I have no idea how anyone puts up with Nikon

Chimp Paradox · 12 Jan 2015 at 19:29

I am going through some old photos taken with my D5200 before I bought Canons 5dmk3. And they take so much work to get right! Odd white balance in particular that takes so much changing. The only thing I ever do on the canon is reduce vibrancy a little as the colours have so much punch. But honestly, if I shot Nikon Id live at my computer.

This is not intended to wind anyone up, I am just staggered how anyone shoots successfully with it, and of course many do! Including one of my all time faves Steve McCurry!

Chimp Paradox · 12 Jan 2015 at 21:01

surely you guys are aware of the poor greens and yellow tint that comes out of nikons and the reddish skin tones?

Chimp Paradox · 13 Jan 2015 at 09:57

aps-c sensor or not, it just cannot produce correct greens (among other things) without a lot of post production work. WB is always off

Chimp Paradox · 13 Jan 2015 at 10:11

The only thing I find I ever have to do on my Canon is lower the vibrancy a bit as its colour can sometimes have too much punch!

Chimp Paradox · 13 Jan 2015 at 11:40

JBuk said:
Sounds like your monitor is not calibrated tbh, either that or you are saving to jpeg with a picture style that is messing with your colours?

I use an auto calibrating eizo coloredge monitor. it doesn't get any better!

Chimp Paradox · 13 Jan 2015 at 14:44

no one is saying you cant get good shots, my point is that the Nikons need more work. Ditto the sonys.

I don't mean to start a big argument as there are various significant things which annoy me greatly about the canon, there are pros and cons for each, but this particular Nikon downside is to me laborious enough to cancel out all what is wrong with canon

Chimp Paradox · 13 Jan 2015 at 22:05

D.P. said:
Things like tint and WB dont affect RAW in the slightest. Nikon OOC jpegs generally have less contrast, saturation, sharpening and noise reduction compared to Canon out of the box but even here the differences are much smaller than they used to be. Nikon's philosophy was originally to have jpegs that could still be processed to some extent but they got bad reciws for jeg IQ because of that so now they are much more punchy to compete with canon/Olympus/Fuji.

.

That is a common misception - on import of a raw in lightroom WB is usually taken from mea data attached tot he raw file (as shot) - ie, how the camera worked it out. Most of the time with Canon it nails it.

Chimp Paradox · 14 Jan 2015 at 07:00

Columbo said:
But WB settings don't affect the RAW file one bit, don't like what you see then just change the setting which is what DP is trying to say.

Lightroom will also import any way you tell it to, if LR was displaying images in Auto import that weren't to your taste then why didn't you just spend 5 minutes setting up an import profile that did suit you instead of trying to fix it with thousands of pounds.

Oh and some samples please?

Wrong. It picks it up from the meta data. What it doesnt do is change the WB in a lossy way - you are free to change the WB, or indeed anything else like you say in the raw image. Think about what you are saying - it has to have SOME WB attributed to the file else it wouldnt look like anything

Chimp Paradox · 14 Jan 2015 at 07:01

D.P. said:
And you can tune the Auto WB to your hearts content, so user error it is.

Obviously, but when you are shooting a lot it would helpful if the camera was more accurate

Chimp Paradox · 14 Jan 2015 at 09:56

this thread was to prompt discussion. I suggest anyone who wants samples look on the net.

I was genuinely interested whether Nikon users have to constantly tweak their WB like I experienced. Clearly not.

Chimp Paradox · 14 Jan 2015 at 16:24

Phal said:
I use Canon but I just leave my camera WB settings to defaults since I shoot RAW anyway.

Unless you're trying to shoot for shots that are usable straight out of the camera then I would say you're generally better off adjusting the shots later anyway?

yes but even raw starts with something - I cant believe no one here realises that!!

Chimp Paradox · 14 Jan 2015 at 17:01

D.P. said:
We do realize that, but we also realize that the WB can be changed with no loss of quality when shooting RAW, that the camera can be adjusted to whatever WB you prefer, and that Nikon bodies do not have an issue with auto WB - you do.

its quicker to not have to change. Anyway, I assume you are a defensive Nikon shooter.

The only cameras that produce natural looking images quickly without much PP are Canon and Fuji, in my view.

Chimp Paradox · 14 Jan 2015 at 20:01

An Exception said:

Haha. Best post yet!

Chimp Paradox · 14 Jan 2015 at 20:02

Derek W said:
Yep, twoblacklines before. Didn't even check the dates perm / joined just saw someone blaming the camera and put two and two together dunno if it is him though. A mod would have to check that out.

LOL - not me! Chrikey 6500k posts! Wow!

Chimp Paradox · 14 Jan 2015 at 21:13

alexisonfire said:
Funnily enough, to my knowledge, the nikon D5200 (camera in OP) is the only nikon dSLR ever made that hasn't used an in house or sony based sensor (toshiba sensor), so there could be some truth to your problems, albeit you've done a terrible job of getting this across.

I've never used a D5200 so can't comment on that, but have used a D50, D80, D200, D300, D700, D3 & D3s with absolutely no problem, so its certainly not an across the board Nikon problem Also its odd that you said Fuji was fine as the majority of Fuji & Nikon dSLR have both used Sony sensors.

It certainly does sound like a faulty camera or user error though.

yeah i was aware of that. It was an interesting thing, I thought, no one ever even knew Toshiba made sensors. But its not just them. I also found the Sony A7S needed work, and many people still prefer the D700 to the newer Nikons. The problem with all Nikons is that most of the parts arent theirs, everything is bought in, including the sensor, and they get a lot of body to body variation. Worst of all buttons and ergonomics always change, while canon are better in that regard too. 7dmk2 and 5dmk3 almost indentiical in all respects

Chimp Paradox · 14 Jan 2015 at 21:29

dont worry i will move away from this thread now its generated such a backlash... had better go back to the forums where people are realistic about the pros and cons of cameras

Chimp Paradox · 15 Jan 2015 at 06:36

OldCoals said:
Sample pictures here.

http://www.pauldoranpictures.com/

none of those are Nikon

Chimp Paradox · 15 Jan 2015 at 08:34

asim18 said:
OP is a lie.

Statement A: "I am going through some old photos taken with my D5200 before I bought Canons 5dmk3."

Statement B: "But honestly, if I shot Nikon Id live at my computer."

If statement A is truthful, statement B should read "When I used to shoot Nikon I used to live at my computer".

Using "honestly" as a prefix to a statement typically suggests the statement will be dishonest.

Jesus dude move away from your gcse critical thinking textbook. I was not the capable of operating at that level back then, it was the least of my problems(!), so I never "used" to sit at my computer!

Chimp Paradox · 15 Jan 2015 at 09:54

OldCoals said:
I know, I could tell by the colours.

I agree - its very easy to see these are shot with a Canon. Vibrant colors (sometimes too vibrant) and contrasty. Class Canon look.

Chimp Paradox · 15 Jan 2015 at 09:54

asim18 said:
So the reason your Canon images are better now is because you weren't capable of operating back when you had a Nikon.

Great. I've managed to pull out an admission of user error within a single post.

Too easy.

(Don't take me personally by the way, I'm just jumping on the flaming-bandwagon a little, and if you are TBL, welcome back. I also like your new username )

Wow, its like meeting David Blaine in real life