For Mum (Canon or Nikon?)

[Bearface]

Re: For Mum (Canon or Nikon?)

It's been said already, but the first shot definitely isn't right. From what you've said, you appear to have used the same RAW conversion parameters for both cameras, whereas as different makes and models they should have their own unique settings in terms of what is applied to the camera in default mode. In this case, the shot has either been massively over-exposed in camera (down to the settings - ISO, aperture or shutter speed - or perhaps the the chosen metering setting was wrong?), and the RAW converter has recovered the image to the posted state, or the converter settings themselves were wrong. Put another way, there should be no real discernable difference between the two images in terms of quality - the two cameras are known to be virtually inseperable in this respect.

Unless you're shooting exactly the same image under precisely the same conditions, using similar lenses and settings, before then making identical (allowing for the individual camera's parameters) adjustments in post-processing, the comparision is pretty much meaningless.

In these cases, all that happens is that many non-Canon users gleefully assume that it's a camera issue, and before you know it they're posting all kinds of nonsense about their own brands being superior etc, etc. It's mostly harmless fun of course, but there are those who actually draw conclusions from such misinformation and the consequences can often be, erm........tedious

[Stephen]

Re: For Mum (Canon or Nikon?)

I couldn't have put it any better myself Tim. For anyone to say that one brand of camera is better at taking certain types of photo than another simply shows a lack of understanding of the points you have made

[Pol]

Re: For Mum (Canon or Nikon?)

I couldn't have put it any better myself Tim. For anyone to say that one brand of camera is better at taking certain types of photo than another simply shows a lack of understanding of the points you have made

Also - let's not forget the LENS used is also a highly relevant factor in the equation!

Pol

[Bearface]

Re: For Mum (Canon or Nikon?)

Also - let's not forget the LENS used is also a highly relevant factor in the equation!

Pol

Too right it is, although in fairness to Brian it appears that both lenses were at least of a similar quality in this instance, and not too far apart in terms of focal length range.

[cowcrzy06]

Re: For Mum (Canon or Nikon?)

Hello all .

because I do not have either of these cameras I cannot give an expert opinion. My observation is there are many factors affecting a picture. from what I have studied and learned camera settings can make or ruin a picture. Another factor is opinions. Everyone has a different opinion . I personally like the brighter picture. It gives off a happier feel to me . But that is just my HO!

[yoshi]

Pentax AND Canon

B-BOOM


Pol

You know what, Pol? To tell the truth, they are close friends. If you do not believe me, just have a look at this. (The 1st pic.)

This is eye-witnessed by an old Oly guy OM 75-150mm who once retired but became active again later. He was just happy when he realized that he did not have to sleep in a dark place anymore and gladly accepted the adapter.

While another witness, the Nikon guy, 105mm Micro, was quite reluctant to wear a Canon cap. I managed to attach the adapter a year and a half ago but since then he became more nasty and now does not return the cap to me - I just lent it to him. - a wrong pride I would say. (the 2nd pic.)
yoshi

[himmelblau]

[Bearface]

Re: For Mum (Canon or Nikon?)

Never again will I mention Canon and Nikon in the same post

Why not? If you're intent on making comparisons between Canon and Nikon (or BMW and Mercedes.......or Kylie and Danni... ) you just need to start things from a level playing field and remain objective. However there's nothing wrong with such exercises, if that's your thing

[Pol]

Re: For Mum (Canon or Nikon?)

Never again will I mention Canon and Nikon in the same post

Brian wearing Kevlar helmet and body armour with ceramic plate’s front and back

Not to worry. You'll be ok if you mention Canon and Nikon again in the same post just as long as you remember to put them in order of priority ..... well behind Pentax and others such as Oly and maybe chuck in a quick word about the Panasonics (to keep George and lumix happy)

>

>

>

>

>

Seriously though ...... it was a fun thread and I've thoroughly enjoyed the laughter and the teasing. There are times when I just can't resist.

Thanks for the good giggle.

Pol

[Archangel]

Re: For Mum (Canon or Nikon?)

Why not? If you're intent on making comparisons between Canon and Nikon (or BMW and Mercedes.......or Kylie and Danni... ) you just need to start things from a level playing field and remain objective. However there's nothing wrong with such exercises, if that's your thing

Hmm...how come I missed this!

Tim, I think you should recall your unsuccessful previous last statement, which I just read, about this "nonsense" thing, that it is the 2nd or 3rd time you wrote in a thread since not all of us are used into a such provocative style of writing and treatment.
Besides that I didn't see anywhere in the thread any Canon's wounded pride.


George

[coupekid]

Re: For Mum (Canon or Nikon?)

Why not? If you're intent on making comparisons between Canon and Nikon (or BMW and Mercedes.......or Kylie and Danni... ) you just need to start things from a level playing field and remain objective. However there's nothing wrong with such exercises, if that's your thing

No comparisons needed Tim......

Canon - Its the best, I have one, so no comptetitors camera can be better.
BMW - The M5 is probably the finest car ever made bar none.
Danni....evertime

Everyone else is entitled to their opinions, wrong though they may be.

(Runs for cover )

[cowcrzy06]

Re: For Mum (Canon or Nikon?)

Ben,

I am about to break Ian's record for smiley's used in a thread in reply to your reply.

[Ian]

Re: For Mum (Canon or Nikon?)

Ooops, I think you misunderstood Tim? He simply says that there is no reason not to compare Canon and Nikon in the future (Brian said he wasn't going to) but when making comparisons like this, you do need to set a baseline and provide information on which to make the comparison meaningful. That's all. Tim wasn't being negative to Brian - on the contrary, he was saying, don't shy away from comparisons like you seem to be doing because of the response, but keep on doing it, but with better presentation.

Ian

[cowcrzy06]

Re: For Mum (Canon or Nikon?)

To anyone I may have annoyed or offended,


I was just joking oops!

[Archangel]

Re: For Mum (Canon or Nikon?)

Ooops, I think you misunderstood Tim? He simply says that there is no reason not to compare Canon and Nikon in the future (Brian said he wasn't going to) but when making comparisons like this, you do need to set a baseline and provide information on which to make the comparison meaningful. That's all. Tim wasn't being negative to Brian - on the contrary, he was saying, don't shy away from comparisons like you seem to be doing because of the response, but keep on doing it, but with better presentation.

Ian

Ian,

I don't know if you were referring to my comment or generally in the thread, but anyway, I was talking about Tim's earlier post which had as follows:


In these cases, all that happens is that many non-Canon users gleefully assume that it's a camera issue, and before you know it they're posting all kinds of nonsense about their own brands being superior etc, etc. It's mostly harmless fun of course, but there are those who actually draw conclusions from such misinformation and the consequences can often be, erm........tedious


which really is not a professional statement taking into account other peoples entitled opinion that have participated to this thread and generally contributed to this website.
Personal opinion is fine to express, but personal opinion on other peoples personal opinions is wise to express often leading to mistakes and underestimation of other fellow photographers.
I don't think is done intentionally, but I think it should be thought better before written and that is why I called it "unsuccessful".


George