I have no idea how anyone puts up with Nikon

I would say that SooC Nikon tends to be more colourful than Canon, but it's neither here nor there. Both perform well and with PP you'll not be able to tell which brand of camera the shot was made on.
 
Chimp Paradox said:
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!
Click to expand...

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?
 
k33uv4.jpg
 
If one person is getting bad results and millions are getting good results from the same gear I think the problem might be you needing more practice or not fully knowing what you are doing.
 
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
 
mattyg said:
Without pics your a troll

With pics your wrong

Pick one:D



In a nice way:D
Click to expand...

Well put good sir, I think the trouble here is that all the camera companies have a slightly different way of processing what the sensor picks up which gives rise to subtle differences in the default output as a result of this some will prefer canons output and think Nikons needs loads of tweaking and vice versa! Personally I think Olympus has the best straight out of camera results with Fuji a close second I find I prefer Canon's default output to Nikons but I reckon that is just because I'm use to it!
 
If you shoot RAW a lot of that is just down to what RAW importer you use and what setting you use import. If you shoot jpeg it is purely down to the jpeg setting.

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.



The whole skin tone debate is pretty big internet myth because it entirely depends on the underlying skin tone, lighting, exposure, RAW importing, processing. You can shoot a portrait with a canon and get far better OoC jpegs for 1 person vs a nikon and then a slight change in lighting conditions or a different person an the Nikon does better.
If you shoot RAW and tweak your import settings then there is no difference.
 
I watched a YouTube vid review comparing the D750 and 5D3, and one segment he played a dozen images of the same human subject in different outfit in differnt light condition and play them one after the other, mix them up and then tell you at the end which ones where from which...you write down on your end do you prefer A or B on photo 5 etc.

I end up liking the Nikon files more. These are SOC files.
 
Sounds like the OP hasn't a clue, or is a troll. Of course, if WB is causing concern then there's always the possibility to set a custom white balance beforehand.
 
Lots of replies with no evidence.....

Maybe the camera was defective? (or user error)... or maybe he's right?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom