Canon is on top again!

[poias]

With the EOS 1Dx, Canon has the best AF (after the f/8 focusing and black focus point fix), best frame rates, best low light ever, and of course the best pro sensor according to the rumored DxO leaks.

And it sucks for those using lower tiered Canon products with older sensor tech, but Canon's flagship has certainly been crowned the undisputed king of pro bodies. Hopefully now the lower tiered products get the same superior sensor in the future. May be 6D is that breed of new superior sensors coming out. Watch out sonikon, Canon is back with a vengeance!

 

[Fishnose]

What's your point exactly?
Yes, the 1Dx is a bloody marvellous camera, we all know that. Well established fact. And the other Canons are trailing the Nikons badly (we're talking sensors here). Also well established fact.

Sony and Nikon are leading the way and will for a while I suspect. Why is the broad range of Canon DSLRs suddenly 'back with a vengeance' just because the1Dx is great?

 

[Drizzt321]

I actually just had a conversation with another photographer a couple of days ago about Canon sensors trailing Nikons. He made the point that (coming from a film background), he felt that the Canon sensors (specifically talking about the 5Dc, 5d3) that he felt they gave a more film like quality in terms of colors and representation as opposed to Nikon (really Sony) sensors which was much more flat. He also made the point that certain things which may contribute to that look is baked into the chip & low level functionality such as the ADC's, initial hardware/software readouts, etc which would be potentially difficult to duplicate through post processing.

Just an interesting observation from someone else. I, personally, haven't looked at enough Nikon vs Canon photos in detail to see a difference, and I'm not coming from a film background.

 

[nightbreath]

Still searching for our personal style, but I'm glad we're using Canon:

I'm not sure, what Nikon/Sony can offer (not able to try the RAWs), but I have a feeling that there are differences between Canon and others' RAWs. Unless someone can argue?

 

[TheSuede]

Did the bride really wear a cyan green dress?
Did the clouds really break from clear blue (sky) to green (gray cloud) to bright magenta (cloud highlights)?
Do you mean we should take this as an example of GOOD color?

 

[nightbreath]

I thought it is clear that almost everyone edits his photos. Sorry for not pointing that out
So I was referring to the result, that can be achieved only with a proper RAW file... as I suppose ???

 

[Loswr]

Did the bride really wear a cyan green dress?
Did the clouds really break from clear blue (sky) to green (gray cloud) to bright magenta (cloud highlights)?
Do you mean we should take this as an example of GOOD color?

Did the words 'personal style' escape you?
Are you unaware of the fact that photography is art?
Did you really mean to offer OFFENSIVE criticism?

:

 

[Razor2012]

What's your point exactly?
Yes, the 1Dx is a bloody marvellous camera, we all know that. Well established fact. And the other Canons are trailing the Nikons badly (we're talking sensors here). Also well established fact.

Sony and Nikon are leading the way and will for a while I suspect. Why is the broad range of Canon DSLRs suddenly 'back with a vengeance' just because the1Dx is great?

Does he really need a point, what's so bad about talking about a great camera? We need alot more positive chat here considering all the negative. I would sooner have great AF, ISO and FPS rather than high MP. Not to mention great glass.

 

[EOBeav]

Dang, now I'm going to have to get rid of that POS 5DmkII I got last Christmas.

 

[nightbreath]

Dang, now I'm going to have to get rid of that POS 5DmkII I got last Christmas.

Why? It's a wonderful camera

 

[unfocused]

Did the bride really wear a cyan green dress?
Did the clouds really break from clear blue (sky) to green (gray cloud) to bright magenta (cloud highlights)?
Do you mean we should take this as an example of GOOD color?

Were you dropped on the head as a baby?
Did your parents never teach you any manners?
Are you just a jerk?

Still searching for our personal style, but I'm glad we're using Canon:

Nightbreath, two questions:

What are those things in the background? A giant horse and some sort of Tiki Head? They are certainly the Punctum in that picture (obscure reference to Camera Lucida).

Seriously, I've looked at your website before. Very impressive. Just curious, are you in Russia? Ukraine? someone else in the former Soviet Union?

 

[pwp]

Canon is back with a vengeance!

Umm, where did they go? Maybe momentarily out to lunch with the early build 1D3, but hey....
Agreed, the 1DX is the current gold standard in the DSLR universe.

-PW

 

[EOBeav]

Dang, now I'm going to have to get rid of that POS 5DmkII I got last Christmas.

Why? It's a wonderful camera

Well, according to the OP, it's a lower tiered Canon product that I should be ashamed to own.

 

[jrista]

Did the bride really wear a cyan green dress?
Did the clouds really break from clear blue (sky) to green (gray cloud) to bright magenta (cloud highlights)?
Do you mean we should take this as an example of GOOD color?

Do you really think we should take you seriously when you come off so rude?

Oh...and did you hear...photography is an ART. We can all take license.

 

[jrista]

I actually just had a conversation with another photographer a couple of days ago about Canon sensors trailing Nikons. He made the point that (coming from a film background), he felt that the Canon sensors (specifically talking about the 5Dc, 5d3) that he felt they gave a more film like quality in terms of colors and representation as opposed to Nikon (really Sony) sensors which was much more flat. He also made the point that certain things which may contribute to that look is baked into the chip & low level functionality such as the ADC's, initial hardware/software readouts, etc which would be potentially difficult to duplicate through post processing.

Just an interesting observation from someone else. I, personally, haven't looked at enough Nikon vs Canon photos in detail to see a difference, and I'm not coming from a film background.

interesting, then he do not know what he is talking about regarding CFA, profiles, colors etc etc

Sure he does. Every device, be it film or yes, even an electronic sensor or an ADC, has a natural response curve that will affect color reproduction. I don't believe the argument was that it was "impossible" to replicate via post processing...just that it would be difficult to replicate...which is indeed true. If one really wanted to invest the time (and it would be a LOT of time), they could probably create a camera profile that tweaked the the tone curves for each channel to produce color more reminiscent of their favorite film with any camera's RAW...but that would be a LOT of work, and that person would really need to understand film response like the back of their hand. (I love the look of drum scans of 4x5 Velvia 50 slide film...some of the best natural warm color I've ever seen. I've spent a LOT of time trying to replicate it in my own photos taken with Canon DSLR's using curves in Photoshop. I finally stopped bothering after countless hours because the task was nearly impossible, even though I had good reference information regarding Velvia 50's natural response curves and dozens of sample photos to work with.)

There are even members of this forum who will only use certain lines of Canon cameras because they prefer the natural color strait out of the camera better than what they get from a different model, even though it would still be a Canon model.

 

[TheSuede]

Well, if my commend caused offense, then I have to:
1) apologize
2) question the relevance of the "sample picture".

Obviously the camera didn't record the scene that way, the colors in the image are undoubtedly a result of fairly strong post-processing - and this is why I question what relevance it has to the original threadstarter's question.

If you say that a certain camera has "better colors" than another camera - would you really say that a reasonable proof-in-point would be to look at a single, heavily processed shot?
Wouldn't the ONLY reasonable way to compare it be to have two samples from two different cameras, with as little processing as possible - and see which you prefer?

And this is definitely not meant as an insult (or even as criticism!) to the poster of the image. But "better" color? That would have to answered by an art critic in this case - not by someone interested in "good" or "accurate" color.

If you want to discuss color, you have to have references - something to compare to.

 

[TheSuede]

A serious reply to the threadstarter would be:

Yes, the Canon cameras are indeed quite different in their basal behavior. Their newer models - since the 50D and forwards - all share a common trait.
What really should be a "red" color filter on the sensor is a lot more like "orange-red" in a Canon camera. This has both pros and cons.

Pros:

• The camera is less sensitive to shifts in light spectral composition - people don't turn as "greenish yellow" under fluorescent lights as with cameras with better hue resolution
• The skintones, which are mainly yellow-orange-red in base hues shift less in luma (you get "smoother" skin color)
• Having less hue resolution in the green - deep red region does also help with having a smooth, natural luma contrast in that range

Cons:

• The camera will have trouble discerning between deep orange and strong reds
• The skintones, which are mainly yellow-orange-red in base hues are more affected by noise at higher ISOs, since the base color correction matrix has to work harder with Canon filters (higher negative coefficients)
• Greenery will show less hue-resolution, and less luma contrast. The camera will have more trouble discerning between two similar (but not identical) green colors.
• As ISOs rise, the effect the higher strength color correction needed to get "normal" color out from the raw file increases chroma noise by about the square of the correction sstrength difference - hence the strong magenta-green chroma noise in a non-noise-reduced Canon high-ISO raw file.

Now, if the points are really pros or cons will be up to each for him- or herself to decide. For some a pro might move to the con, and vice verse.

Some (quite a lot of people - in my experience) do also prefer the original 5D (and 10-40D) color to the newer model colors. The original 5D, and in part also the 1Ds mkIII have a much higher green-yellow-orange band hue resolution, and they also render greenery and nature photography quite differently. Better? Some think so, some don't.

 

[Loswr]

Obviously the camera didn't record the scene that way, the colors in the image are undoubtedly a result of fairly strong post-processing - and this is why I question what relevance it has to the original threadstarter's question.

If you say that a certain camera has "better colors" than another camera...

BUT...nightbreath didn't say that. He just posted a picture, and said he likes shooting with Canon...and was pounced upon with rudeness. That's the sort of thing that pretty clearly says, "I am a forum troll."

But then again, trolls do not generally apologize, which is appreciated. So, let's move on...

 

[pierceography]

Well, if my commend caused offense, then I have to:
1) apologize
2) question the relevance of the "sample picture".

Obviously the camera didn't record the scene that way, the colors in the image are undoubtedly a result of fairly strong post-processing - and this is why I question what relevance it has to the original threadstarter's question.

If you say that a certain camera has "better colors" than another camera - would you really say that a reasonable proof-in-point would be to look at a single, heavily processed shot?
Wouldn't the ONLY reasonable way to compare it be to have two samples from two different cameras, with as little processing as possible - and see which you prefer?

And this is definitely not meant as an insult (or even as criticism!) to the poster of the image. But "better" color? That would have to answered by an art critic in this case - not by someone interested in "good" or "accurate" color.

If you want to discuss color, you have to have references - something to compare to.

The relevance of the sample picture is that cameras are more than sensors and pixels, they're tools we use to create art -- which is highly personal and subjective. Your comments were, at best, ignorant and unnecessary to the subject of this thread. But trolls gonna troll.

Frankly, I like the shot. Sure, the colors were a bit cooler than I would have used myself. But a lot of wedding photos are almost pushed too warm. So seeing the cooler colors was a nice touch and welcome change of pace. Nicely done!

 

[verysimplejason]

Did the bride really wear a cyan green dress?
Did the clouds really break from clear blue (sky) to green (gray cloud) to bright magenta (cloud highlights)?
Do you mean we should take this as an example of GOOD color?

Nothing bad for his style. Filters of old exists for a reason. To apply it via digital effects, I think there's no problem with that as long as he's able to get the mood that he wants to picture.