Nikon Color

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by taintedwheat, Mar 17, 2009.

  1. taintedwheat macrumors member

    taintedwheat

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #1
    Up until recently, I was the proud owner of a Canon Rebel XS. It got stolen a few weeks ago and I was very sad but have since moved on... I'm now in the market for a new camera! I was very happy with Canon because on the low end range, they seem to beat Nikon to me (cheaper lenses which don't require the lens motor, what seems to be better ISO performance, more comfortable ergonomics, etc.) However I haven't ruled Nikon out of the picture mainly because of the color their images have... they seem to be much more vibrant and really POP. Is it the default settings that are different or something else??

    Luckily, I never got a chance to invest in any glass so I'm not tied to Canon yet. I also don't intend for this to be a Canon vs Nikon thread, just wondering about the color issues, thanks.
     
  2. peskaa macrumors 68020

    peskaa

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2008
    Location:
    London, UK
    #2
    Weird. It is normally the other way round, with Canon colours "popping" a little more and Nikons being a little more flat.
     
  3. cube macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #3
    If it's color you are after, check out the Fujifilm S5 Pro, which is based on a D200 body, and is now very discounted.

    I just got my second-hand S3, so I couldn't try it by myself yet. One thing's for sure, it's a slow writer.

    The Kodaks also have special color, but they are too old to use as a general-purpose camera. But they came in Nikon and Canon versions, although the N's are considered better.
     
  4. Foucault macrumors 6502

    Foucault

    Joined:
    Dec 30, 2002
    Location:
    Pasadena, CA
    #4
    I agree with Peska. A similar thing happened to me. I've always been a Nikon man, I've owned the Nikon D50 and Nikon D80. This summer I upgraded to the Nikon D700 and loved it, but found that the color just wasn't popping like it was with the Canon 5D. Unfortunately my D700 got stolen in November, and when I got the insurance money, I used it to purchase the Canon 5DMKII. The colors on the 5DMKII are just incredible, although the skin tones on the D700 are a little bit better. Can't go wrong with either one, but I would say most people would agree that Canons render colors better than Nikon.
     
  5. taintedwheat thread starter macrumors member

    taintedwheat

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #5
  6. taintedwheat thread starter macrumors member

    taintedwheat

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #6
    Thanks for your input.

    I guess its just one of those "the grass is always greener on the other side" scenarios, only quite literal - haha.
     
  7. peskaa macrumors 68020

    peskaa

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2008
    Location:
    London, UK
    #8
    Old, outdated technology that is tricky to get the best out of, poor ergonomics and a feature set that leaves a lot to be desired. In the current day and age, nobody should be buying a Fuji dSLR.
     
  8. cube macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #9
    I bought mine for the dynamic range, which still rules.

    And the S5 is based on the D200, where's the poor ergonomics?
     
  9. taintedwheat thread starter macrumors member

    taintedwheat

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #10
  10. cube macrumors G4

    Joined:
    May 10, 2004
    #11
    OK, I pointed to it, because if it's Nikon mount based on a Nikon body, it's Nikon to me.
     
  11. stevo8 macrumors 6502

    Joined:
    Jul 3, 2007
    #12
    Glass can have a huge effect on color rendering.. More so then the body IMO. Personally I think right now that the canon 40D is about the best bang for the buck body out. If your still shooting JPEG how much the image "pops" will mostly be due to internal settings in the camera. If your shooting RAW I feel as if most nikons render a sharper images with less color straight from the camera.. But if your shooting raw that means absolutely nothing in the end. Invest in a 40D and a decent L lens(24-70 or 24-105) and be done for years to come.
     
  12. ChrisA macrumors G4

    Joined:
    Jan 5, 2006
    Location:
    Redondo Beach, California
    #13
    That has been true with nikon for many years, even with the older manual focus film cameras. It has to do with the lens designers and the lens coatings. Each lens designer has his own "look". Nikon has one, Leica has one too. Nikon has always had good color contrast in their lenses as a trademark feature. The other thing Nikon does very well is flash metering. the two go together well to make for a kind of fill-in flash snap. The effect is subtle and can be overpowered by either choise of film or now color conversion settings on the DSLRs or post processing.

    It used to be easier to see this. You could put the same "sensor" (Kodachrome) in each camera and go shoot and see the effect of the lens on color rendition.

    Nikon does this on intentionally.

    The default color setting on the lower-end consumer camera is set to exaggerate or "pop" the colors. But the professional camera are set to be "accurate". The idea is to appeal to each target market with what they like. But if you shoot raw format the issue goes away.

    The same happens with audio equipment. have you have noticed how the cheap stereos then to have a big boommy bass while the higher end gear does not. Same idea here
     
  13. taintedwheat thread starter macrumors member

    taintedwheat

    Joined:
    Oct 29, 2007
    Location:
    Los Angeles, CA
    #14
    This is what I was thinking, but wasn't really sure.
     
  14. pdxflint macrumors 68020

    pdxflint

    Joined:
    Aug 25, 2006
    Location:
    Oregon coast
    #15
    Also, if you're looking at jpeg output (as was mentioned) none of this matters if it's something you can tweak. Almost all cameras (even cheap point 'n shoots) now allow settings to boost the color saturation or contrast or sharpness in-camera, or drop it down from the default settings. RAW - that's another story. You can change things in pp to match your preferences with any brand of camera that will produce a RAW file, which is basically unprocessed.

    If you like the out-of-camera default jpegs from Nikons better than Canons, and you don't intend to ever shoot RAW, then go with what you like. And vice-versa, of course. ;)
     
  15. wheelhot macrumors 68000

    Joined:
    Nov 23, 2007
    #16
    Yup, Nikon output photos is usually more vibrance/saturated then Canon, I guess it is intentionally, perhaps to make the photo look good out of the camera? So dont need to add sat/vib in PP?

    I think from what I read in a magazine, Nikons is more on magenta then the rest and I recall a reviewer say that, w/ D90, you got to take care of the saturation level cause it has the tendency of over saturate and in fact, he show a flaw where a red chinese cheongsam ended up colored orange instead of red.

    But frankly speaking, most ppl when they see Canon vs Nikon comparison photos, normal people will lean towards Nikon, I guess its cause the color 'pops'?
     

Share This Page