Nikon vs Canon - does it come down to Bokeh and the color red?

I use both. 5d Mark 2 and D700. Both are excellent for what they do.

I thought I'd give my observations regarding both systems and little things about the Nikon system that I've been witnessing.

1. Bokeh. We're talking wide open or slightly stopped down. I find Nikon's bokeh is not as pleasing as Canon's. There's a buttery smooth look to Canon's, and Nikon tends to accentuate the round bokeh balls more, rather than just go into a buttery mush.

I think this has to do with Nikon's glass and how their build philosophy is different from Canon's.

2. I find that Nikon cameras cannot produce correct red colors. The channel gets blown when you try to push the saturation. Canon tends to have a deep red color with more definition, Nikon is more orangy. That's in RAW form.

Jpegs. If you are a jpeg shooter, there is no question you should be shooting Canon. Having owned the D7000 previously, and playing around with the D800, and owning a D700, I've come to the conclusion that Nikon just cannot do reds correctly.
Canon on the other hand can produce gorgeous reds with definition.

On the other hand, and I'll probably be flamed for it, Nikon's metering is SO MUCH smarter than Canon's it's not funny. Focus point metering on a semi pro body is awesome for getting correct exposure.
Also, Nikon's sharpness is out of this world. God their 50mm 1.8 G and 85mm 1.8 G lens is Much Much sharper than any Canon lens I've ever used. I wonder if this sharpness contributes to their harsher bokeh.

Ive noticed with the nikons ive owned and do that they do seem to show a more blue'er auto WB than canon, not sure if they are just more sensertive to uv or what.


P.

I think I'm entitled to give my 02 cents. I've used the 5D2, 5D3 and 6D before switching to Nikon (D600).


Bokeh, depends what lens are you using, I find Nikon's 85 1.4G better than 85Lii, and the 50 1.8 G absolutely trashes any of Canon's version (50 1.4 or 50 1.8). 35L is of course legendary, while Nikon's 35 1.4G appears to be disappointing. 24Lii vs 24 1.4G, I'll give the nod to 24 1.4G, it's so sharp, no wonder its heralded as one of Nikon's best prime lens.


JPegs. It's preference. When I had my D700, I really hated its jpegs. It was flat compared to the 5DM2. The newer Nikon camera, d600 in my case have gorgeous jpegs. Nikon absolutely loves their greens because, landscapes looks spectacular. And I've always thought Nikon was better in handling reds, they're just deep where as Canon reds are more neutral. Blue? I'll give that to Canon, I like their blues better. Bottom line for me, when shooting landscapes, I prefer Nikon, when shooting portraits, edge to Canon due to its neutral approach.


Dynamic range? Not even a contest. Nikon kills Canon in that category. Not even close. os far.


Lenses? Canon has better selection IMHO but It's funny though, because years ago, Nikon has the reputation for being expensive but wit their recent releases (528, 50 85 G's) Nikon IMO appears to give its consumers better bang for their bucks. Still, Canon is better but I feel like lately they're asking a lot of $$$ for their releases while Nikon is releasing comparable quality for much less.


Skin tones, again Canon is much more neutral, Nikon tends to have a warmer feel IMO, particularly when using their newer G lenses. I personally prefer Canon skin tones for Caucasians and Nikon for Asians and brown/darker skin colors. Just my 02 cents.

Auto focus, I can't speak for every camera obviously but with camera's I've used, Nikon served me better. From D700-5DM2 and D600-6D, Nikon always gives more. The 5D3 of course blows the D800 out of the water.


Quality Control, well, Nikon dropped the ball big time. My D600 hasn't exhibited the well known oil and sensor issue ( I don't shoot past F/8 though) but plenty of D600 owners felt cheated when Nikon released their D610 as a minor upgrade to fix that issue.


Customer Service, haven't used Nikon yet and have dealt with Canon plenty of times. I don't have nothing bad to say about Canon's service. I imagine, Nikon will be the same (hopefully)

KeyserSoze1 wrote in post #16433623
I think I'm entitled to give my 02 cents. I've used the 5D2, 5D3 and 6D before switching to Nikon (D600).


Bokeh, depends what lens are you using, I find Nikon's 85 1.4G better than 85Lii, and the 50 1.8 G absolutely trashes any of Canon's version (50 1.4 or 50 1.8). 35L is of course legendary, while Nikon's 35 1.4G appears to be disappointing. 24Lii vs 24 1.4G, I'll give the nod to 24 1.4G, it's so sharp, no wonder its heralded as one of Nikon's best prime lens.


JPegs. It's preference. When I had my D700, I really hated its jpegs. It was flat compared to the 5DM2. The newer Nikon camera, d600 in my case have gorgeous jpegs. Nikon absolutely loves their greens because, landscapes looks spectacular. And I've always thought Nikon was better in handling reds, they're just deep where as Canon reds are more neutral. Blue? I'll give that to Canon, I like their blues better. Bottom line for me, when shooting landscapes, I prefer Nikon, when shooting portraits, edge to Canon due to its neutral approach.


Dynamic range? Not even a contest. Nikon kills Canon in that category. Not even close. os far.


Lenses? Canon has better selection IMHO but It's funny though, because years ago, Nikon has the reputation for being expensive but wit their recent releases (528, 50 85 G's) Nikon IMO appears to give its consumers better bang for their bucks. Still, Canon is better but I feel like lately they're asking a lot of $$$ for their releases while Nikon is releasing comparable quality for much less.


Skin tones, again Canon is much more neutral, Nikon tends to have a warmer feel IMO, particularly when using their newer G lenses. I personally prefer Canon skin tones for Caucasians and Nikon for Asians and brown/darker skin colors. Just my 02 cents.

Auto focus, I can't speak for every camera obviously but with camera's I've used, Nikon served me better. From D700-5DM2 and D600-6D, Nikon always gives more. The 5D3 of course blows the D800 out of the water.


Quality Control, well, Nikon dropped the ball big time. My D600 hasn't exhibited the well known oil and sensor issue ( I don't shoot past F/8 though) but plenty of D600 owners felt cheated when Nikon released their D610 as a minor upgrade to fix that issue.


Customer Service, haven't used Nikon yet and have dealt with Canon plenty of times. I don't have nothing bad to say about Canon's service. I imagine, Nikon will be the same (hopefully)

I agree 100% with everything you said.

Roshan wrote in post #16433502
On the other hand, and I'll probably be flamed for it, Nikon's metering is SO MUCH smarter than Canon's it's not funny. Focus point metering on a semi pro body is awesome for getting correct exposure.

Canon's are for pros and thus metering is unnecessary since we all know pros all shoot in M.


Oh, wait, no we all use M because Canon's metering SUCKS. Must be nice to actually be able to use a semi-auto mode with some confidence.

ejenner wrote in post #16433796
Canon's are for pros and thus metering is unnecessary since we all know pros all shoot in M.


Oh, wait, no we all use M because Canon's metering SUCKS. Must be nice to actually be able to use a semi-auto mode with some confidence.

Shooting in M you still need a light meter...

I'll have to try out a Nikon more in depth sometime, but I don't usually have issues with my 6D's metering, and I use mostly MF lenses. I do generally leave my exposure comp around +1/3 or +2/3 though.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #16433989
Shooting in M you still need a light meter...

I'll have to try out a Nikon more in depth sometime, but I don't usually have issues with my 6D's metering, and I use mostly MF lenses. I do generally leave my exposure comp around +1/3 or +2/3 though.

Yeah I have to dial in some comp every once in a while, but have really been trying to shoot manual more. For just out an about, canon's metering is pretty good. Sometimes I feel that even in evaluative, it gives a bit too much priority on the focus point. Although I'm not sure if the 6D has it like the 7D.

What a pointless trollbait thread.

Saying "I find that Nikon cameras cannot produce correct red colors. The channel gets blown when you try to push the saturation. Canon tends to have a deep red color with more definition, Nikon is more orangy. That's in RAW form," is an absolutely meaningless statement and reveals a basic misunderstanding of digital imaging. What Raw converter? Proprietary or third party? What profiles? What other converter settings? Raw files have no inherent color, they are greyscale and the color data is interpolated by the converter based on the profile supplied by the converter. While it is true that differences in micro-filter dyes and sensor chromatic response curves will influence the Raw greyscale data, it is what the converter does with it that matters most.

ejenner wrote in post #16433796
Canon's are for pros and thus metering is unnecessary since we all know pros all shoot in M.


Oh, wait, no we all use M because Canon's metering SUCKS. Must be nice to actually be able to use a semi-auto mode with some confidence.

So that means what? You use M and a handheld meter? You eyeball it and just know what exposure is needed? (Cartier-Bresson is said to never have used a meter.) You use the meter in M, centering the needle or offsetting it, but are dissatisfied with the results?

For landscapes and other static subjects I long ago stopped using the conventional metering, preferring to base my exposure on Live View's real time histogram. Lately I have been experimenting with ML's Auto ETTR and really like it. I know you also have been trying ML - check it out.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #16433989
Shooting in M you still need a light meter...

I'll have to try out a Nikon more in depth sometime, but I don't usually have issues with my 6D's metering, and I use mostly MF lenses. I do generally leave my exposure comp around +1/3 or +2/3 though.

I've found that the EOS M follows the focus point around the screen/compostion and sets the meterng/exposure accordingly

RobDickinson wrote in post #16434015
What a pointless trollbait thread.

Agreed. Having the vision to properly select lens, lighting, aperture, framing and composition ARE essential to getting the raw digital data desired. (Perhaps this mattered more in the days of cellulose.) After all of those things, comes the artistic ability to perform the digital manipulation needed to get the desired result. In the age of digital image manipulation the instrument used to capture the light is nearly irrelevant.

If I could upgrade anything I wanted, it would be my talent. I could apply that with whatever equipment was at hand.

tzalman wrote in post #16434089
So that means what? You use M and a handheld meter? You eyeball it and just know what exposure is needed? (Cartier-Bresson is said to never have used a meter.) You use the meter in M, centering the needle or offsetting it, but are dissatisfied with the results?

For landscapes and other static subjects I long ago stopped using the conventional metering, preferring to base my exposure on Live View's real time histogram. Lately I have been experimenting with ML's Auto ETTR and really like it. I know you also have been trying ML - check it out.

It means I'm trying to continue the spirit of the thread and being somewhat tounge-in-cheek. Not trying to be elitist - but basically saying that all those people who 'only' shoot in M on Canon cameras or tell people on the forums to shoot in M, rather than Av or Tv do so at least in part becasue they/we often can't trust the metering in a semi-auto mode. IME, you can dial in EC for one shot and then need something completely different for another - and not going from snow to cats in a coal mine.

Of course one could always use spot (I have not reason to believe this does not work as it should), but really I think most people want a good evaluative or similar and IMO Canon does not do as well as others in this regard.

Of course there are the good reasons for M, ones that you'd use with 'perfect' metering, but honestly I use M a lot simply because I don't trust that if i recompose or the light changes I will get the correct/decent exposure. Of course the newer cameras might be just fine - I only have experience with the older ones (t1i, 5DII, 7D).

I actually use Av a lot, but also chimp the histogram a lot until I'm satisfied the camera and EC is doing OK for the situation (or just switch to LV to meter). If it is not, then I change to M and chimp the histogram/use LV a lot and figure out how much I need to change the exposure in the different situations I'm likely to encounter at that time. To me while this works and may seem 'professional' once I'm done chimping, I'd really rather the camera took care of it, at least much of the time, so I could concentrate more on the shot. So basically I use the sensor+histogram as my lightmeter (I'm not afraid of adding shutter actuations to my cameras).

But I also use the same method as you for anything on a tripod as you indicate. Although i do think the metering on the 5DII in particular sucks - I probably could spot meter and use M, but with ML raw histogram I can't see the need. Haven't used auto ETTR much, but I haven't been doing much in the way of landscapes recently.

YashicaFX2 wrote in post #16434175
If I could upgrade anything I wanted, it would be my talent. I could apply that with whatever equipment was at hand.

Of course, I'd rather have more talent than a better metering.

EverydayGetaway wrote in post #16433989
Shooting in M you still need a light meter...

I'll have to try out a Nikon more in depth sometime, but I don't usually have issues with my 6D's metering, and I use mostly MF lenses. I do generally leave my exposure comp around +1/3 or +2/3 though.

Actually you don't have to have a light meter. Just know the appropriate settings for light conditions and set shutter and aperture based on that.

My first 35 mm camera was an all manual RF with no light meter, At that time Kodak shipped a little chart with recommended settings with every roll of film. I taped it to the back of my camera and adjusted accordingly. It worked very well considering.

Another plus, the camera never needed recharging because it had no batteries unless you needed them to fire your flash bulb.

All that being said I have been happy to use TTL metering for the last 40 years and wouldn't want to go back.

Yep, but one of the reasons it worked well was that the wide latitude of the negative film allowed you or your lab to make compensations while printing for the times it didn't exactly work . If you sent the film to a lab you probably weren't even aware that they were covering your backside. Slides were a lot less forgiving, as are jpgs.