Image quality of all major brands is great.

But how about image characteristics?

(I'm giving this topic its own thread).

Even when shooting RAW, aren't there differences how cameras interpret an image?

Doesn't one buy into a certain image style when one buys into a camera system?

Reason of my question:

I saw once a camera comparison in one of the major photo magazines.

It showed, that the same scene, a boat on a riverside, was SEEN QUITE DIFFERENTLY by the Canon 40D and the Nikon D300. The Canon saw it more dramatic, shadows darker, lights lighter, while the Nikon was more evenly lit.

Now, for me, the Canon would be more my style.

But maybe they just tested JPEGs (Why do testers do that?).

So, what do you think?

DO YOU GET A CERTAIN INTERPRETATION OF AN IMAGE BY THE GEAR YOU ARE USING? (Like the choice of film in the old days?).

ARE YOU BUYING INTO A CERTAIN IMAGE INTERPRETATION BY BUYING A CERTAIN CAMERA BRAND?

Or does shooting RAW make these differences MEANINGLESS and I better choose equipment for handling, features (and, of course, measurable image quality)?

I think the look of rendered linear raw data is so far from the look we ultimately want in an image, that subtle differences in the raw data aren't going to matter that much. I guess I am saying that because the linear raw data has to be changed so much in magnitude, subtle differences in the original data would easily be lost in this process. May as well season to taste in post-processing.

So you're saying that all cameras, if well built, are practically the same?

I think if somewhat consistently built we should be able to get the same nuances you are describing through post-processing. Of course, when it comes to larger scale differences like dynamic range, high iso noise and the like, then post-processing won't always be able to get us the image we want.

No, no and yes.

Image interpretation is determined by the RAW converter, your choice of conversion settings, and what you do to the image in Photoshop after conversion. You can "interpret" a RAW any way you like, as long as it is reasonably well-exposed and focused. You can go with bold, saturated colors, or lifelike, natural color, B&W, toned B&W, or anything in between. You can sharpen until detail is very crisp, or soften the image until detail is barely there. You can go for a clean look, or gritty/grainy. You can boost contrast until the image is very dramatic, or dial it back until the image is very flat. Or You can mix and match all of these things however you like. The possibilities for interpreting a RAW are limited only by your imagination and your skill and knowledge of your RAW converter, Photoshop, and other appropriate tools, not by camera brand.

The only relevance camera brand/model has is on noise levels, noise pattern, captured dynamic range, and the strength of the AA filter, quality of available lenses, autofocus speed and accuracy, etc. If you're shooting sports and action, a camera with fast AF and great high-ISO performance like the 1D-III or the Nikon D3. If you shoot a lot of landscapes and want lots of detail, the Canon 1Ds-III or the newly-announced Sony might be a better choice. If you have a really large budget, a medium format digital system might be right for you. But as long as you get a camera system that will consistently capture the shot you want with an acceptable level of image quality, the rest is totally up to you.

I will revisit the RAW converter question. I read repeatedly, that ACR isn't the top choice in for converting.

Currently, I earn my money with portrait and starting up with fashion, but I shoot a lot of landscape for myself. (Of course, the onces providing the income will decide about the camera).

I don't shoot any sports.

I would think more about a camera that fits your needs. Do you need many fps, low noise. Fullframe or cropframe. Well it is hard question. I think the difference between Nikon and Canon is small in terms off overall usage. Image quality is very close to each other. You can nit-pick and see differences. I think you shall look over what lenses you want. You are buying into a system. The camerabody you buy will probaly be out-performed in 2 years anyway. Look on what lenses that interest you. Your flashes need and other things.

I think it is more about your special needs. I myself for example dont need super fast fps or low noise so chosen my cameras from that perspective and looked more into user controls and low ISO shoots. I do mostly travel, landscape and architecture. So I chosen from that point off view in my lenses and cameras.

I dont think there is a one size fits all in cameras

If you have great funds you can't go wrong with most expensive ones. But you probably wont use all the functions you are paying for.

I myself always liked Nikons approach. As I like the controls are accessible to me. I dont know how Canon do this days. But when choose Nikon at first it was nikons more accessible buttons that worked for me with even gloves on. I am from Sweden and have 6 months off gloves weather a year. So it is a important function for me. I think Canon is better today in that department.

But if started over today I would go for Canon 5d, they are cheap today and would do my kind off shooting excellent.

A calibrated camera in Adobe camera RAW there is actually very little difference between them. Also color is highly subjective and if you like the camera manufactures presets in there camera raw converter then go for them. But I found that I often just screw around with colors anyway. I am not a preset person.

Came to think about it. You are not just buying a camera body. You are buying flashes, software, lenses, tripods, cleaning stuff and other stuft. In the end I found out that Camera body often been lightest off my costs and not always the most important factor in my image quality. My tripod, my software and lenses has done alot more than camera body has done.

Apple or PC?

See?

Good point with the lenses.

I don't need high fps, but I do need good high ISO performance.

Some older/lesser cameras show a terrible falloff in dynamic range as low as ISO 800, where the image appears muddy.

Magazines and popular websites do it that way because they are basically reviewing for the benefit of the masses that don't know any better. Even limiting themselves to the in-camera JPEG settings they are far from exploring the camera's capabilities to individualize the images. With the D300 the default for many includes Active D-Lighting and Standard Picture Control mode; but you can get almost any look you like by using other Picture Modes (Neutral would work well for portraiture) and each Picture Control mode has numerous adjustable parameters, and Active D-Lighting can be turned off in addition to its 3 levels (High, Normal and Low). You can also load D2X Modes from the Nikon website into the D300 and that gives you 3 more baselines to choose from.

In addition to the myriad of choices I have mentioned so far, adding different RAW converters and throw in innumerable Photoshop Actions involving changing the available colors and curves, and now you have an infinite number of possibilities. In the end, what would be discovered by a thorough vetting of these would be that the cameras could all produce images that were indistinguishable from one another. Oops, now the magazines and popular websites would suddenly have nothing to lure the masses to their websites as the truthful message is "It doesn't matter".

I really got the same impression when thinking about it.

I was not thinking about it at first, as I would not have thought a serious camera test being performed on JPEGs mainly. Dpreview at least shows some RAW tests (which are always almost undistinguishable from each other).

So I'll be having a nice time choosing a camera I like from using it.

Because the choice of lenses seems to be pretty good for both Canon and Nikon, with Pentax, of course, trailing behind for being a smaller company.

Only the Sony A700 is already ruled out. This camera processes applies noise reduction to RAW images. Big no-no-no.

I agree. There are fantastic options on both sides off the fences. It is a lot harder to choice camera today. As there much more viable options and more choice.

I think image quality at todays models have very small diffrences. Before Canon had heads up in the noise department.

I think it is more important choice the format on 35mm. If you tend to shoot things in the distance you will really like the magnifaction effect Nikon and Canons crop cameras give. But if you coming from the film world you maybe miss the bigger AOV off the wide angles. Where 24 mm was a wide lens.

RAW kinda act as equlizer if you throw away the camera jpg funtions. There is small diffrences in resolution and noise in most comparable models beetween brand. The latest 1ds MkIII thou have today the biggest amount off megapixels. But are out off reach for most economy I believe. At least after normal wage in sweden ;-)

I think you shall read up about the functions, see what functions you believe you will use and choice camera from that. I dont know if it is true today but Nikon got stronger wide angles. Canon offers more stablized options even that most consumer nikon lenses have it today.

Anyway, used lens market is the best way to build up good kit off lenses for a better price.

Back when the 1Ds first came out, Canon was light-years ahead of anything Nikon offered in every category--pixel count, noise levels, etc. But with the D3, Nikon finally seems to have caught up in most respects. Canon still has an overall resolution advantage with the 1Ds-III, but the magnitude of the differences between Canon and Nikon is much smaller now.

I wonder how much the new 14-bit color processing is worth over 12-bit.

If you'd notice it in color's nuances or only on a fact sheet.

As far as I have seen it on the web, the K20d has 12-bit (the Samsung gx-20, which should be the same camera, is described as 14-bit. I wonder who's copied the wrong numbers here).

I'm really looking at the Nikon 300D and the Pentax K20.

I have shot a lot of NIkon in the film days and I liked the way they handled. And the lenses.

I'm not sure if Pentax has a future as a professional camera system.

With a bit of application you can get pretty much any look you like from any decent camera, but...

Some camera/lens/software combinations sure can make your life easier, and it's not just down to cross-manufacturer comparisons.

Used to shoot mainly 20D with 28 f1.8 and DXO optics, now on a 5D with 50L and Lightroom. To get to a place where I am happy with an image takes me a lot less time with the new setup than the old, everything just seems easier. Of course I may just be getting better over time, but there was an immediate sense on getting the new gear that the images I was getting from the new setup took a lot less work.

It's fairly hard to tell the difference with prints, even up to A3, but I know how much less work is required to get them to the point where I am happy.

You're probably right. But then, if you leave out their medium format cameras, they never had much of a past as a professional system, either. They've made some pro to semi-pro level cameras, but pros were never their main target group. It seems to me that they're continuing in that same vein with their latest DSLR offerings.

I've met and known pros who use one system or the other, and quite often I found the choice was based more on "Ive always used Canon" or "I've always been a Nikon guy."

I've looked at both Canon and Nikon, up close and personal, and the reality is, both systems are, IMO, simply wonderful. Each brand/system does have it's own "personality" - if that's the right way to say it, and I think if you try each one in your hand, then go with your gut instinct. Which one, if any, makes you feel better holding it, using it.

Which system seems to feel the most intuitive? Maybe that's the best way to make a choice.

I use Nikon myself, but I have personal respect for those who use Canon.

joe

I think a lot has already been mentioned. Its all the other choices like RAW convertor, technique, lens use, your perspective on things that makes a difference.

There are a few things that are important to me and that is the human interfacing - I hate to be obstructed by a poor design feature or menu, or something that feels flimsy or on the edge of breaking in the field.

Complexity, too many options can overwhelm the creative in us, a super billion pixel camera may be able to resolve more, but a point and shoot may capture the moment - it really is about picking the best team for your game.

Steven

That's beautifully said.

A personality.

I also think both are wonderful systems, and I have to approach them again, as I have still somehow their film days personalities on my mind.

I just read an article by a very well positioned professional photographer, and he said, that many cameras come with too many menus and bottons, and this makes him nervous.

The RAW converter question is one thing that also interests me. Looks like some RAW converters can interpret the RAW data better than others.

I got the impression, that, when using Nikon or Canon professional cameras, it's best to use their proprietary RAW converters to get images into Lightroom.