Canon FF versus Nikon FF

[Atlasman]

Re: Canon FF versus Nikon FF

I think your list of positives is very clear, but my questions are - do you need the extra resolution that the 5D Mark II offers and if it turns out that the 5D Mark II doesn't match the original 5D for its outstanding noise performance and dynamic range (because of the 5D Mark II's smaller pixel pitch) - would that still be acceptable?

Absolutely not.

Canon does say that it has improved the sensor microlenses and improved the efficiency in the photodiode coverage on the sensor but the plain fact is that they have squeezed almost twice as many photodiodes onto the sensor area and, logically, that must have some consequences on noise and dynamic range.

I have yet to purchase a Canon body that hasn't improved on noise performance--beginning with the 10d to the 20D and onto the 40D. A question I would raise at this point is: if Canon has improved on noise and dynamic range at 21MP, what would a 12MP sensor built on this new generation technology achieve?

I'm personally surprised that Canon chose a sensor resolution higher than 16MP for the 5D Mark II. I could of course be proved wrong when reviewers get their hands on production samples.

Ian

I had also projected a 16MP. I think Canon had to answer to the D3 and D700 by exceeding the market's expectation--like Nikon did 2007.

The 5DII was late--I suspect Canon went back to the drawing boards and revised the specifications--why delay if you don't have the technology?

I've been a long-time Canon user--almost 40 years worth. But I won't hesitate to invest in a new brand--if it delivers the best in ISO performance and dynamic range.

I don't need the 21MP--unless the sRaw does magic.

[Ian]

Re: Canon FF versus Nikon FF

Many reviewers I have spoken to say the Nikon D3 and the D700 produce the best DSLR images yet - better even than the 21MP sensor in the Canon EOS-1Ds Mark III, so that suggests to me that the extra resolution that Canon has delivered for the 5D Mark II over the 12MP Nikons is a risky response - we'll see! I hope that Canon has indeed preserved the qualities that the original 5D has become so highly regarded for.

Ian

[Atlasman]

Re: Canon FF versus Nikon FF

I wouldn't buy the D3 (for the same reason I didn't buy the 1d, size and weight), but I'd seriously consider the D700.

[Bob Ross]

Re: Canon FF versus Nikon FF

Danny feels that the Canon is still superior - at least to his taste. He feels the 5D is less contrasty and delivers more depth in dynamic range. This means he can do more with the images in post processing. Printing is Danny's expertise, so I would guess that he gets better looking prints with 5D images than the D700.


Ian

Hi Ian,
I'm a little confused about Danny's comment about contrast. I do agree that lower contrast helps in PP especially for printing, but isn't contrast a function of the gamma curve applied in raw development? I just haven't associated contrast as a characteristic of a sensor or camera. It seems to me that you could match contrast across a wide choice of DSLRs. Matching color profiles would be more of a task, because of the different Bayer filters.
I have processed files from a friend's 5D and they are good. I haven't processed any of the current Nikon models, so I can't comment on a comparison.
Bob

[Ian]

Re: Canon FF versus Nikon FF

Hi Ian,
I'm a little confused about Danny's comment about contrast. I do agree that lower contrast helps in PP especially for printing, but isn't contrast a function of the gamma curve applied in raw development? I just haven't associated contrast as a characteristic of a sensor or camera. It seems to me that you could match contrast across a wide choice of DSLRs. Matching color profiles would be more of a task, because of the different Bayer filters.
I have processed files from a friend's 5D and they are good. I haven't processed any of the current Nikon models, so I can't comment on a comparison.
Bob

I hope Danny can elaborate himself

I think he means that the Canon Files have more adjustment in them. If there is a lot of contrast in the Nikon files to start with, there may be less headroom?

Ian

[Bob Ross]

Re: Canon FF versus Nikon FF

I hope Danny can elaborate himself

I think he means that the Canon Files have more adjustment in them. If there is a lot of contrast in the Nikon files to start with, there may be less headroom?

Ian

Hi Ian,
I hope he does, because it is always fascinating to find out what successfull photographers see in image qualities and how they work with it.
The highlight detail fall off rate, or headroom as it has become known, entered my awarness when a Pro using medium format backs compared film to digital. After that it became a method to tell digital from film. I think it has also become a "popular glitch" and something that hasn't been as much of a problem for me. I did have to learn to process for it, though.
Bob

[Danny Chau]

Re: Canon FF versus Nikon FF

Even in RAW, Canon files (5D in this case) do have less contrast and this means more density in both highlight and shadow when compare to the Nikon RAW. This means in a practical workflow, I have to work less to bring the detail out of highlight and it is also easier to adjust overall contrast because of it.

Danny

[Ian]

Re: Canon FF versus Nikon FF

Even in RAW, Canon files (5D in this case) do have less contrast and this means more density in both highlight and shadow when compare to the Nikon RAW. This means in a practical workflow, I have to work less to bring the detail out of highlight and it is also easier to adjust overall contrast because of it.

Danny

Hi Danny - nice to see you back on the forum!

After post processing, can you get similar quality from both Nikon and Canon 5D full frame, or are you saying Nikon has less information to recover?

Or do they have the same latitude overall, but the Nikon files need more work?

Ian

[Danny Chau]

Re: Canon FF versus Nikon FF

The difference between makes of camera is more than the difference between lenses, a lot is down to the imaging sensor and RAW conversion. I could never get them to look the same, due to their inherent difference, Nikon will always comes out harsher than the Canon, each have their own style/taste. That is why I use different camera for a particular feel, just as painter to choose their type of paint brush.

Danny

[Bob Ross]

Re: Canon FF versus Nikon FF

Hi Danny,
Thanks for the reply. I was still confused until you used the term "harsh" in a reply to Ian. While I was thinking in terms of overall contrast, which can be matched closely, the "harsh" term means something different to me. I think of it in terms of tone and color gradients and yes, the various cameras do differ and I agree that Nikon has always favored the "harsher" look that some call crisp. Ian and I can tell you about it from the Oly E-1, which has some of the nicest gradients that I have used. The E-3 is close and the M8 can be, depending on how the DNG files are developed.
My current experimental work is with saturation gradients in an effort to get richer colors toward the shadow side of the image the way that transparencies did. I adjust the saturation through a tonal mask made from a tweaked monochrome version of the image. I like what I am getting so far, but need to explore how it works with my various cameras and how it will be digested by my printer. I am finding that the saturation gradient is one factor in the "harshness" control and, of course, the color depth.
Bob

[Danny Chau]

Re: Canon FF versus Nikon FF

Hi Bob,

Maybe I'm never too sensitive with words I use, 'harsh' 'contrasty' or lack of highlight means the same thing to me or at least in my minds eye. I do find I can access the highlight details easier than on Nikon files, so for certain type of work where highlight detail is required, I have to work a lot harder if the shot is taken with the Nikon oppose to the Canon.

I'm interested to see what you mean by more saturation in the shadow? I know I tend to use 'load selection' in PS just to pick up the highlight or convert to shadow if I need to work in shadow, this way I can work separately on my highlight and shadow detail or change saturation.

Do you have any samples? Here is one of mine.

[Ian]

Re: Canon FF versus Nikon FF

Hi Bob,

Maybe I'm never too sensitive with words I use, 'harsh' 'contrasty' or lack of highlight means the same thing to me or at least in my minds eye. I do find I can access the highlight details easier than on Nikon files, so for certain type of work where highlight detail is required, I have to work a lot harder if the shot is taken with the Nikon oppose to the Canon.

I'm interested to see what you mean by more saturation in the shadow? I know I tend to use 'load selection' in PS just to pick up the highlight or convert to shadow if I need to work in shadow, this way I can work separately on my highlight and shadow detail or change saturation.

Do you have any samples? Here is one of mine.

Your shot has an interesting reduced-saturation tonality about it. I love subject matter like this.

Back to Nikon highlight headroom, would tranny-shooting style deliberate under-exposure help? Bringing up the shadows afterwards?

Ian

[Bob Ross]

Re: Canon FF versus Nikon FF

Hi Danny,
Your sample is very interesting and the treatment certainly suits the scene. It doe show show the color getting richer/deeper into the shadows. It is my opinion that digital images treat highlight like transpanecy film and the shadows like print/negative film.. I know that I have noticed this over time, but it didn't dawn on me until I read one of those, "does this look like Ektachrom?" treads. Slides build their images up, so that color depth increases from the highlights to the shadows. Digital images have most of the data in the highlights and it decreases into the shadows. The color data decreases and saturation with it, into the shadows. Slides also had less exposure latitude, called DR in digital, so deeper shadows were common as in your sample. The sample I'll attach is from my early play. A mundane snap shot from a Panasonic FX500 which I have set to -1 saturation. The B&W mask was done like a channel mix favoring orange. The only thing done to the original is the saturation gradient (tranny treatment) and resizing, just to see what the treatment alone would do.

It gives me the impression of a Kodacolor/Kodachrome comparison in my photo editor, but it didn't seem to translate very well here. To me it beats the canned "vivid" and increase saturation settings. It seems to be flexible enough to suit anyone's tastes.
Bob

[Ian]

Re: Canon FF versus Nikon FF

If you haven't already done so - please vote in our poll about full frame camera value, see:

http://dpnow.com/forum2/showthread.php?t=5909

Ian

[Danny Chau]

Re: Canon FF versus Nikon FF

Ian, yes I usually under expose by about 2/3rd of a stop to keep the highlight detail, because it is far easier to work and open up shadow detail than to add detail back to the highlights in digital workflow. Shooting and exposing digital is very similar to colour transparency, only we get far better shadow detail with the digital.