Color Differences Between Nilon and Canon

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

measekite wrote:

> I have seen many hundreds of photos produced by both Nikon and Canon
> lenses. While both were top notch, I did notice that most of the
> photographs produced by Nikon were more muted and pastel in color while
> those produced with Canon lenses appears to be more vivid and saturated.
>
> Anyone find the same thing and know why?

Different design goals. Choose the look you like and buy that camera. IMHO
the look the camera produces in the final print is more important than the
other details people obcess over looking at 300% blown up crops on screen.
--

Stacey

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"measekite" <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote in message
news:FDJEd.9258$wZ2.3021@newssvr13.news.prodigy.com...
> I have seen many hundreds of photos produced by both Nikon and Canon
> lenses. While both were top notch, I did notice that most of the
> photographs produced by Nikon were more muted and pastel in color while
> those produced with Canon lenses appears to be more vivid and saturated.
>
> Anyone find the same thing and know why?

You talking about lenses or cameras?

Nikon's dSLRs generally default to a little more muted color than Canon,
although this can be adjusted in both cameras' software. It probably boils
down to the personal preference of whoever wrote the software, but both
companies are so secretive we will probably never know.

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

The subject of this thread is color differences.

Kevin McMurtrie wrote:

>In article <34h8cmF4c8qo2U2@individual.net>,
> Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>>measekite wrote:
>>
>>
>>
>>>I have seen many hundreds of photos produced by both Nikon and Canon
>>>lenses. While both were top notch, I did notice that most of the
>>>photographs produced by Nikon were more muted and pastel in color while
>>>those produced with Canon lenses appears to be more vivid and saturated.
>>>
>>>Anyone find the same thing and know why?
>>>
>>>
>> Different design goals. Choose the look you like and buy that camera. IMHO
>>the look the camera produces in the final print is more important than the
>>other details people obcess over looking at 300% blown up crops on screen.
>>
>>
>
>There is some logic to the examination of pixels. What appears to be a
>very small defect can actually be a condition where the camera doesn't
>work. Once you've identified a small fault, the next step is to test if
>the fault can occur over a significantly large area. Nobody wants to
>spend $1000 that may have serious hidden faults.
>
>For example, Canon has a problem with misplaced pixels. One can guess
>that it's noise masking but it remains a mystery. So far nobody has
>found a case where it is significant.
>
>The Foveon Sigmas have problems with some pixels being aliased, lacking
>color, or being an incorrect hue in a typical photo. It isn't normally
>a problem. However, the faults can appear over large areas of a photo
>in some conditions. Some colors and patterns can't be photographed.
>
>The Olys are infamous for purple fringing. Some of their older models
>show 1-2 pixels of mild fringing on average but up to 12 pixels of solid
>neon-purple under some conditions. That destroys a 2-3 megapixel image.
>The newer ones may show 1 pixel on average and a worst-case of maybe 5
>mildly tinted pixels. That's not so bad for an 8 megapixel camera. The
>worst-case is easily correctable in a photo editor.
>
>

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

In article <EWVEd.735$8Z1.285@newssvr14.news.prodigy.com>,
measekite <measekite@yahoo.com> wrote:

> The subject of this thread is color differences.

Oh. Tests have shown the differences to be insignificant between the
Canon and Nikon. They're both nearly perfect with no major flaws. I
thought maybe we were on a different topic.



> Kevin McMurtrie wrote:
>
> >In article <34h8cmF4c8qo2U2@individual.net>,
> > Stacey <fotocord@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >
> >
> >
> >>measekite wrote:
> >>
> >>
> >>
> >>>I have seen many hundreds of photos produced by both Nikon and Canon
> >>>lenses. While both were top notch, I did notice that most of the
> >>>photographs produced by Nikon were more muted and pastel in color while
> >>>those produced with Canon lenses appears to be more vivid and saturated.
> >>>
> >>>Anyone find the same thing and know why?
> >>>
> >>>
> >> Different design goals. Choose the look you like and buy that camera. IMHO
> >>the look the camera produces in the final print is more important than the
> >>other details people obcess over looking at 300% blown up crops on screen.
> >>
> >>
> >
> >There is some logic to the examination of pixels. What appears to be a
> >very small defect can actually be a condition where the camera doesn't
> >work. Once you've identified a small fault, the next step is to test if
> >the fault can occur over a significantly large area. Nobody wants to
> >spend $1000 that may have serious hidden faults.
> >
> >For example, Canon has a problem with misplaced pixels. One can guess
> >that it's noise masking but it remains a mystery. So far nobody has
> >found a case where it is significant.
> >
> >The Foveon Sigmas have problems with some pixels being aliased, lacking
> >color, or being an incorrect hue in a typical photo. It isn't normally
> >a problem. However, the faults can appear over large areas of a photo
> >in some conditions. Some colors and patterns can't be photographed.
> >
> >The Olys are infamous for purple fringing. Some of their older models
> >show 1-2 pixels of mild fringing on average but up to 12 pixels of solid
> >neon-purple under some conditions. That destroys a 2-3 megapixel image.
> >The newer ones may show 1 pixel on average and a worst-case of maybe 5
> >mildly tinted pixels. That's not so bad for an 8 megapixel camera. The
> >worst-case is easily correctable in a photo editor.
> >
> >