thinking of?

--
My photos:
https://www.flickr.com/photos/derpap/

 

[FrancoD]

Well, i have shot RAW-only and since i also used to shoot Canon as well, there defenitely is a difference in color rendition.

I don't happen to have identical shots on 5dIII and d750 handy. I see no difference in colour between these DPR camera shots (raw/iso 100) .... however, your eyes may have greater sensitivity for colour differences than mine.

The two shots are normalized for white balance and luminosity (on the Kodak grey scale just above the 13 on the step wedge. Monitor calibrated with i1pro.

Incidentally, Lightroom and Photoshop/ACR are "the same" raw converter.



--
Charles Darwin: "ignorance more frequently begets confidence than does knowledge."
tony
http://www.tphoto.ca

colours are different, particularly obvious in the red and green squares, same for the cotton spools.