# Thoughts on differences between Canon and Nikon DSLR image quality--specific!



## usinjin (Nov 26, 2011)

Hi all,

My first post here, so, hi. 

I've always really been a Canon person. I like the Powershot series a lot, and now I've moved into their DSLR's. I got my first DSLR as a graduation gift, it's a Canon T1i. I've always been happy with it, but I still sometimes check out other DSLRs just out of interest. I usually go and compare images of different cameras at Imaging Resource. Comparing Nikon and Canon images, I've noticed there's a fairly noticeable difference between them. I've compared LOTS of DSLR pictures of the two brands, and I've found that in general, the Nikon pictures tend to be a little darker, have slightly richer colors, and be a little sharper, while the Canon pictures somehow look a little flatter with lighter, softer colors. I've found that I like the darker and fuller-looking Nikon pictures better. Is there a decent camera upgrade I could do to improve my image quality somewhat? I've experimented with the in-camera settings for image quality (and I'm shooting on max resolution currently) but there hasn't been much of a change. And the idea of Photoshopping doesn't really appeal so much. I'm still using the kit lens, maybe an upgrade there would help?

Has anyone else noticed the image difference between Canon and Nikon as far as color and sharpness goes?

Thanks for you thoughts!


----------



## awdSTi (Nov 26, 2011)

I know what mean about the different, personally i have been able to shoot on both but i prefer the Canon over Nikon. As for the richer, darker color feel, have you tried adjusting your photo temp? I believe you can find it under the white balance, if I am not mistaken, its been about a 1year since i touch a canon. Also try playing with your speed and shutter adjustments.


----------



## KmH (Nov 26, 2011)

usinjin said:


> I've experimented with the in-camera settings for image quality (and I'm shooting on max resolution currently) but there hasn't been much of a change. And the idea of Photoshopping doesn't really appeal so much. I'm still using the kit lens, maybe an upgrade there would help?........And the idea of Photoshopping doesn't really appeal so much.


The in-camera settings for saturation, contrast, sharpening, etc are rude and crude. All of those settings get applied to the entire photograph.

At least with decent image editing software, like Photoshop, one can apply edits locally in a photo and with a lot more fine control. 

As far as looking at photos online it helps to know if any photo you look at has been edited or not. 

Ultimately image quality is more a function of photographer skill and knowledge than being a function of what camera is used.

It's your money, but the quickest and biggest gains in image quality come from upgrading the photographer.

Many upgrade their camera gear to discover zero improvement in the quality of the photos they make.


----------



## fjrabon (Nov 26, 2011)

I have a friend I occasionally shoot with who uses a T1i.  I noticed what you're talking about.  I usually just adjust the exposure compensation down a notch or two and they're roughly comparable.  I would adjust the in camera contrast and saturation as well, but I always adjust those in post processing anyway, so I don't really want to then do that in the camera and then have to change it back when we swap back our cameras.


----------



## usinjin (Nov 26, 2011)

Thanks all for sharing your thoughts. I'm not really one to think that I need to run out and buy a new camera whenever I get undesired results. I usually do a bit of exposure compensation and that helps. I've done a decent amount of comparison between the T1i and Nikon's D3100 and D5100 cameras...besides the color tone, I've noticed that the Nikons tend to deal with detail a little bit better, and that detail can be a little softer than I like with my T1i. Again, looked at camera settings, didn't make too much of a difference. Just an interesting observation. I make it a point to examine pictures that haven't been edited in any way. As far as sharpness goes, has anyone noticed this?


----------



## Buckster (Nov 26, 2011)

KmH said:


> As far as looking at photos online it helps to know if any photo you look at has been edited or not.
> 
> Ultimately image quality is more a function of photographer skill and knowledge than being a function of what camera is used.
> 
> It's your money, but the quickest and biggest gains in image quality come from upgrading the photographer.


^This.

There are too many variables between photographers, camera settings and editing to make such casual and general overall statements.  What you (OP) need to do is make apples to apples comparisons, like this: Canon EOS 500D / Digital Rebel T1i Review: 24. Compared to (RAW): Digital Photography Review


----------



## LizardKing (Nov 26, 2011)

If you're planning on changing to Nikon, then try to aim a little higher. It doesn't necessarily mean your photos will improve, but you'll definitely have a better tool to work with. 
You can take good photos with any camera, I'm sure of that. But IQ is also dependent on the gear.
I recently bought the D7000 as my first DSLR and couldn't be happier. After researching a lot about each Nikon model below the D700, I think the D7000 is the best choice. Try comparing it one to one with each of its competitors, and you'll see for yourself. Plus, the price is within reach, I believe. Even though you didn't specified your budget.

You should of course think of buying it with a good lens. Kit lenses are not good enough. If don't have enough budget for a good zoom lens, think about some primes.

And about the Canon vs Nikon discussion, both of them are great and none of them is bad. Just think about the pros and cons from each and decide which one you like best.
Or don't think about the brand and look for the model that best fits your budget and needs.

Anyway, good look with your decision! 

Regards,
*LizardKing*


----------



## fjrabon (Nov 26, 2011)

LizardKing said:


> If you're planning on changing to Nikon, then try to aim a little higher. It doesn't necessarily mean your photos will improve, but you'll definitely have a better tool to work with.
> You can take good photos with any camera, I'm sure of that. But IQ is also dependent on the gear.
> I recently bought the D7000 as my first DSLR and couldn't be happier. After researching a lot about each Nikon model below the D700, I think the D7000 is the best choice. Try comparing it one to one with each of its competitors, and you'll see for yourself. Plus, the price is within reach, I believe. Even though you didn't specified your budget.
> 
> ...



No offense, but you don't seem to have any support for your statement "the kit lens is not good enough."  I'm also not sure what support you have for thinking that the D7000 is going to mean a huge difference.  The biggest difference between the D7000 and it's lesser siblings isn't image quality, it's a few features that are things that pros would want more than someone who is just getting into the hobby.  If you're just looking at image quality, you will tell absolutely 0 difference between an image taken with a D5000 and a D7000.  I'm not saying the D7000 isn't a better camera, it clearly is, but you're making it out like it produces better quality output, which just isn't true. I just really feel that somebody who is buying their first DSLR telling somebody else that the kit lens isn't good enough is highly misplaced.  Ken Rockwell completely disagrees with you there.  And while I don't think he's the be all and end all of camera advice, he is _extremely _well qualified to make such proclamations.  

I'd bet you a lot of money that if you were double blind tested shots with the kit lens on a D5000 set a 50mm and a 50mm prime on a D7000, you wouldn't do any better than guessing.  

The 50mm and the D7000 are both fantastic products by the way, but you're making it out like there would be an appreciable difference in image quality there, which just isn't really true.  The 50mm is great because it's cheap and fast, and is sharp.  But the kit lens at 50mm is also really sharp too.  The kit lens really only struggles at the two ends of its range, from about 30mm to 50mm it's really sharp.  THe biggest difference in the two is that the 50mm can go much lower aperture wise.


----------



## Buckster (Nov 26, 2011)

LizardKing said:


> Kit lenses are not good enough.


Just to be clear, "not good enough" for what, specifically, please?


----------



## Nikon_Josh (Nov 26, 2011)

This is the common myth spread around that kit lenses are optically inferior, for a start Lizard King some kit lenses will perform better than your 28-300 which is a superzoom and has alot of compromises included.

fjrabon, I'm with you all the way there! Apart from the Ken Rockwell mention, he has a habit of being controversial for the sake of controversy and then suddenly changing his mind and doing complete u turns on opinion, like when he said the 18-200 was the only lens to use and now states it's better to use primes! Hes a funny old fish, KR is!


----------



## usinjin (Nov 26, 2011)

Buckster said:


> KmH said:
> 
> 
> > As far as looking at photos online it helps to know if any photo you look at has been edited or not.
> ...


 
I've looked at that comparison, I also like the "Comparometer" at imaging-resource.com. Imaging Resource "Comparometer"  Digital Camera Image Comparison Page You can compare high resolution images of the exact same thing between any two cameras. Comparing the T1i and the D5000 under the "still life 200 iso" image, the Nikon handles the fabric squares better, the detail looks more blurred with the T1i. Just an observation. But I also like the Nikon pictures at your link better as well.



LizardKing said:


> If you're planning on changing to Nikon, then try to aim a little higher. It doesn't necessarily mean your photos will improve, but you'll definitely have a better tool to work with.
> You can take good photos with any camera, I'm sure of that. But IQ is also dependent on the gear.
> I recently bought the D7000 as my first DSLR and couldn't be happier. After researching a lot about each Nikon model below the D700, I think the D7000 is the best choice. Try comparing it one to one with each of its competitors, and you'll see for yourself. Plus, the price is within reach, I believe. Even though you didn't specified your budget.
> 
> ...



As a matter of fact I was eyeing the D7000! It's pretty cool. It would definitely be a step-up for me.

Anyways, do people usually have more than one DSLR? Maybe I should get a Nikon as well, just for a little diversity.


----------



## fjrabon (Nov 26, 2011)

Nikon_Josh said:


> This is the common myth spread around that kit lenses are optically inferior, for a start Lizard King some kit lenses will perform better than your 28-300 which is a superzoom and has alot of compromises included.
> 
> fjrabon, I'm with you all the way there! Apart from the Ken Rockwell mention, he has a habit of being controversial for the sake of controversy and then suddenly changing his mind and doing complete u turns on opinion, like when he said the 18-200 was the only lens to use and now states it's better to use primes! Hes a funny old fish, KR is!



haha, yeah I know he does that, he's still a great reference though.  I generally trust him when he's saying there isn't a difference more than when he's raving or ranting.  When he goes off it's when he's trying to be super opinionated for the sake of just doing so.  But there are certain things he never wavers on, one being that the Nikon kit lens is a great product and that the difference in the Nikon pro-sumer body models is features, not image quality.


----------



## Buckster (Nov 26, 2011)

usinjin said:


> I've looked at that comparison...like the Nikon pictures...better.


Well, I can see why.  The difference is like night and day:






Full size: http://www.buckcash.com/images/artphotos3/Nikon_v_Canon01.PNG

No way that can be fixed in Photoshop.  I better sell off all my Canon gear and buy Nikon before the whole photographic world figures this out and the Canon stuff devalues so much that it will be absolutely worthless.

Thanks for the heads up!


----------



## fjrabon (Nov 26, 2011)

Buckster said:


> No way that can be fixed in Photoshop.  I better sell off all my Canon gear and buy Nikon before the whole photographic world figures this out and the Canon stuff devalues so much that it will be absolutely worthless.
> 
> Thanks for the heads up!



That's a little unfair to the OP.  I _think_ what he was saying is that he prefers the way Nikon chooses autoexposure.  Which is kind of valid.  If you're choosing between two cameras and one chooses the exposure you like without fiddling with it, then I think that's a legitimate reason to prefer one brand over the other.  Sure, if you completely equalize the settings between the two cameras, you get virtually identical images, but part of what you're paying for is how it autoexposes, unless you _always_&#8203; shoot 100% manual.  He also stated very clearly it was a preference, as opposed to him saying that Nikon was categorically better.  Kind of a straw man you're going after here.


----------



## Buckster (Nov 26, 2011)

fjrabon said:


> Buckster said:
> 
> 
> > No way that can be fixed in Photoshop.  I better sell off all my Canon gear and buy Nikon before the whole photographic world figures this out and the Canon stuff devalues so much that it will be absolutely worthless.
> ...


Sorry, but he never mentioned auto-exposure, nor would have mattered if he had.  His opening post is a litany of subjective comments that culminate in, "there's a fairly noticeable difference between them", followed by a quest for a software upgrade to his Canon to make the photos come out like a Nikon.  The bottom line: This is yet another Noob Nikon vs. Canon thread, with a subjective preference of one over the other, as if there really is one to speak of.

Looking at the direct comparison page, he reinforces his original post by stating again that he likes the Nikon shot better.  Fine with me, but I just ain't seeing it, especially not with the knowledge that the image file from either camera is just step 3 in a much longer series of steps from conception to final product in making a photograph.  As a contributive step towards the final product, this step means VERY LITTLE to the end result.  Feel free to disagree, but hear me out.

Yeah, there are subtle differences, especially if you go the actual page and drill down to pixel peep it.  There, we find that in some areas of the photo toward the rear, the Nikon is sharper, while in other areas toward the front, the Canon is sharper.  In the sweet spot between them, there's no difference that I can detect.  Again, that's at pixel peeping level AND that's before any kind of sharpening is applied in post, which it certainly will need to be, no matter which DSLR is being used.  As for color and saturation, it's so minimally different that it's a matter of no significance whatsoever, especially since the images still have to go through processing of some sort to be usable.

And let's talk about that a little bit, while we're at it.  For anyone who's THAT anal about the minimal differences we're talking about here, why in the world would they NOT shoot RAW and NOT post-process them with Photoshop, Lightroom, aperture, or some equivalent software?  And as soon as you drop that RAW file into the processing phase of making a photograph, those minor differences don't mean boot as you work it to your subjective level of perfection, including any and all subtleties in color, sharpening and all the rest of it.  I'm not talking about spending hours on it either; I'm talking bout minimal, standard adjustments that are the norm for any image processing from a DSLR.  If he cares THAT MUCH that these subtle differences are really bothering him enough to seek out a software upgrade for his Canon camera to make it produce Nikon RAW images, then he's going to care ENOUGH to tweak his images in post, just like we all do.

The infinitesimally small differences here at camera file step between two similarly capable cameras by the two major manufacturers mean NOTHING to that overall process, and the end results he's seeing of finished photos are the subjective results of the photographers making the images he's looking at via their own preferred processing techniques.  Keith nailed that aspect of the situation much more succinctly, but I'm happy to expound upon it here.

The whole Canon vs. Nikon "controversy" is some of the dumbest bullspit in photography conversations that can be found, as far as I'm concerned.  The differences are negligible to the point of silliness, and this is just another one.

YMMV


----------



## LizardKing (Nov 26, 2011)

Alright guys. Didn't mean to start all this discussion. I always forget how people tend to overreact and create a big deal out of nothing in phorums.
I won't argue with you, since you all seem to have way more experience than me and I'm not even in disagreement.

Now, I could be wrong, but I definitely believe that -in photography- you get what you pay. Kit lenses are fine, but there's a whole bunch of lenses out there better than the kit lenses, and sometimes they're not even that much more expensive.

It all depends on the needs and budget of the OP. 

Regards,
*LizardKing*


----------



## fjrabon (Nov 26, 2011)

LizardKing said:


> Now, I could be wrong, but I definitely believe that -in photography- you get what you pay. Kit lenses are fine, but there's a whole bunch of lenses out there better than the kit lenses, and sometimes they're not even that much more expensive.



So, you get what you pay for, except some times?  Im not really sure what any of what you're saying even means now.  If you're saying more expensive = better quality, which is what your first statement means, then you're just wrong.  Like I said earlier, the main reason the kit lens is cheap is because they make a lot of them.  The main reason the 10-24 wide angle zoom is $1000 is because they don't make very many of them.  It's a well known concept.  Economies of scale - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia


----------



## KmH (Nov 26, 2011)

Kit lens is really a misnomer, because kit lenses are just consumer grade lenses.

Camera makers usually have 3 grades of lenses: Consumer, Prosumer, and Professional.

All 3 grades of lenses have technical limitations the photographer has to be aware of and work within.

No doubt, camera makers make many more consumer grade lenses, than prosumer lenses, than professional lenses.

In fact, the camera makers make the vast majority of their total photography gear sales revenue, and profits, from all the less expensive consumer grade gear they sell.


----------



## fjrabon (Nov 26, 2011)

KmH said:


> Kit lens is really a misnoner, because kit lenses are just consumer grade lenses.
> 
> Camera makers usually have 3 grades of lenses: Consumer, Prosumer, and Professional.
> 
> ...



yeah, I mean if he was comparing the kit lens to like a $3,000 pro grade lens, that's another matter.  My main issue was he was comparing them to other more expensive consumer grade lenses, notably the 50mm f/1.8 prime.  Which is a good lens and all, but not like categorically different.  Same deal with the D7000.  It's a consumer grade camera, it has more features, but it's not going to run circles around a D5100, like he tended to imply.  And it makes 0 difference image wise, since the D7000 actually uses the same exact sensor as the D5100.


----------



## LizardKing (Nov 26, 2011)

I never compared the kit lens to any other particular lens. Maybe you should re-read that carefully. 
But now, since you talk about the 50mm... I don't think the f/1.4G is a consumer lens... isn't it? but yet again, I could be wrong.

Of course you are loosing the zoom capabilities, but the price's similar and no matter what you say I don't agree the IQ of this 50mm is the same as a kit lens set to 50mm. 
I'm aware I'm just starting and am nothing but a beginner to all this, but if you're telling me that a kit lens at the 50mm has the same IQ than a prime 50mm f/1.4... I just don't agree.

Anyway, doesn't make any sense for me to keep this discussion. 
Have a nice day!

Regards,
*LizardKing*


----------



## fjrabon (Nov 26, 2011)

LizardKing said:


> I never compared the kit lens to any other particular lens. Maybe you should re-read that carefully.
> But now, since you talk about the 50mm... I don't think the f/1.4G is a consumer lens... isn't it? but yet again, I could be wrong.
> 
> Of course you are loosing the zoom capabilities, but the price's similar and no matter what you say I don't agree the IQ of this 50mm is the same as a kit lens set to 50mm.
> ...



the 50mm f1.8 is consumer grade.  the f/1.4 is semi-pro.  However, the 50mm f1.4 doesn't fall into what you were talking about with "slightly more expensive than the kit lens" since it's like 3 times as expensive as the kit lens.  BUt even the 50mm f/1.4, the biggest thing you're paying for is the f stop number.  at f/8 you'll have a lot of trouble telling the 50mm f/1.4 from the f/1.8 or even the kit lens set at 50mm.  

I'm not saying the image quality is the exact same, just that you won't really be able to tell the difference at normal apertures.  THe reason it's more expensive isn't IQ, it's the aperture and the fact that fewer are made.


----------



## Nikon_Josh (Nov 26, 2011)

fjrabon said:


> LizardKing said:
> 
> 
> > Now, I could be wrong, but I definitely believe that -in photography- you get what you pay. Kit lenses are fine, but there's a whole bunch of lenses out there better than the kit lenses, and sometimes they're not even that much more expensive.
> ...



This is interesting, I haven't really thought of it in this way before! It is true that optics wise, consumer grade lenses are pretty darn good. 

But well of course build quality and a wide aperture play a part too? Not to mention R and D?? 

It is highly complex to design 2.8 zooms for example, the 70-200 2.8 is a design masterpiece from Nikon and I think its expense is in part because of the R and D and tank like build quality! But I can see what you mean, alot less 70-200's will be built and sold than 55-300's for example.


----------



## djacobox372 (Nov 26, 2011)

fjrabon said:


> LizardKing said:
> 
> 
> > I never compared the kit lens to any other particular lens. Maybe you should re-read that carefully.
> ...



Prime lenses break the "three grades theory," there are only two grades with prime lenses, consumer and pro.  Macro lenses break this theory even more, with there typically being only one version available.


----------



## fjrabon (Nov 26, 2011)

djacobox372 said:


> Prime lenses break the "three grades theory," there are only two grades with prime lenses, consumer and pro.  Macro lenses break this theory even more, with there typically being only one version available.



It's true in the sense that you're really not going to get a better 50mm prime than the f/1.4 but build quality wise it's closer to Nikon's consumer grade than it is the pro grade lenses.  While pros use the 50mm f/1.4, I don't really think of it as pro grade, it's just the better 50mm prime Nikon makes.  I actually think Sigma makes the best quality 50mm prime out there, the one that it seems like most pros use if they use a 50mm prime a lot.


----------



## skieur (Nov 26, 2011)

usinjin said:


> Hi all,
> 
> My first post here, so, hi.
> Has anyone else noticed the image difference between Canon and Nikon as far as color and sharpness goes?
> ...



Sure if you put Canon and Nikon images of the same controlled conditions photo side by side, you will discover that the Canon image is slightly sharper BUT with more picture noise and that the Nikon image is slightly LESS sharp but with LESS picture noise. Either problem can be worked around in postprocessing.

In the area of colour Nikon tends to be warmer toward orange and Canon tends to be cooler toward blue and grey.  Again, though this can easily be adjusted in post.

skieur


----------



## fjrabon (Nov 26, 2011)

skieur said:


> usinjin said:
> 
> 
> > Hi all,
> ...



did you mean canon is sharper but has more noise?


----------



## skieur (Nov 26, 2011)

fjrabon said:


> skieur said:
> 
> 
> > usinjin said:
> ...



OOPS!  I edited it. Canon is sharper but has more noise.

skieur


----------



## usinjin (Nov 26, 2011)

Buckster said:


> fjrabon said:
> 
> 
> > Buckster said:
> ...



You're right. I really wasn't that clear. I'm a noob, can't help it.

I really didn't mean to imply that a minor detail in a photo meant to me that Canon was inferior to Nikon. I really just wanted to point out some differences I'd noticed and discuss it with some more camera-savvy people. I have no intention of getting rid of my Canon gear at all. I just want to learn more about some of the finer details between the cameras from the two companies. I understand the differences are very subtle, and really are a matter of preference. I'm not trying to ask "which one's better." 

Also, I'm not about to go all "which lens is better", but it was helpful to hear some lens recommendations so thanks all for those.

That's all.


----------



## Dao (Nov 26, 2011)

OP, the color different sometimes is because of how the camera was tuned (In JPEG output only).  You can adjust your camera settings to make the color of the photo more vivid right out from the camera if you shoot jpeg.

Of course, you may notice that there are different pre-defined profiles you can choose such as Portrait, Landscape ... etc.

Camera ouput different sometimes not just varies from Brand to Brand.  When Nikon D40 was released, some reviews said the output color is more vivid than the previous models such as D70/70s and D50.


----------



## LizardKing (Nov 27, 2011)

fjrabon said:


> the 50mm f1.8 is consumer grade.  the f/1.4 is semi-pro.  However, the 50mm f1.4 doesn't fall into what you were talking about with "slightly more expensive than the kit lens" since it's like 3 times as expensive as the kit lens.  BUt even the 50mm f/1.4, the biggest thing you're paying for is the f stop number.  at f/8 you'll have a lot of trouble telling the 50mm f/1.4 from the f/1.8 or even the kit lens set at 50mm.
> 
> I'm not saying the image quality is the exact same, just that you won't really be able to tell the difference at normal apertures.  THe reason it's more expensive isn't IQ, it's the aperture and the fact that fewer are made.



I agree with you... maybe IQ is not the best word to describe what I was saying... My mistake... 
I was trying to say that, using in the wider apertures (let's say from 1.4 to 4, at least), you can take pictures you can't even dream of with a kit lens. Specially in low-light conditions. You have also a better quality in the construction and optics, I believe. And the price's not 3 times... A kit lens is about 300U$s I believe, and I bought a new Nikon 50mm f/1.4G for 475U$s... If I remember correctly, I've even seen some kit lenses that were about 400-500U$s.

About the camera discussion, after reading several reviews here in this phorum and all over the internet... I believe the D7000 is the best choice, if you don't want to go full frame. D5100 and D90 are, for example, great camera... But if you're upgrading from a Rebel, maybe D7000 is a better choice. That will leave you closer to the full frames, for a future upgrade.


----------



## mangtarn (Nov 27, 2011)

instead of comparing something you have with something you don't, why not get practical and go shoot with the one you have. save the time you use for 'research' and get more practice.


----------

