I've heard of quite a few people switching from Canon to Nikon recently. I've also heard people say that Nikons, in general, are sharper than Canon and produce better color. I've been wanting to test that theory out for awhile now but never found the time to ask my friend Jen to borrow her camera. But I knew that Shannon and I were planning on getting together when I was in Michigan and she shoots with a Nikon. I also figured she'd be up for a little experiment. Her d7000 is probably close to my 50D, so that was another plus. When I told her about it, she was excited to see what the results would be.
She didn't have a prime lens and I didn't have a 17-50mm. So I used my 35mm f2 and she had her sigma 17-50mm f2.8 set at 35mm. I shot both in jpeg {my PSE is too old to read her raw files} and all other settings were the same-iso 200, f2.8 and shutter speed 1/125. The focus point was set on the center. Auto white balance. I shot them both to make sure that it wasn't the user causing the differences.
These have not had any color correction and very little processing. A slight levels adjustment on the nikon shot and a slightly higher levels adjustment on the canon shot. Both had a color pop action run at the same opacity. Other than that, they've just been cropped. Grace was in the same location in both and they were shot within minutes of each other.
Canon
Nikon
Like I mentioned, neither have had any color correction done. The Nikon is definitely warmer and a lot closer to Grace's actual skin tone. This could explain why I struggle so much with skin tones....
I cropped in to just her eyes, since that was what I focused on and we were also testing focus in our little experiment.
Canon
Nikon
I have not sharpened the eyes at all. The action I ran does overall sharpening and I applied that at the same opacity for both photos. The sharpness of the Canon photo is good. It's not out of focus. It would be acceptable. But the Nikon photo is better. And again you can see how much better the color is.
So, what to do?? I have no huge connection to Canon. My reasons for picking it in the first place was not based on anything important. I have pretty much talked myself into switching. I have two dilemmas though. The first is that I would love to switch and go directly to full frame. If I sold every piece of Canon equipment I own, I may have enough for a body. But not a lens. So I would have to wait until I save up some money. Or I could go with the d7000 and have it a lot quicker. The 2nd is I am very attached to my 70-200 f4L lens. I love it. I use it mostly for Matthew's baseball games and a few other odds and ends. Is there a comparable Nikon lens?
If you're a Nikon shooter, I would love some advice. An email or pm on facebook would be great if you don't want to post here. I'd love to know what you shoot with and what lens you have. Especially if you're a sports shooter and specifically a baseball shooter.
She didn't have a prime lens and I didn't have a 17-50mm. So I used my 35mm f2 and she had her sigma 17-50mm f2.8 set at 35mm. I shot both in jpeg {my PSE is too old to read her raw files} and all other settings were the same-iso 200, f2.8 and shutter speed 1/125. The focus point was set on the center. Auto white balance. I shot them both to make sure that it wasn't the user causing the differences.
These have not had any color correction and very little processing. A slight levels adjustment on the nikon shot and a slightly higher levels adjustment on the canon shot. Both had a color pop action run at the same opacity. Other than that, they've just been cropped. Grace was in the same location in both and they were shot within minutes of each other.
Canon
Nikon
Like I mentioned, neither have had any color correction done. The Nikon is definitely warmer and a lot closer to Grace's actual skin tone. This could explain why I struggle so much with skin tones....
I cropped in to just her eyes, since that was what I focused on and we were also testing focus in our little experiment.
Canon
Nikon
I have not sharpened the eyes at all. The action I ran does overall sharpening and I applied that at the same opacity for both photos. The sharpness of the Canon photo is good. It's not out of focus. It would be acceptable. But the Nikon photo is better. And again you can see how much better the color is.
So, what to do?? I have no huge connection to Canon. My reasons for picking it in the first place was not based on anything important. I have pretty much talked myself into switching. I have two dilemmas though. The first is that I would love to switch and go directly to full frame. If I sold every piece of Canon equipment I own, I may have enough for a body. But not a lens. So I would have to wait until I save up some money. Or I could go with the d7000 and have it a lot quicker. The 2nd is I am very attached to my 70-200 f4L lens. I love it. I use it mostly for Matthew's baseball games and a few other odds and ends. Is there a comparable Nikon lens?
If you're a Nikon shooter, I would love some advice. An email or pm on facebook would be great if you don't want to post here. I'd love to know what you shoot with and what lens you have. Especially if you're a sports shooter and specifically a baseball shooter.
12 comments:
Why did you post this???? Haha As you know I have been heavily debating switching. I actually got to talk to an amazing photographer who shoots with a D7000 and a Mark 5d II. She gave me some amazing advice. I will pm you on Facebook later tonight when I can type it all out.
I am SO happy we did this experiment!!! And I am so happy I have a Nikon.... cuz I'd totally want to switch! LOL!
Thanks for posting this Amy. I've been curious about the differences so this is good food for thought. Melissa will you include me on that email as I'd love to hear what you learned.
I have had these same thoughts..... Question for you... Have you adjusted your camera settings for sharpness and color , and color temp. You may want to look into those in camera settings , you'd be surprised at the results
I'm glad you posted this but I'm not sure it's compelling enough to switch. Your Canon is shooting cool but that can be fixed in pp'ng. Have you tried out Kelvin? If you find your missing focus a lot--yes, Nikon could be your answer. But you got two good lenses that are serving you well--and I keep hearing bodies can come and go but the lenses are your workhorses.
I've considered switching, too. But I'm sticking with Canon glass for now because, like you, I wouldn't be able to afford any Nikon glass except a cheap 50.
thanks for posting this amy!! i definitely will be switching to nikon now! ;) like you, i don't have very much invested into canon... just my xti and 50mm. focus really kills me i think. you'd think after shooting for a year non-stop that i would nail focus by now, but i still end up frustrated!
What a fun experiment. I would not have the $$ to switch to Nikon and I'm happy with my 50D. I have invested in lenses and could never acquire new ones again. This is impressive though.
VERY interested in the answers!!! Thanks for posting this. My Rebel is looking like it needs to be retired and my hubs has a friend who sells Nikons. He has offered to cut me a great deal....but so much money has been invested into my Canon equipment. This was such a helpful post. Such a dilemma...
What a great post, Amy! I loved seeing the difference in shots. I love my Nikon and know (right now at least) that I would not switch to Canon ;) I agree that you could fix your color in PPing, but shooting with the correct WB right away makes PPing much much easier and faster. I started shooting with Kelvin and found that I spend much less time PPing my skin tones. Maybe try that and see what happens. CM's had a wonderful post on the blog about this. Best of luck in your decision!!
I love the idea of this experiment!
But I'm not convinced. I don't love the coloring from either camera, and of the two I actually prefer the cooler tones. But again...easy fix in pp'ing or internal camera settings adjustments.
As for sharpness, that is a biggie. But again...how much of that is a factor of the lens rather than the camera?
hmmm...
Did you go in and edit the Nikon photo the way you like to? I'd love to know if you felt it was easier to pp the Nikon into a photo you like vs. the Canon image.
ohhhh...you have me wondering now...
The great debate! I'm a Nikonian. I've had a Nikon for 30+ years ... so, I'll never change. Love their lenses. I don't think Canon compares, but ... It's hard to start over purchasing new equipment ... expensive. When I went from 35mm to digital, I purchased a Nikon D50 which allowed me to continue using the lenses I already had. Since then I've purchase better lenses and 3 additional Nikon cameras (D80, D300, D300s). The D300 works well for me since my main interest is sports photography. I'd love the D700, but can't afford it AND the lens that works with it. So, unless I come into a lot of money, I'll be settled with what I have. Good luck on your decision.
Oh forgot to say, yes, baseball is my sport. I shoot with the D300 or D300s. It gets good fps, especially with a battery pack. Daytime baseball is the Nikon 70-300mm f/5.6 VR; nighttime baseball is the Nikon 80-200mm f/2.8. The D300/D300s allows 3200 ISO with minimal noise. For nighttime football in poorly lit stadiums, I use the same set-up for nighttime baseball.
Post a Comment