Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Nikon Color

taintedwheat

taintedwheat

macrumors member
Original poster
Oct 29, 2007
46
0
Los Angeles, CA
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.
 
peskaa

peskaa

macrumors 68020
Mar 13, 2008
2,104
5
London, UK
Weird. It is normally the other way round, with Canon colours "popping" a little more and Nikons being a little more flat.
 
C

cube

Suspended
May 10, 2004
17,011
4,973
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.
 
Foucault

Foucault

macrumors 6502
Dec 30, 2002
272
0
Pasadena, CA
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.
 
taintedwheat

taintedwheat

macrumors member
Original poster
Oct 29, 2007
46
0
Los Angeles, CA
taintedwheat

taintedwheat

macrumors member
Original poster
Oct 29, 2007
46
0
Los Angeles, CA
Foucault said:
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.
Click to expand...

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.
 
C

cube

Suspended
May 10, 2004
17,011
4,973
peskaa said:
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.
Click to expand...

I bought mine for the dynamic range, which still rules.

And the S5 is based on the D200, where's the poor ergonomics?
 
S

stevo8

macrumors 6502
Jul 3, 2007
333
17
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.
 
C

ChrisA

macrumors G5
Jan 5, 2006
12,834
2,040
Redondo Beach, California
taintedwheat said:
.... 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??...
Click to expand...

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.

Foucault said:
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. ..
Click to expand...

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
 
taintedwheat

taintedwheat

macrumors member
Original poster
Oct 29, 2007
46
0
Los Angeles, CA
ChrisA said:
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.
Click to expand...

This is what I was thinking, but wasn't really sure.
 
pdxflint

pdxflint

macrumors 68020
Aug 25, 2006
2,407
14
Oregon coast
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. ;)
 
W

wheelhot

macrumors 68020
Nov 23, 2007
2,084
269
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'?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom