Canon vs. Nikon in image quality...

[Make!]

Hi everyone. I'm a Canon user since 2006. I sold my 20D a while ago and now I'm looking to buy a replacement. If been looking at the 50D. I actually almost bought it ...but then I started comparing 40D and 50D images like on this website: http://www.cameralabs.com/reviews/Canon_EOS_50D/noise.shtml

Is it just me, or are the 50D images all blurred and low-contrast? Next I compared several Canon's models here, http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM but don't find much of a difference between them. HOWEVER, if you compare any one of them with the Nikon D3X, it's like their from a different planet! Is that JUST in-camera contrast and sharpening settings or what on earth is going on???

[JoYork]

The d3x is Nikon's flagship high end professional DSLR and costs about 10 times more than a 40d.

[Make!]

My point was: Choose ANY model from Canon, the result is the same...

[tharmsen]

Nikon DX3 compared to a 50D? :D Yeah, I guess that's why there is that $7,000 price difference. :)

The 50D is a superior camera to the 40D in most aspects. Some will argue there's a difference in high ISO performance - and there is a very slight one. The 50D has 50% more pixels than the 40D so an increase in high ISO noise is expected (matter of physics). What's amazing is that the difference is very-very slight. Canon did a great job of reducing noise levels in the 50D's sensor. In prints you will never notice a difference.

I've owned both the 40D and 50D, and still have the 50D. Image quality wise you would be hard pressed to tell the difference between images captured with the 40D vs. the 50D. So it really boils down to features, and this is where the 50D has a slight advantage.

Forget the D3x unless you have $8,000 to spend on a camera.

[tharmsen]

My point was: Choose ANY model from Canon, the result is the same...
Nikon, right now, has the advantage in high ISO noise in their upper end models. That changes with each model release. A couple years ago Nikon couldn't touch Canon at any level. Now Nikon has upped the ante.

So if you're looking to buy the dominate brand, good luck. It will change next year.

[mr.jon]

Compare that D3x to a 1Dmk3 with a fine prime and it will be a fair fight.

[Make!]

I'm an engineering student... I know all about noise vs. pixel size, and pretty much all the basics. And I'm NOT talking about noise anyway. Sharpness and contrast, as you can see in the images, are the properties of concern. PLEASE DO NOT COMMENT UNLESS YOU HAVE A LOOK AT THE IMAGES!

[Make!]

Compare that D3x to a 1Dmk3 with a fine prime and it will be a fair fight. As I said, choose ANY Canon from the list - same result.

[tharmsen]

I'm an engineering student... I know all about noise vs. pixel size, and pretty much all the basics. And I'm NOT talking about noise anyway. Sharpness and contrast, as you can see in the images, are the properties of concern. PLEASE DO NOT COMMENT UNLESS YOU HAVE A LOOK AT THE IMAGES!
Well Mr. Engineering student, you should understand why one site has images that look soft, fuzzy, out of focus, etc. and why images on another site look totally different. The pics are anything but scientific in most cases as evidenced by the wide range of differences between countless sites (including the ones you've cited). If you buy a camera based upon sample pictures of a random site on the internet, well...

Again, forget the IQ of the D3x unless you plan on spending $8k. If you do, by all means, go get the D3x.

[Make!]

I'm only comparing images within a site. E.g. http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

Did you choose a canon from the left list and a Nikon from the right list on this site. If not your not paying any attention to what I'm saying!:D

[Make!]

Engineering students shouldn't be photographers. They should stick to making cameras, not using them.

Verry sorry to disappoint you

[cdifoto]

Do they say what lens(es) they're using? Optics make a difference y'know.

[cdifoto]

Verry sorry to disappoint you
That's not fair. I deleted that. You're too fast. :lol:

[CyberDyneSystems]

So buy a Nikon! :)

Seriously, did you have any questions re Canon cameras to ask on this Canon dedicated forum?

For the record, I agree that the sample d3 images posted to that particular comparison site, (one I'd never heard of before today) do look better than most of the Canon samples I looked at.

From this I can deduce only one thing, that this sites set of images for the d3 are better than their sample images from most Canon models.
An engineer or anyone considering scientific principle to any degree should understand that this is all that we can really take away from this exceedingly limited sampling.

Why this sites d3 images look better, I have no idea, again this goes to the virtually infinite number of variables that could cause this, but I can also say that I do not perceive a similar problem with the Canon models I have owned, or the images I have taken.

[tharmsen]

I'm only comapring images within a site. E.g. http://www.imaging-resource.com/IMCOMP/COMPS01.HTM

Did you choose a canon from the left list and a Nikon from the right list on this site. If not your not paying any attention to what I'm saying!:D
I guess I'm not understanding what you're saying. In your first post you link to two sites then discuss the differences in image quality between them.

I can pick any Canon on the left and any Nikon on the right and there are slight differences depending on what model you select. The 5DMk2 produces better images than the D90. So I don't believe your position stands.

What I think you might be noticing is that a 21mp image is far larger than a 10mp image. If you down size the 21mp image it will look completely different - more in line with the 10mp. But you will see a color depth, shadow clarity, color reproduction difference... and the 5DMk2 looks better than the D90. But then that too is subjective. What I perceive to be superior you may not.

[Bumgardnern]

I looked at the images on Comparometer. I compared the 1DSMKIII to the D3X. From those images the Nikon does look sharper. Having said that their are a number of variables that my not be taken into account. You have to consider the lens used. You have to consider if the camera was well focussed in both. You have to account for any tripod/camera shake you have to account for any variance in shooting angle that could affect over all sharpness...the list goes on and on....

Both systems Nikon and Canon create useable images. What are you driving at here?

[tharmsen]

I have yet to find one of those test sites that actually shows images anything like what I get with cameras in the real world.

How soft does this image look to you? How fuzzy are the lines? How out of focus is it? Blow it up to any size you like.

http://www.intempusphotography.com/photos/474371759_aBEXu-XL.jpg

Now tell me, which of my cameras do you think this image was shot with (without cheating)? 50D? 5D?

[Make!]

Do they say what lens(es) they're using? Optics make a difference y'know.

I don't think so...

[joedlh]

Well Mr. Engineering student, you should understand why one site has images that look soft, fuzzy, out of focus, etc. and why images on another site look totally different. The pics are anything but scientific in most cases as evidenced by the wide range of differences between countless sites (including the ones you've cited). If you buy a camera based upon sample pictures of a random site on the internet, well...


This should have ended the discussion.

[cdifoto]

I don't think so...
I wouldn't count it as much of a test then, at least not for comparing two bodies across systems. A lens can make a HUGE difference in image quality, especially if you just drop a file straight from the camera onto a website. Image processing parameters make a difference too. Turn up the contrast in one and down in another and you've got one looking like it's nice and contrasty while the other appears dull and flat. :)

[Make!]

I looked at the images on Comparometer. I compared the 1DSMKIII to the D3X. From those images the Nikon does look sharper. Having said that their are a number of variables that my not be taken into account. You have to consider the lens used. You have to consider if the camera was well focussed in both. You have to account for any tripod/camera shake you have to account for any variance in shooting angle that could affect over all sharpness...the list goes on and on....

Both systems Nikon and Canon create useable images. What are you driving at here?

The huge difference in image quality to my eye. I'm wondering if it can be mainly due to in camera settings... Like I wrote earlier

[Make!]

This should have ended the discussion.

You also missed the point:D

[Make!]

I have yet to find one of those test sites that actually shows images anything like what I get with cameras in the real world.

How soft does this image look to you? How fuzzy are the lines? How out of focus is it? Blow it up to any size you like.

http://www.intempusphotography.com/photos/474371759_aBEXu-XL.jpg

Now tell me, which of my cameras do you think this image was shot with (without cheating)? 50D? 5D?

LOL I'm not an oracle! I can only compare two(or more) images.

[JoYork]

I just compared a 5dmkii with a D90 and the 5dmkii was better in every way - much higher resolution, sharper, more contrastier.

It doesn't even cost $7,000 more either!

[egordon99]

Pretty much EVERY DSLR out there is capable of producing excellent images. Obviously a D3x will have better ISO12800 than a Canon Xsi (ditto a 5DII versus a D60), but you need to look at (1)The overall (ie lens) system, and (2)The skill of the photographer. These two aspects are WAY more important than trying to compare "RAW" sensor output....

[tharmsen]

You also missed thew point:D
I think you're having trouble making your point. If no one understands what point you're trying to make, it's not the worlds fault you can't effectively communicate.

But I think we've addressed whatever point it was you were trying to make.

It would appear you have a motive behind your visit here other than trying to get an objective opinion. You register on the site, come in here with some goofy non-sense and try to convince a forum full of very experienced Canon users that Canon what, sucks compared to Nikon?

Grow up, seriously.

[tharmsen]

LOL I'm not an oracle! I can only compare two(or more) images.
The point is, you can't find a flaw in the image - can you?

For someone so fixated on your own point, you certainly have a difficult time following other peoples points.

[Michael_Lambert]

I did look at the site and check the images and they don't look very professionally compared. I compared the 1DSmark3 to the D3 and if anything the D3 looks softer and warmer over the 1ds.

There is no mention to what hardware was used, what processing was done or settings used.

If you honesty use that site to decide what camera you use then you would be a fool.

The first one is the 1DS and the second the D3 straight off there site.

[Make!]

I did look at the site and check the images and they don't look very professionally compared. I compared the 1DSmark3 to the D3 and if anything the D3 looks softer and warmer over the 1ds.

There is no mention to what hardware was used, what processing was done or settings used.

If you honesty use that site to decide what camera you use then you would be a fool.

The first one is the 1DS and the second the D3 straight off there site.

When did I say I was making decision based on this site? Read my posts from the start before commenting.

[Mosca]

Sheesh. Buy the one that you think will make you happy and move forward. Either should be perfectly capable of taking beautiful pictures. It hardly matters to anyone else but you; it's your money and your life. As we all know, the gear is the least important part of the puzzle.

[tkbslc]

As I said, choose ANY Canon from the list - same result.

I just took a quick look at my Canon Rebel XS (1000D) compared to the Nikon D90. Using the "new indoor ISO 800) Seems like the Canon is better. THe color isn't too pink in the skin, Details like the text on the wine bottle, the picture frame, the book, the watch, all seem sharper. There is no purple fringe on the watch like in the Nikon image. THe D90 may have a tiny advantage in noise, but it also cost double what my Rebel XS did.

The 50D sample do look a little soft on that site. I will give you that. You might check other sites to make sure they don't just have a botched test or sample.

[joedlh]

You also missed the point:D

And what point would that be, Mr. Can-read-minds Engineering student?

There are a score of confounding variables involved in any side-by-side comparison of images taken with two different cameras. You can only control for them in a laboratory designed for that specific purpose. And even then you can't always get results that are not ambiguous. The site that you cite does not appear to fulfill that criterion. Try http://www.dpreview.com. At least they try to get it right.

Give a rube -- perhaps an engineering student -- who has little photographic experience a $7000 Nikon and an accomplished photographer a low-end Canon point-and-shoot. The results will make you wonder who had the more expensive camera. That's one of those score of confounding variables.

[Make!]

I just took a quick look at my Canon Rebel XS (1000D) compared to the Nikon D90. Using the "new indoor ISO 800) Seems like the Canon is better. THe color isn't too pink in the skin, Details like the text on the wine bottle, the picture frame, the book, the watch, all seem sharper. There is no purple fringe on the watch like in the Nikon image. THe D90 may have a tiny advantage in noise, but it also cost double what my Rebel XS did.

The 50D sample do look a little soft on that site. I will give you that. You might check other sites to make sure they don't just have a botched test or sample.

Same results on several sites:(

[Make!]

Sheesh. Buy the one that you think will make you happy and move forward. Either should be perfectly capable of taking beautiful pictures. It hardly matters to anyone else but you; it's your money and your life. As we all know, the gear is the least important part of the puzzle.

My question was: Is that JUST in-camera contrast and sharpening settings or what on earth is going on

Answers not related to this question are to be posted elsewhere! And thanks to all you INTELLIGENT ones!:)

[cdifoto]

My question was: Is that JUST in-camera contrast and sharpening settings or what on earth is going on
I'd say it's a combination of both optics and in-camera settings as well as inherent sensor & signal quality.

There are too many variables to compare cameras from different brands. It's really a fruitless exercise.

[Michael_Lambert]

My question was: Is that JUST in-camera contrast and sharpening settings or what on earth is going on

Answers not related to this question are to be posted elsewhere! And thanks to all you INTELLIGENT ones!:)

And its been made clear to you over and over again that the details are not POSTED on the site, So how could anyone here possibly know what caused such a large swing in the outcome!

Its not posted how the shots where taken with what components what processing done or anything.. Are they comparing Camera RAW files are they comparing in camera adjustments , jpeg conversions?

[CyberDyneSystems]

Nothing more to see here really.