Which Will Win?

This weekend I will be comparing both of these systems with the lenses you see in the picture. The images will be of mostly landscapes (town building shots outdoors).

Which of the two do you think will yield the best results and why?

p.s. I'm doing this just for the fun of it. I'm not looking to decide which system to keep or sell; I'm stuck with both systems. Also not looking to start a flame war. Just want to see which one performs better/yields better results under identical settings and circumstances. I'm not a fan boy of either system. Also, I'm neither a scientist nor am I getting paid in any way to do this. Just trying to enjoy/have some fun with my favorite hobby, so please don't hate or troll me. Thanks!

Canon - of course I'm biased because I used Canon since I started on film (entry level).

For landscapes, I din;t know. I know the D750 had really great top of the line AF when it was launched 6 years ago.

Which one camera fits your hands better? Which one camera feels more intuitive in the controls, buttons, and menu settings?

That is the camera that will win.

Its been a long weekend.

My apologies for the delay. My account was unrecoverable, so I'm starting over again.

Today I took both cameras with equal lenses (Canon 6Dmk2 with 16-35mm f4.0L and Nikon D750 with AF-S Nikkor 16-35mm f4.0 G ED), used equal settings, shot within fractions of a second between the two. The settings were RAW, aperture priority, ISO 400, most shots taken either at f/5.6 or f/8.0 (depending on the shot, however, if I shot at 5.6 with one camera, I would shoot at 5.6 with the other camera as well; in other words, the apertures used were the same with each camera at all times).

My reason for shooting in Aperture Priority mode was because I wanted to control the aperture to make this test as equal as possible. Shooting at ISO 400 also ensured I wouldn't have the low ISO noise issue with the 6Dmk2; the idea was to have as even a play-field as possible with partial (yet equal) input from me and the cameras.

These images have not been corrected in Photoshop other than converting them from RAW to JPEG using Adobe Camera RAW.

The first image will be the one shot with the Canon 6Dmk2, the second image will be the one shot with the Nikon D750 (Bernie's face is my focal point in each image):

These are two more images. Again, Canon first, Nikon second.

And these are the final two for now.

Love to see these all corrected to Adobe Standard profile, Daylight white balance and tweaked to get the same exposure on lil Bernie's face.

I'm sorry, I'm finding this to be an experiment in futility if you're really trying to find quantifiable advantages with one camera over the other. For any given photo, I find them to be inadequate with exposure range. With your final set, I do like the Nikon image more with the composition....so there, Nikon wins.

In one pair, the Canon underexposed. With the other two pairs, the Nikon underexposed. One brand preliminarily seems less likely to screw up because the user didn't compensate for it.
IOW, no conclusion can be drawn. For 'comparison' the aperture and shutter speed and ISO should have been identical for both cameras for the same shot; we only witness the subtle variances of the evaluative metering patterns of the two cameras.
The urban lore about Nikon exposure is based upon a database of many thousands of shots does not seem evident in a higher rate of accuracy than Canon, judging from these 3 shots.

The light matters more than the body here for landscape. Either one would make a great photograph if you were at the right place at the right time with the perfect light for that landscape.

I would suggest you test it on actual subject matter like that and see which files allow you more latitude in processing where it will matter.

Very best,

I'm seeing virtually no difference that cannot be tweaked in post. It seems like if you are choosing between these systems, your decision needs to be based on other factors - ecosystem, ergonomics, cost, etc.

Am I off base here? Is it my lack of photography experience and skills showing? Genuinely curious.

My experiment was to determine which of the two cameras performed better under similar circumstances (equal lenses, equal lighting, equal settings). Yes, I could do post processing or tweak settings to improve the images from either camera, but doing that would defeat the purpose of my experiment; to determine which of the two cameras performs better.

And before a few of you start flaming me for daring to try to get a good image "straight out of the camera", please consider that I didn't buy into these two systems recently. I have been capturing images since the late 1970's. Yes, a camera is a "tool", but crappy tools lead to mediocre results at best. I'm sure there are folks who can capture insanely great images with a flip phone (yes, flip phones from per-smartphone era), but if those same "flip phone photographers" used a Nikon D850 or Canon 5D Mark IV with a professional grade lens to capture the same exact image, I'll bet the image captured with either DSLR combo would blow the flip phone image out of the water in terms of IQ. If not, why are we wasting time on these forums discussing the virtues of our beloved camera equipment?

Yes, I could have done a more detailed scientific experiment by taking several thousand images at each possible setting under perfectly controlled conditions to compare the results, however, the idea was to remain as close to "average Joe" use; Average Joe (like myself and probably 95% of the population), takes his camera on an outing to capture images of landscape, quick impromptu portraits, etc. Average Joe wants to see nice images when he gets home. Which camera will have a higher probability of capturing NICER images for Average Joe?

My findings:

- Nikon D750 with Nikkor 16-35mm f4.0 images are mostly underexposed, colors are a bit warmer in the yellow spectrum, details are slightly better than Canon's. Highlights are not as blown out as Canon's making it easier to salvage a image in post processing. This in turn leads to displaying better dynamic range in post processing.

- Canon 6D Mark II with Canon 16-35mm f4.0L images are severely overexposed on some images, colors are not as "orangy" on the yellow spectrum, higher contrast in images makes for blown out high lights; post processing will be way more challenging. Details are not as accurately captured as Nikon, but they are not too bad.

Overall, my personal experience with both cameras is that neither one is perfect; each has its limitations. The Nikon D750 outperformed the Canon 6D Mark II in terms of IQ.

On a personal note; I have no immediate plans to sell off either camera system. I have equal lenses in both systems. The only upgrade I would like to do is go for either a Canon 5D Mark IV, or a Nikon D850 someday. If I decide to venture into the mirror-less world, I would have to see how it develops in the next couple of years before I spend any more money. If anything, I might consider buying Nikon F to Z and Canon EF to R adapters soon just in case...

Keep Nikon. Sell Canon. Do NOT upgrade. You won't get better results with a D850. Your problem isn't hardware, it's skill. The only thing that will improve your photos is education. Books, videos, online courses and in person mentorship when covid finally backs the hell off. If you want to transcend the plateau you're currently at you're going to have to dive head first into post processing.