Canon vs Nikon vs Pentax images

[Pentaxtic]

I was wondering with all the nice pictures that are put up, what would be the differences if you took the picture with a Canon or Nikon dslr with the equivalent lens?

If BenjiK took a picture with Mark III with the Spring Magazine samples, would there be any difference? More tweaking? Same IQ.

From what I know, Pentax offers more realistic colors. Canon goes funny with greens. Nikon has a flat image?!?

Your opinions?

This is related to the Nikon user saying"He doesn't know any better!" Maybe I should know the differences.
"http://http://www.pentaxforums.com/f...ny-better.html

[TourDeForce]

I dunno. Seen some awe inspiring pictures with those Canons & Nikons. They're certainly up to the comparison.

Given the image quality that each is capable of, I think preference may boil down to issues other than IQ. Cost, useable equipment from a previous model, familiarity with the system, ergonomics... I got my K100 for all the above reasons.

[KungPOW]

I expect that the "damage" I cause to a photo in post processing is far greater then any image difference produced by different camera brands.

It would not suprise me to find that some bright spark has a photoshop add on that will turn the raw file from one camera into a jpeg that looks like it came from a different brand.

[regken]

Originally Posted by KungPOW

I expect that the "damage" I cause to a photo in post processing is far greater then any image difference produced by different camera brands.

It would not suprise me to find that some bright spark has a photoshop add on that will turn the raw file from one camera into a jpeg that looks like it came from a different brand.

The lens can make a difference but even then PP could make them look identical. Even the CCD versus CMOS sensor variances is an in camera jpeg thing. The same is true in regards to the MP count unless you are printing larger than 8 X 10 or cropping a lot. As long as the ISO is low and the sensor is the same size all cameras are equal when it comes to IQ.

Ken

[WMBP]

Originally Posted by Pentaxtic

I was wondering with all the nice pictures that are put up, what would be the differences if you took the picture with a Canon or Nikon dslr with the equivalent lens?

...... From what I know, Pentax offers more realistic colors. Canon goes funny with greens. Nikon has a flat image?!?

If you took a series of photos with high-end or middle-to-high end cameras from each brand (say, a K10D/K20D; Canon 40D; Nikon D80 or D300), if the light was good, if you were using good lenses on each of the cameras, and if you knew what you were doing, the differences in image quality would be negligible. You might be able to find slight differences in the files as first viewed on your computer, if you looked hard enough; but the raw files should all have pretty much the same info in them and a competent user of, say, Lightroom or whatever, should be able to get a great photo from raw files coming from any one of the brands.

And if you were comparing processed photos (no peeking at raw originals), I bet $10 that you could slip into that competition some photos taken with high-end compact cameras without the difference being obvious: for example, the Leica D-LUX 3, a Panasonic Lumix DMC-TZ5K, or a Canon Powershot G9. NOTE WELL my conditions: good light, and a photographer who has more than a clue.

In optimal conditions, anyway, what distinguishes camera bodies isn't IQ, really. It's ergonomics, build quality, weather sealing, GPS or wi-fi capability, etc. When conditions aren't optimal, other differences appear: processing speed and fps, ISO range, noise management in high ISO/low light photos, focusing speed in low light, etc. And of course the brands are distinguished in very important ways by what's not in the body - availability of lenses and other peripherals like flash units, support, etc.

It's worth noting that these facts hold true not just between brands, but also between models in the same brand. If conditions are optimal, the difference in image quality between a shot taken by the K10D and another shot taken by the K20D are going to be trivial. After looking at thousands of shots taken by both cameras, I still can't usually tell which camera I used unless I check the EXIF info. On the other hand, I can sometimes tell which lens I used for a particular shot - and when I've done comparative lens tests (always in optimal shooting conditions), it's sometimes hard, but sometimes easy to see differences between shots taken with different lenses.

Will

[benjikan]

Originally Posted by Pentaxtic

I was wondering with all the nice pictures that are put up, what would be the differences if you took the picture with a Canon or Nikon dslr with the equivalent lens?

If BenjiK took a picture with Mark III with the Spring Magazine samples, would there be any difference? More tweaking? Same IQ.

From what I know, Pentax offers more realistic colors. Canon goes funny with greens. Nikon has a flat image?!?

Your opinions?

This is related to the Nikon user saying"He doesn't know any better!" Maybe I should know the differences.
"http://http://www.pentaxforums.com/f...ny-better.html

You would have about as much of a chance of seeing the difference between the K20D at 100 iso and the Canon IOS 1 Mklll at 100 iso, (in terms of resolution) as being able to differentiate between an egg fart and sulfur. Tough huh?

As to the color rendition, that is a very subjective matter and I leave that up to the artist to define their preference.

Ben

[GaryM]

Isn't it more about the lenses? A shot with a cheap consumer zoom is probably going to look the same from just about any system or high-end body, but images from the 31mm Limited (for example), even from a 6mp Pentax body, have a special quality that stands out to my eye.

[Gruoso]

I would also vote for ergonomics. I think that Pentax is quite user friendly and intuitive. But I have seen other strong points on other systems (better position of some buttons...). Overall, if I had to choose one system just taking the camera body into account, I think that I would choose the Pentax. It is quite confortable to use. Even when it drives me crazy to loose some shoots in low light, I think that I have lost an equal number of shoots trying to figure it out where the heck are the controls for some functions when using other systems (thought it can be learnt....hopefully). I guess that people that grown using other systems can say the same about other brands. There are other aspects to consider (accesories, lens availability, price, compatibility...) but body wise pentax is quite nice.

[Alfisti]

The IQ difference between ISO100 and 400 has been over rated for maybe 5 years.

[MrA]

Originally Posted by GaryM

Isn't it more about the lenses? A shot with a cheap consumer zoom is probably going to look the same from just about any system or high-end body, but images from the 31mm Limited (for example), even from a 6mp Pentax body, have a special quality that stands out to my eye.

Could not a test be done with a lens that is available in multiple formats - the same model sigma lens, for instance, on multiple bodies. Or to eliminate the glass altogether, an adaptall-2 or whatever lens, the same actual lens just with an adaptor to each system.

[Confused]

Hi Ben

I've never been fortunate enough to actually witness an egg 'fart', but just in case it ever happens in your vicinity, you might be well advised to maintain a safe distance....lol !
Oh, and by the way, never get trapped in a lift with one unless you have an oxygen mask handy......phwoar !!! Incidentally, as a precautionary measure, my wife & I have just decided to delete Rotarua from our inaugural trip to New Zealand this year. Better safe than sorry, you understand !

Best regards
Richard

P.S. You can always rely on me to lower the tone of a conversation !!!!

[benjikan]

Originally Posted by Confused

Hi Ben

I've never been fortunate enough to actually witness an egg 'fart', but just in case it ever happens in your vicinity, you might be well advised to maintain a safe distance....lol !
Oh, and by the way, never get trapped in a lift with one unless you have an oxygen mask handy......phwoar !!! Incidentally, as a precautionary measure, my wife & I have just decided to delete Rotarua from our inaugural trip to New Zealand this year. Better safe than sorry, you understand !

Best regards
Richard

P.S. You can always rely on me to lower the tone of a conversation !!!!

I understand...I went from being a member of Mensa to having the IQ of a Newt ever since I embarked on a metier of being a" Fashion Photog'"

[arbutusq]

Ben the same thing happened to me when i learned to play the banjo!!

I was just looking over some images from my Nikon days and comparing them to my Pentax images. At default ACR settings the Nikon images were a bit darker and had a greenish cast, as opposed to the warmer cast of Pentax images, however after playing in LR and applying similar WB, tone curve etc the only difference was the slightly sharper images from the D70/s weak AA filter, and that only on a few images.

[RBellavance]

Well, if one shoots raw with a number of different cameras, and then converts all the pictures to jpegs with ACR (or whatever) using the same settings, isn't it normal to get pictures that are nearly the same ? Aren't we basically throwing away a big part of each camera's "individuality" (contrast curve, etc) by doing so ?

I don't mean this to turn into a raw vs. jpeg, btw. I've been using raw+jpg for several months now and I wouldn't go back.

[Arpe]

Originally Posted by Confused

Incidentally, as a precautionary measure, my wife & I have just decided to delete Rotarua from our inaugural trip to New Zealand this year.

I thought I heard a big sigh of relief coming from there recently!