Nikon vs. Canon

OK, I'm only after information and do not want a yelling match, so to speak, about major camera manufacturers and their products. We don't have to limit any replies to the above brands.

Observation and Question: It has been my superficial observation that Canon produces a better print than Nikon. More color, more detail, etc. Big statement and probably not true. My question is how much difference in technology do manufacturers represent in all the ramifications of image production? That would include lens quality, coatings, sensors, alogrhythms, default camera color space, dim light performance, spectrum, etc.

I would like to stay away from actual processing unless it is necessary to go there. I'm interested if there is any significant differences in say a "raw" photo or camera processed .jpeg.

I would appreciate scientific answers, if there are any, as to quality differences in various areas.

Oh, I have Nikon primarily because I have a lot of lenses. And I'm sure the camera will do more than I'm geting from it. It isn't the rifle; its the shooter....

A few of my shots can be seen at www.whillvet.com

Larry

Larry, I know this is not the answer you are after but raw files are not meant to be printed as-is. If you avoid processing you will not get the best possible quality from either system.

Now, tell us more about what you want to compare: top of the line models? entry/mid level models?

Guy

Larry - One more thing : you said you don't want to talk about processing, but you are willing to talk about camera processed JPGs. I don't think you can really separate the two like that - especially given the large amount of customization available in the camera for the JPG output. The camera defaults on one camera may produce something you think is always better than the defaults of another camera, but what's the point? If that's the case, change what you don't like.

As stated above yes there are significant differences between raw and jpeg images. Basically jpegs are raw images that have had settings like sharpness, contrast, and saturation applied in the camera. This is essentially what you get with a point and shoot camera--all the settings are optimized for the general public. You get very little control over your images since you are dependent on the camera algorithms doing all the work for you. Most DSLRs allow you to create several combinations of jpeg settings so you can be a little creative (very little). However some photographers do use jpegs, especially when they are pinched for time and on a deadline--newspapers and magazines for example. Many magazines will also tell you to jsut send them a jpeg and they will do the corrections before printing it themselves. However, I usually don't trust them and do a little pre-processing on a raw image then convert it to a jpeg to send them. The bottom line is if you have time to do even a minimal amount of processing in Photoshop or other programs it will give you much greater creative control. If you have no desire to exert creative control then find the best DSLR that will give you a good jpeg to suit your needs--Larry

Thanks for the reply Guy. I understand the concept of raw and not being ready for print. I use CaptureOne 4 followed by NX2 to process. I would like to compare advanced SLR's. I shoot a Nikon D300.

David,
You ask a good question. Why not compare both the camera-generated .jpegs from top line cameras. I know they're not point and shoot. I a little short on process not having experience with a wide variety of color spaces and programs that have a lot of options. I guess what you are saying is that the ability to produce technological photos perhaps lies more with processing than with camera. If that is so, then my question is answered. I just wondered if sensors, lenses, and in-camera processing was felt to be superior in certain brands.
Larry

Thanks Larry P.,

Yes, I'm aware that any good SLR will provide a good photo. Everyone seems to be saying that regardless of the engine the car will get to the finish line. My question stems around the concept of (in good quality cameras--top of the line), what technology, if any gets to the finish line first--or better. Perhaps it is a close race and the judges can't really tell??? Or are all the engines the same like NASCAR????

One last note, and this is a corollary which can be taken to another thread if necessary. To wit: film has a significantly wider spectrum than digital. I've taken superior photos of the lunar landscape with film at about 2000 mm. I've not been able to dublicate that with digital on my D300. Is that possible, or are their limitations to digital processed images that have yet reached the finish line compared with film??

Thanks, Larry F.

One last thought.

I think what I'm after is: Does any camera, top of the line, generate through its innate techonology, a RAW image superior to others. Or, is it all in the varities of processing??

Larry

I'm not really following Larry...

Why not compare both the camera-generated .jpegs from top line cameras.

Are you asking a question or re-iterating what I said? I think my main point is comparing default settings is silly since the settings are so customizable. And what you're really comparing at that point is the in camera RAW developing, which is probably only partially related to the RAW data itself. There may in fact by significant differences between manufacturers in the quality of the JPG they produce. But I think you'd have to go through a lot of playing with the in-camera settings to maximize the quality of the JPG - whatever your criteria for quality are.

Comparing JPGs produced by a camera with default settings is like comparing RAW processing software by what the default settings are.

As for the RAW files...I don't have much experience, but based on a lot of reading, I'd say that's a definite YES. Some cameras produce much better RAW files than others. This is largely dependent on exposure and lens quality as well though. When talking top of the line cameras, with top of the line lenses, the quality is so good that most difference are minor for most people. Still there is some preference there that I've seen written about.

There are definitely differences between the Canon and Nikon RAW images. I mostly see it in the color balance, even if everything is set to neutral. It is not much and sometimes hard to spot, but it is there. For whatever reason, the few Nikon RAW files I have worked with remind me more of Kodak slide films in color balance.

I suppose that you could quantify it scientifically, but I'm not sure how much that would actually accomplish. Different sensor technologies, megapixel counts and sensor sizes all play a role in the quality of the data that eventually becomes the RAW file, even if the same conversion algorithm would be used. In practice, the biggest difference in the images produced are the PS skills of the person working the image.

If the shots at www.whillvet.com are representative of what you are trying to do then I don't understand the point of this post and the time being wasted on the replies. And I don't understand why you need a D300 or any DSLR of any brand to take them.

So, a few questions:
- are you trying to justify a purchase?
- do you want to justify switching brands?
- do you think that by purchasing a specific high-end camera and shooting default jpegs that you will be getting some hypothetical high quality results without bothering to do any post processing?

Use the D300 you have already. Shoot in raw. Use ACR in PS CS3 to convert your raw files and import the output into Photoshop. Process to taste. Spend more time taking photos and less time in hypothetical analysis. Enjoy your results.

Richard summed up my thoughts very tactfully, Larry.

Get out and enjoy shooting, and gradually develop the most efficient postprocessing workflow you can. .

To simply RAW conversion and postprocessing, consider getting Lightroom V.2, which has nearly all the tools you need, instead of Photoshop. The books of Martin Evening, Scott Kelby, and others provide good starting points

The fine points, and the answers to the questions you posted, will come incrementally as you develop a style of your own.

If I understand correctly Larry, most comparable DSLR's RAW shots are so very close to each other to even say there is much of a difference might not be worth it. One difference may come in the lens quality for sure. The really big difference (to me) is in the in camera jpeg conversions.

To D. Bostedo: You touched the subject I'm trying to elucidate when you said, "...When talking top of the line cameras, with top of the line lenses, the quality is so good that most difference are minor for most people. Still there is some preference there that I've seen written about. "

Are there real, scientific differences in top-of-the-line "syestems" (lens, sensor, alogrhythms, etc.), scientifically.

My limited knowledge base also tells me that pixel size can affect noise. Hasselblad apprently is going with large sensor and large pixels although their cameras may be more studio oriented??

These are the things I curious about.

A few of my images are at www.whillvet.com

I do enjoy my camera---regadless---just curious to hear from knowledgable people. Thanks.

Larry

Thanks Richard. Your are correct in your statement about getting out there and shooting.

What I've picked up is that significant differences in reasonable equipment does not really exist. The "art" of photography which used to be in the darkroom in now in the lightroom (computer).

I do process raw photos. I don't at this time have PS (cost). It seems to be the standard. Again, I use CaptureOne4 and touch up with NX2. I've not take really great photos but go to Alaska occasionally and want to be on top, apprently with processing, if / when I get some great shots.

A corollary is the difficulty with astronomical telephoto subjects, particularly high contrast moon shots. Not happy. Should probably to to a differnt web site for that info.

Oh, the snaps of the people on the website were not the ones to critique. I presume you could access the "photoalbum" portion at my website and some of the photos at the bottom of pages (dragonfly)?. I just updated the format and have not heard from others if they see what I publish. There seems to be a significant lag in publishing and updating on the server.

I am also very humbled by the significant quality photos by the photographers at NP. When the economy changes, I'll join and submit some of mine for critique--apparently after purchasing PS. Thanks for the input. Larry

With respect to raw files, although basic camera designs are similar and therefore theoretically should produce similar results there are a lot of other factors in there, such as the coating on the silicon sensor chip surface, the processing algorithms, and the quality of the silcon chip itself. For example Canon seems to have very good silicon sensor chips with very little noise across a wide ISO range. All of these would also affect the quality of a jpeg since it is processed from the raw file. I've never seen a side-by-side comparison of the same images recorded using various cameras and that would be an interesting project. Find an accommodating friend with a comparable Canon DSLR and spend a day shooting various images using both cameras and let us know how it turns out--Larry

The only person I know with a significant Canon is a very attractive, single, young lady. I don't think my wife would appreicate a day shooting various images for comparison (grins). Anyway, the coating item is the type of info I was seeking. It is my uninformed opinion that Canon may have a better sensor... ??? In the meantime I'll look for another Canon owner.
the fisch

Larry,

To put it bluntly with the higher end DSLR cameras it isn't always the gear, but the person behind the lens and doing the post-processing that makes the difference between a so so shot and a great one.

You can put the best gear in the hands of a novice and they may only get mediocre shots.

Then you can put lower end gear in the hands of an experienced photographer and they will likely "pull' every thing they can from the lens & camera.

You can rent Canon equipment and try it out.

If you sell your D300, let me know, I have NO hesitation using Nikon's gear.

Lia, my point is that high-end gear in the hands of an experienced phtograper will come out with a better product if the initial product is better. I'm not asking about the process but the initial image and what might make quality difference in the hands of pro's. What you said is true of any discipline.

...what might make quality difference in the hands of pro's

1. the quality of the optics (e.g., a $5000 pro grade fast long telephoto vs. a $500 consumer grade slow zoom)
2. proper technique (e.g., using a solid tripod, setting proper ISO, shutter speed, aperture, focus, DOF)
3. awareness of the light (e.g., being out at dawn vs. shooting at noon)
4. familiarity with the gear (e.g., knowing how and when to set some exposure bias, how to lock in an exposure and lock focus, how to change the ISO)
5. familiarity with the subject (e.g., when and where to find it, how to show it to best advantage, how it will react to the photographer's presence)
6. post processing (e.g., knowing how to get the most out of the raw image data)

It has nothing to do with the brand of the camera (Nikon or Canon) and little to do with the model of camera within a brand if you compare cameras of similar vintage and number of pixels.

My question is how much difference in technology do manufacturers represent in all the ramifications of image production?

My answer is: almost none.

Richard,
I think you presented everything I needed to see. Nice job!

Now, how much difference is there in "pro-grade" optics and "consumer grade" in quality image production?

the fisch

If you're talking the differences between cameras in the same class, Larry, then the differences are likely to be small (whatever that means to you), simply because no company has really leapt out to the forefront in a way that means much to most photographers. If you're talking about something like the Hassleblad medium format versus a consumer level SLR, then you'll likely see much bigger differences, with the attendant difference in price.

If you're interested in learning a lot more about sensors, Larry, check out this paper :

Noise, Dynamic Range, and Bit Depth

It's by Emil Martinec, an avid nature photographer himself (although mainly on that other forum - NatureScapes ).

It's pretty technical, but terrific. It deals a bit with the "bigger pixels are always better" mantra, which may or may not always hold. And as I posted on here before,

-- 14 bit ADCs are pretty useless given the noise performance of current cameras. (You will very rarely see any difference from 12-bit)
-- The "expose to the right" mantra is correct, but not because of the number of raw levels, only because there's a better signal to noise ratio in the highlight areas
-- The Panasonic FZ50 might have the best (most efficient per area) sensor at low ISO (better than SLRs)

And one that's a bit controversial but usually holds : All else equal, smaller pixels are more likely to show noise and diffraction, but the fact that you have more of them means that for a given print size, small pixels are no worse than large ones.

Now, how much difference is there in "pro-grade" optics and "consumer grade" in quality image production?

For an idea on the difference just look at the charts in camera magazine lens tests. The pro optics generally give higher MTF values, especially at wider aperture settings where you want to be using the lens in low light or to limit DOF. Inexpensive zooms are generally worse at the longest FL and need to be stopped down to deliver acceptable performance.

But if you can live with stopping down, can back off some on the zoom, don't need a fast optic for low light work, or don't expect a lot of enlargement in the results, then consumer grade lenses may be all you need.

It is my personal belief that most people don't address the fundamental issues of good technique when they are unhappy with their results and instead think that the path to better images is more expensive gear.