| Author | Thread |
|
|
02/19/2005 10:14:25 PM · #26 |
I've used and owned Nikon and Canon cameras, and feel confident that I can make this generalization, after down sampling a 6/8 megapixel image to a 640px/150k DPC image, what you're seeing is not one camera's image processing vs. another's; instead, a good/sharp 640px/150k image does show the post processing skills of that photographer, period.
Now, if one were comparing two full size images from, say, a Nikon camera vs a Canon Camera, unprocessed/with comparable settings (ISO, tone curve, etc.), then one could speculate as to which in-camera image is: sharper, with more color saturation, contrast, etc.
As to the RAW vs JPEG debate, ultimately, it comes down to one's shooting preference and desire to post-process an image. I will say this, however, back when I used to shoot film and developed my own negatives and prints, I realized one thing: the magic... that wow factor... that pop... it happens in the darkroom. The same still holds true in the digital age. Of course, one has to start with a good image/capture to begin with; however, that good shot can be transformed into a great shot with post-prosseing -- that's why I prefer to shoot RAW 99% of the time (though, on occasion, depending on my needs, I switch to JPEG).
|
|
|
|
02/19/2005 10:44:08 PM · #27 |
Originally posted by Jarrad:
A well edited D70 photograph (I think) looks far better than an EOS shot |
That's completely absurd. And no, my feelings aren't hurt, I'm not upset, and I don't mean to belittle you or your personal views. There is no way on earth (or heaven) that you can tell from looking at a file whether it was taken with a canon or a nikon. Completely ridiculous if you think otherwise!
|
|
|
|
02/20/2005 01:36:45 AM · #28 |
Most of my rebel/D70(or 100) experience is from my own rebel, those of the Pgh DPCrs (deapee is one of 'us') and alansfreed (D100) and 2 friends i recently had a shot with (nikon guys, d100 & d70).
I think the D70s and D100s present/catpure a more saturated image that does the rebel. I doubt there is any sharpness difference...BUT
them Nikon shooters seem to use custom WB more than us Rebel folk, they seem to prefer RAW over JPG, and they sharpen less in-camera.
I tried other sharpness settings for my Rebel, and tried more in-camera saturation. I liked the default settings best (in JPG, have not tested RAW).
I am/was a JPG shooter. Yesterday I was with the 2 Nikon friends in a studio, and about 4 hours of camera talk...i tried RAW. The first few shots werew at F8...F11 was the correct exposure. I could save some of the shots in RAW very easily. I could not save them in JPG..although i think it can be done if you are more skilled in PS than me at that trick.
I used auto WB (and alien bee strobes) and got fine results. the FLASH wb setting was different, but not much (to my eyes).
They had/have me about 70% convinced to shoot all in RAW...I am not sure if I will stay in RAW or do JPGs or what not, but another 512 or 1 G card is on the shopping list now.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2005 01:47:07 AM · #29 |
| I've recently been trying to decide which camera to buy, a D70 or a 20D or now a new Rebel XT. I have literally looked at thousands of photos and I would have to agree that there seems to be a consistency of D70 photos being 'softer'. I guess that is the word for it. Now I would assume that some of these photos are RAW and some JPG, but I can clearly see that Rebel, 10D and 20D photos all seems to be sharper. I think it is a personal preference as to which one someone likes best. I actually think the D70 does a better job with portraits and the Canon's are great with the scenic shots. I'm leaning toward the new Rebel because I like the slight lean towards sharpness that I believe the Canon has. |
|
|
|
02/20/2005 02:28:53 AM · #30 |
I think some of the difference is not the quantity of Rebels out there, but the type of owners. Being an affordable camera I would think that ther are many more of them in the hands of part-timer NOOB photogs than can be said of Nikon cams. just a guess on that though.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2005 08:32:56 AM · #31 |
my buddy and i are a d70/300D rivalry, and we're always comparing the two. really the only diff that we agree upon is that the d70 has alot more noise at ISO1600. but thats all we can conclude.
i will say that the lens makes a huge difference in the d70. i was using my non-DX 28-200 and was very happy with the results. then i purchased the DX 10.5 fisheye and was blown away at how "clear" the image was pixel for pixel against an image shot with the non-DX lens (btw - DX lenses are designed for shooting onto nikons dslr sensors rather than onto a frome of film). after the novelty of fisheye wore off, i went back to the 28-200 for a while. i just purchased the DX 18-70 last week and i had the "wow" factor all over again.
DX does matter :)
|
|
|
|
02/20/2005 09:26:09 AM · #32 |
Anyone who judges a camera's sharpness using DPC's 640px resolution is being seriously mislead. If you aren't looking at 100% crops you are judging post-processing and nothing more.
If you can tell the difference between Nikon and Canon shots, you are most likely seeing color and tonality differences between the the imaging ASICs. Just like different films produce different images, so do different ASICs. (ie: Canon's Digic). Can you tell the difference between Provia and Velvia? Sure. Can you tell the difference between Canon and Nikon? Likely you can.
If you are truly trying to compare sharpness you need to pay nore attention to the lens than the body, and even more to post-processing. Both that D70 and 300D can produce publication quality sharpness given appropriate glassware.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2005 09:27:56 AM · #33 |
Originally posted by cghubbell:
Can you tell the difference between Canon and Nikon? Likely you can. |
No way in hell.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2005 11:06:14 AM · #34 |
Originally posted by RickH:
I've recently been trying to decide which camera to buy, a D70 or a 20D or now a new Rebel XT. I have literally looked at thousands of photos and I would have to agree that there seems to be a consistency of D70 photos being 'softer'. |
D70 jpeg's are pretty soft. The NEF's are sharper and have more resolution. If you want to shoot jpegs this is important, if you shoot raw it is not.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2005 12:09:44 PM · #35 |
Jpeg's are great for out and about shooting, places where you can go back time and time again. RAW should be used when the scene is otherwise priceless, and perhaps unattainable later...i.e. weddings, vaacations. etc etc .
I thinkk canon is consistently sharper out of camera. alot of the nikon pro's suggest using a minimum of in camera sharpening, Im not sure why... but perhaps this is why canon stuff is sharper out of camera.
Nikon on the other hand has richr color out of camera. some have mentioned, may be due to WB preset, this may be true but all these little tricks we're discussing add up to great images, whether its canon or nikon. Its a preference thing. Both are very capable and as for chasing the latest and greatest.... sorry guys you're falling for the oldest marketing trick in the book. Canon releases models often enough to make you feel that whatever you have is not quite good enough. example rebel xt... just a firmware upgrade to the 300D... which consiquently reduced the value of the 300D you just bought.
the reality of it is that whatever camera you have has the ability to make incredible images. I have acoolpix 4300 that has recorded images better than my D70
Deepea has a finepix that has made better images than his rebel...(phipps)
so all you guys look at your older camera thats collecting dust and remember the great stuff it made....
fire away :)
|
|
|
|
02/20/2005 12:18:36 PM · #36 |
Originally posted by dentman:
example rebel xt... just a firmware upgrade to the 300D... which consiquently reduced the value of the 300D you just bought.
the reality of it is that whatever camera you have has the ability to make incredible images. I have acoolpix 4300 that has recorded images better than my D70
Deepea has a finepix that has made better images than his rebel...(phipps)
so all you guys look at your older camera thats collecting dust and remember the great stuff it made....
:) |
I agree with most of what you have said. I like the pics from my old fuji 1400 1mp camera better than many from my S602.
Each tool is best at some job. I have jewelers screwdrivers and one 3 feet long...each has a purpose it fulfills so i use each one at the appropriate time.
As to the quote above...have you bothered to read abou the 350XT at all?
New 8Mp sensor, DIGIC2 processor (new compared to the 300D) and new firmware (ala the 20D). New body, new battery.
|
|
|
|
02/20/2005 03:24:16 PM · #37 |
chris - noted on the XT.... I read a bit but not enought to know about the new processor. but we are on the same page elsewhere. ;)
|
|
|
|
04/08/2005 05:20:22 AM · #38 |
| Cameras aren´t sharp lenses are. The kit lens is very sharp for it´s price. |
|
|
|
04/08/2005 05:47:56 AM · #39 |
It isn't true to say that 'cameras aren't sharp' - the ability of the sensor to resolve fine detail is crucial: and I would argue that that still applies after processing on computer - whatever you do, what you put in the front end will affect the output.
If you want to get punchy images straight out of the camera, then as far as my machine, with the DIGIC II, is concerned make a set of parameters that are set at +1, and few people will be disappointed.
I was also dubious about the benefits of RAW shooting, and having tried it foor a day I'm now a convert - if you can ever imagine yourself needing to use those images in future, I can't see that you're not hurting yourrself by shooting in any other format. Sure they take up a lot of space (though if you archive the converted images as 16-bit TIFFs then you'll really know about space - that gets me 12 images on a CD, roughly).
One thing with in-camera settings: whilst sharpening can be useful, depending on the algorithms your manufacturer employs, and saturation other than in very bright colourful situations probably won't lose you anything - upping the in-camera contrast is just equivalent to throwing away a bunch of the information in the scene you're shooting: whatever you do, keep this setting at it's lowest, and work on it later.
E |
|
|
|
04/08/2005 05:51:25 AM · #40 |
Originally posted by Truegsht:
Since this subject is open.... what should the settings be on the Canon 20D (in camera)? I have them on default... which is halfway on everything. Should they be changed or left alone? |
I use another setting, where everything is pushed up by one point, works great :) |
|
|
|
04/08/2005 06:32:36 AM · #41 |
If an image has been sharpened in the camera it does not respond as well to post processing.
The D70 was deliberately left with very little sharpening. It assumes that there will be post processing before a shot is used. It was assumed that the users would be a little more "professional". Saturation will also be a little down as that gives you the most flexibility later.
The Canon 300D on the default sharpening settings was designed to give images that worked straight out of the camera. Absolute entry level DSLR.
The same complaint is often levelled against the Canon D20 - and it is for the same reason. A more "professional" camera and therefore less sharpening is done in camera - the extra tiny bit of care will be taken with the images afterwards.
{Boy that last comment really looks like it was designed to inflame people doesn't it!! ;) }
|
|
|
|
04/08/2005 06:34:17 AM · #42 |
I have to say two things:
First, that this is a very hell humoured thread. Because comparing in camera sharpness based on 640 pixel images that most of the times where sharpened twoce (on the opening and after resizing). And the idea of telling if the image was taken with a canon or a nikon or other well bilt dslr after this hole processing, resizing and more processing is just for laugh. It's a pure act of humour.
Secondly, what moust of the so called experts are doing I think is'nt converting to raw, but in the opposite direction, wich is converting to jpeg. Because the habillity of controling the qualaty if the compression and the nowerdays less abressive convressing algorithems seem to give less problems. honnestly, take an image in a lolid trypod, in the same camera, one after the other, one in raw and one in jpeg, don't alter one from the other in post processing and print it 30x20 cm and give me a 10 out of 10 that you can say whith one i the jpeg and which one is the raw. and that's for every one of you guys that are used to seeing the differences. Print it twicw has big and tell me how nay clients see the difference.
I'm not taking the credis out of the raw capabilities, but probably it is not for everyone and not for all the jobs. My current area is wedding photos. I haven't tryed it in raw but I can't imagine how it is posible. Taking photos until half past 14, going to the pc to converti it to jpeg, go to he lab to do the proofs and be at 18 o'clock again in the wedding to present the proofs... Seems impossible unless you're using USB 4.0 (joking) or if you can fly like superman and do your prints while in the air.
Is any of the presents shooting weddings in raw? How do you do your workflow? Just curious.
|
|
|
|
04/08/2005 07:24:45 AM · #43 |
Does it seriously matter? Really should be more concerned with the photographer than the tools.
Take the photo, make the image. Don't discount post processing with digital - it's just as important as darkroom skills with film.
|
|
|
|
04/08/2005 07:32:04 AM · #44 |
Ironically enough- yesterday I had cause to print out sample images from the Pentax *istDS, the Rebel XT, and the D70. Same image, low end lenses set at 50 mm (ie Non L, non DX etc. Those images were then taken and printed using a Frontier 350. No editing was done.
Out of camera, Canon is a sharper image. Most Canon consumer end cameras are wicked sharp out of camera. It's designed that way because if Joe Consumer takes their digital media to a photo place for development, no post processing will occur. Up the in camera sharpening generally +1 on the Nikons and you can't tell the difference.
That said, in camera sharpness as applied by software (not the lens) is moot when shooting in RAW. It is also moot if you are using some sort of post processing workflow.
Clara
|
|
|
|
04/08/2005 07:35:37 AM · #45 |
Originally posted by Nuno:
Secondly, what moust of the so called experts are doing I think is'nt converting to raw, but in the opposite direction, wich is converting to jpeg. Because the habillity of controling the qualaty if the compression and the nowerdays less abressive convressing algorithems seem to give less problems. honnestly, take an image in a lolid trypod, in the same camera, one after the other, one in raw and one in jpeg, don't alter one from the other in post processing and print it 30x20 cm and give me a 10 out of 10 that you can say whith one i the jpeg and which one is the raw. and that's for every one of you guys that are used to seeing the differences. Print it twicw has big and tell me how nay clients see the difference.
I'm not taking the credis out of the raw capabilities, but probably it is not for everyone and not for all the jobs. My current area is wedding photos. I haven't tryed it in raw but I can't imagine how it is posible. Taking photos until half past 14, going to the pc to converti it to jpeg, go to he lab to do the proofs and be at 18 o'clock again in the wedding to present the proofs... Seems impossible unless you're using USB 4.0 (joking) or if you can fly like superman and do your prints while in the air. |
If you're pressed for deadlines then sure, jpeg is the way to go. Just batch process and let it rip.
I noticed you're using a D70 though, which means you can shoot in jpeg + raw (I'm pretty sure almost all cameras w/ raw have it). Do your proofing with the jpegs, but for prints use raw. The reason is that raw contains a lot more data than jpeg, which means you can push it further in post processing.
|
|
|
|
04/08/2005 07:46:31 AM · #46 |
I own a 10D by Canon and find it to be "soft" so to speak. But you have to look at the bright side. I'm ashamed to admit it, but my fellow Canon users - at least in here - lack a sense of joy and humor and about themselves and photography. I do not note this about Nikon (or any other camera) user.
Photoshop can sharpen an image but it cannot soften their terseness.
|
|
|
|
04/08/2005 08:00:25 AM · #47 |
Originally posted by mikasi:
I own a 10D by Canon and find it to be "soft" so to speak. But you have to look at the bright side. I'm ashamed to admit it, but my fellow Canon users - at least in here - lack a sense of joy and humor and about themselves and photography. I do not note this about Nikon (or any other camera) user.
Photoshop can sharpen an image but it cannot soften their terseness. |
Hey, I resent that!
I'll have you know that I have no sense of humour and what the hell is this 'joy' word that you mumble? ;)
|
|
|
|
04/08/2005 08:02:44 AM · #48 |
Originally posted by virtuamike:
Do your proofing with the jpegs, but for prints use raw. |
This is what I do (or at least try to).
|
|
|
|
04/08/2005 08:05:13 AM · #49 |
you're kidding, right?
Originally posted by mikasi:
I'm ashamed to admit it, but my fellow Canon users - at least in here - lack a sense of joy and humor and about themselves and photography. |
|
|
|
|
04/08/2005 08:17:26 AM · #50 |
Not you Kris, he's talking about the real Canon camera owners, not those with the cheap plastic imitations ;)
Originally posted by hopper:
you're kidding, right?
Originally posted by mikasi:
I'm ashamed to admit it, but my fellow Canon users - at least in here - lack a sense of joy and humor and about themselves and photography. |
|
|
|
Home -
Challenges -
Community -
League -
Photos -
Cameras -
Lenses -
Learn -
Prints! -
Help -
Terms of Use -
Privacy -
Top ^
DPChallenge, and website content and design, Copyright © 2001-2024 Challenging Technologies, LLC.
All digital photo copyrights belong to the photographers and may not be used without permission.
Current Server Time: 04/19/2024 05:16:30 AM EDT.
