Canon and Nikon

Urban Grimshaw

Urban Grimshaw

Messages
392
Edit My Images
Yes
You will notice that I've consciously named this thread Canon and Nikon, rather than versus. But you can take it as you will, I just don't want to get anyone's backs up, I'm sure those threads are very tired by now.

I have a genuine, and slightly more focused question, however.

I've owned my 350d for around 5 years now. And to be truly honest, I've never been 100% happy with it. The focus can be soft (particularly on shots with a lof of detail, such as landscapes), colours can be off (very often noticed in skies - slight hint of purple!), and all round I don;t find the end results smooth.

Now I've seen similar results from other users with the 350d. And I've also noticed some of these users jump to a similarly priced Nikon, only to suddenly get much better results.

Is this something any of you guys are familiar with? I'm now ready to upgrade my 350d, but I'll be sorely disappointed if I don't see a major improvement (and may I add I'm mostly using prime lenses - the kit was just too bad).

Time and time again, I'm seeing smoother results from Nikon. I don't know if this is to do with Nikon's ISO performance, if the 350d was just a little poor all round, or if I got a duff. And I'm very reluctant to shell out a lot of money before I know the answer to this.
 
There are countless Canon - Nikon threads and they tend to go nowhere.
You need to be sure that you are making comparrisons on a level playing field, i.e. Nikon & Cannon side by side, same subject, same time, same photographer.

I'll not be surprised if someone posts an excellent shot taken with a 350d before very long.

Why not rent a Nikon for a week and test it for yourself.
 
arclight said:
I'll not be surprised if someone posts an excellent shot taken with a 350d before very long.
Click to expand...

I saw some in a photography magazine not so long back and this girl had took pictures of beautiful countryside landscapes all taken with a 300D or 350D (it was one or the other)
 
Normally I'd expect the problems you describe to be more related to the lens or possibly the wrong settings, rather than the camera. Obviously it's possible to have faulty equipment for any item, so you could be right I suppose.

My sister is using my old 300D and that's years old, but still taking really nice photos. I was a bit jealous the other week actually when we went to Chirk castle. She managed to get some photos that were better than mine on my 30D, although I suck and she was using auto :D
 
arclight said:
There are countless Canon - Nikon threads and they tend to go nowhere.
Click to expand...

I'm sure there is, and I can imagine how they go. But I've been looking for an answer as to why the quality of my 350d is sub-par (imho) for years now and never found even a vague answer (other than canon had some quality control issues).

It's definitely the body itself. And I've noticed it elsewhere, so surely someone else must have noticed too. I've fired off tens of thousands of different shots on different settings, with the same results. It can be acceptable (on occasion), but it doesn't have that flair.

Even comparing the 350d towards newer Canons (for example the 550d, 60d, 7d, etc)..I'm not interested in Nikon v Canon, I'm interested in where I will find the quality I want, and currently my confidence is low with what I have, and any potential upgrades that are on offer.

It may be that I got the short straw on mine, but from what I've seen, then so did many other people. I'd love to see some great quality shots from the 350d if anyone can point me to them.

And if there was any quality control issues, have they now been ironed out?
 
Urban Grimshaw said:
It's definitely the body itself. And I've noticed it elsewhere, so surely someone else must have noticed too. I've fired off tens of thousands of different shots on different settings, with the same results. It can be acceptable (on occasion), but it doesn't have that flair.
Click to expand...
What lenses have you tried it with? Without using decent lenses, the artefacts you are seeing could be lens related. I was staggered when I bought my first addon lens (70-200F4L) at how much crisper, clearer and downright more beautiful the pictures that came out of the camera were. Same tog, same body... different lens :)

Urban Grimshaw said:
Even comparing the 350d towards newer Canons (for example the 550d, 60d, 7d, etc)..I'm not interested in Nikon v Canon, I'm interested in where I will find the quality I want, and currently my confidence is low with what I have, and any potential upgrades that are on offer.
Click to expand...
All the current Canon crop cameras (bar the 1100D) have the same sensor in them. They vary in features and size, but the fundamental quality will be the same.
 
Currently I use the 50mm f1.8 and 28mm f2.8.

I don't even know where the kit lens is anymore. I'd rather use my old Praktica.
 
Urban Grimshaw said:
The focus can be soft (particularly on shots with a lof of detail, such as landscapes), colours can be off (very often noticed in skies - slight hint of purple!), and all round I don;t find the end results smooth.
Click to expand...

How do you know it's definitely the camera?

Maybe you could post examples of shots that you're not happy with?

I've read reviews which praise the 350D and say that it's Canon's sharpest DSLR so if that's even remotely close to reality there's probably better to be had so maybe you could review the issues before moving on?
 
Cameras do make a difference. I moved from a D60 to D90 and I noticed an improvement immediately, so it's not just your Canon. You can get less than satisfactory result with any make. I agree though that lenses can make a hell of a different. A better Canon camera would undoubtedly save you money on changing lenses though. I've got no experience with Canon so I'd never seriously put them down but there's enough pros out there using them to suggest they're not bad at all.;)
 
If you are getting purple skies then that'll be the white balance is either at the wrong setting, or the sensor is knackered.
 
Do you have any friends who could lend you a camera?
Any camera will do.
If you can pick up another camera and take a sharp picture with colours that look right then fair enough, look at buying something else.
But until you have done that, how do you know that the problem doesn't lie with you and not the equipment?
Although the screen on the camera isn't really what you should be using to judge things by, if the colours look better there than on your computer then maybe it's a screen calibration issue?
Googling 'Canon 350D sample image' brings up plenty images that I'd have said were of a good standard.
 
Doog said:
I've got no experience with Canon so I'd never seriously put them down but there's enough pros out there using them to suggest they're not bad at all.;)
Click to expand...

Well, yeah. That's something that inspires some confidence. They can't all be that bad! I just noticed a few patterns, and the better results always seem to come from Nikon.

Skies are a perfect example. Colours and the fluidity of colours through the sky in particular. They always seem a little blocky (difficult to describe), as if the range of colours don't flow through smoothly. As if it steps from one colour to another, without the transition in between. That's not something I would attribute to a lens, though I could be wrong.

Don't get me wrong. It's not awful. The prime lenses made a vast improvement on sharpness (though still could be better). I just expect more, and I see others getting a lot more from cameras in the same price range.
 
Post some examples with exif intact and lets see what the problem is...
 
one word - lenses ! used to have 350d , there was nothing wrong with . yes, the AF was slow and the iso range small, but iq wise it wasn't worse then newer cameras apart from the newer technology.

maybe your sensor is acting up.
 
Some typical examples. Not the best pictures, just a few average, straight out of the camera shots. No processing - only resized in CS3 (proportions constrained) to fit on the forum. Taken on Prime lenses.
IMG_3095-1.jpg


IMG_3034-1.jpg


IMG_2073.jpg
 
Last edited:
There's no data with those shots so it's hard to decide what's wrong. They look like high ISO, small aperture and poorly focused and metered shots taken with ho-hum lenses but without data it's all guesswork.

Can you post shots with data intact?
 
Last edited:
Urban Grimshaw said:
Some typical examples. Not the best pictures, just a few average,
Click to expand...

Why post them if they aren't the best you can do with the camera. You can take a poor pic with any camera, we want to see what's stopping you taking a great pic.

Urban Grimshaw said:
straight out of the camera shots. No processing - only resized in CS3 (proportions constrained) to fit on the forum. Taken on Prime lenses.
Click to expand...

Do you shoot raw or Jpeg, if jpeg what are your settings?



woof woof said:
They look like high ISO, small aperture and poorly focused and metered shots taken with ho-hum lenses
Click to expand...

Of rather dull subjects in flat lighting.

What was I saying about it possibly being the photographer not the camera???
 
I've never really used EXIF data tbh. Those are straight out of the camera, aside from resizing. If you can tell me how to get it, I can get it done :)

The focusing on the top two is typical of the camera. That's as good as it gets in those settings, and I've tried everything over the years. Portraits and close-up shots of simple objects can turn out quite well, but as soon as you turn the camera towards something more detailed, that's what you get, every time, without fail. Never ever better than that.

Metering I'm not so concerned about, that's my job, so you can blame me for that ;)

The bottom pic is just a bad pic. But you will notice that the sky is both blue and green!
 
What focus mode did you use, what white balance, iso, shutter speed?

If you provide those details the problem might be glaringly obvious.
 
fixedimage said:
Why post them if they aren't the best you can do with the camera. You can take a poor pic with any camera, we want to see what's stopping you taking a great pic.
Click to expand...

Because that's not the question I'm asking. There's elements in those pictures that exist both in my best and worst. Always. I'm not interested in lighting and composition at this moment in time.

I'll try and get some shots together with EXIF data attached, as I couldn't tell you the exact settings from any of my previous pictures. But I can tell you the results are always the same.
 
Urban Grimshaw said:
Because that's not the question I'm asking. There's elements in those pictures that exist both in my best and worst. Always. I'm not interested in lighting and composition at this moment in time.

I'll try and get some shots together with EXIF data attached, as I couldn't tell you the exact settings from any of my previous pictures. But I can tell you the results are always the same.
Click to expand...

I would challenge you to find a dictionary that defines 'photograph' without the word light.
If you're not interested in lighting, you're not interested in taking a good photograph and you can spend what you will on a new camera, it ain't gonna help.
 
fixedimage said:
I would challenge you to find a dictionary that defines 'photograph' without the word light.
If you're not interested in lighting, you're not interested in taking a good photograph and you can spend what you will on a new camera, it ain't gonna help.
Click to expand...

You're not being very helpful. I'm well aware that light is paramount to photography...but unless you can tell me how it ties in to my questions I'd rather save it for another topic..

Anyways, I've reuploaded top 2, hopefully they'll have exif data intact.
 
Urban Grimshaw said:
You're not being very helpful. I'm well aware that light is paramount to photography...but unless you can tell me how it ties in to my questions I'd rather save it for another topic..

Anyways, I've reuploaded top 2, hopefully they'll have exif data intact.
Click to expand...

I hardly know where to start.

You've mentioned lack of sharpness and poor colour rendition in your images, this could be because you're using to low a shutter speed, too large or small an aperture or too high an iso, you could be shooting into the light and getting flare and ghosting and low contrast. There's clear evidence of over exposure in the skies of the images you posted, this won't be helping with contrast and sharpness.
 
You're iso, shutter speed and aperture seem alright for the two with exif info.
What focus mode do you use and are you shooting jpegs or raw?
 
Cheers. I believe all of the above are AI focus. And all Jpeg - I've never shot in RAW - on the largest setting.

Totally understand that there's so many variables, and whilst I'm no pro, I've been taking pictures with SLRs for 15 years now and have at the very least some half-decent understanding of aperture's, shutter speeds, etc, and their varying potential effects on the end product. But I've tried and tried with no joy.

If there was something in the camera that I'm missing, I would be overjoyed to find it! Or even a difference in technique. As it stands, those pictures above are typical focus on a detailed subject, and I never get better results. The kit lens is worse. The unsharp mask gets used a lot!
 
Are you choosing the focus point or letting the camera decide?
Has it taken a knock or fall at any point that could have put something out of alignment?
 
Depends on what I'm shooting. A lot of stuff is just quick snaps, where I forget to set anything, and realise half an hour later that I've left it in Manual Mode thinking it's in Program :(

Others I'll set the focus points manually. I believe, if I remember right, I set the focus points on the above pics to the door (possibly the hinge) in the top pic, and the main building in the below pic.

I've tried doing a backfocus test with batteries in the past, and it seemed fine. Aside from that, the camera's produced the same results from new.
 
Starastin said:
something is definitely wrong as my g/f 30 pound p&s takes better pics than those above
Click to expand...

To be fair, the bottom one's terrible. Something going on with the light there making it look like it was taken on a phone. I'd ignore that...however, the various colours in the sky trouble me...hence why I posted that one.

The other two are typical of what the camera outputs.
 
Few more to throw into the mix, just give a better idea of all round performance, with different subjects.

IMG_3151.jpg


IMG_3216.jpg


october2010024.jpg
 
There's very little wrong with that last image.

You need to learn how to post process. Using Canon jpegs straight out of the camera will almost always lead to disappointment as they are designed to have an element of PP. By their nature Canon jpegs are rendered flatter than Nikon's equivalent as they are meant to be worked on. Nikon's in camera processing alters the image to have a far richer output (as do most compacts - hence Starsin's comment) at default settings.

Either learn the settings for your in camera jpeg engine, or preferably learn how to PP your photos properly.

2 min in LR3 on the third photograph above gives this:

IMG_2073.jpg


That's without paying attention to detail and just applying some defaults.
 
DemiLion said:
Nikon's in camera processing alters the image to have a far richer output (as do most compacts - hence Starsin's comment)
Click to expand...

I know most compacts do a bit of PP in-house, so to speak, but I didn't know there was a difference between Canon and Nikon SLR's. That's interesting.

Aside from that, I always do PP, and I'm sure it could improve (only just discovering smart sharpening and the high pass filter as opposed to the unsharp mask), but still...

The last three look okay to me. Maybe a little polish in post is needed, to sharpen slightly but they seem fine.
Click to expand...

The last 3 or much better. But the camera deals with simpler subjects much better. Such as the one with the lens cap...it's pin sharp (unless you want to really devour it - there's some discrepancies), yet no thought went into it, camera held with one hand, snap, done.

I can set the camera up on a tripod for more detailed subjects, like those above, low ISO, high shutter speed, mid-range aperture....it will always come away with the quality of the first three.

And yeah, you can get away with them with a bit of messing, but since I want to upgrade, I ideally want something that produces pretty good results straight out of the box, and after a bit of PP, a bit of WOW! Not a bit well it looks better than it did before.. ;)

And I've seen people change cameras and their results have changes immediately. I don't want to change cameras and see that it's not any different to what it was.
 
Urban Grimshaw said:
Depends on what I'm shooting. A lot of stuff is just quick snaps, where I forget to set anything, and realise half an hour later that I've left it in Manual Mode thinking it's in Program :(
Click to expand...

You can't really blame the camera if you forget to check stuff like this.

Urban Grimshaw said:
Others I'll set the focus points manually. I believe, if I remember right, I set the focus points on the above pics to the door (possibly the hinge) in the top pic, and the main building in the below pic.

I've tried doing a backfocus test with batteries in the past, and it seemed fine. Aside from that, the camera's produced the same results from new.
Click to expand...

I presume in the back focus test you used centre focus point? I would recommend always using centre focus point - and if you can rear button focusing - and focusing and recomposing. I've found the centre focus point on almost every camera I've had more accurate and able to get focus in much lower light than the other points.

Urban Grimshaw said:
Few more to throw into the mix, just give a better idea of all round performance, with different subjects.

IMG_3151.jpg


IMG_3216.jpg


october2010024.jpg
Click to expand...

These don't look too bad at all.
All the images you've posted bar the last one of the dog look like they were shot from an average persons eye level, changing your viewpoint will add a lot to your images, make them less 'snapshotty'

Urban Grimshaw said:
I can set the camera up on a tripod for more detailed subjects, like those above, low ISO, high shutter speed, mid-range aperture....it will always come away with the quality of the first three.
Click to expand...

If you're shooting in conditions where you can keep the iso down and the shutter speed up, why do you need the tripod?

Urban Grimshaw said:
And yeah, you can get away with them with a bit of messing, but since I want to upgrade, I ideally want something that produces pretty good results straight out of the box, and after a bit of PP, a bit of WOW! Not a bit well it looks better than it did before.. ;)

And I've seen people change cameras and their results have changes immediately. I don't want to change cameras and see that it's not any different to what it was.
Click to expand...

I think you might be expecting too much from getting a new camera.

Unless you were going to something a lot better I wouldn't expect to see much improvement in your images from simply using a new camera.

Could it be that these people who you have seen change camera and instantly get better results have become bored with their old camera and aren't putting in much effort then the novelty of a new camera prompts them to go out and use it more and to put more effort in? Or you see pics from their new camera before they tinker with the settings and screw things up!

You say you sometimes shoot some pictures then realise your camera was in manual not in program, possibly a new camera, especially if you were unfamiliar with it (ie going from Canon to Nikon) would make you check things like this more and you'd be shooting to your full potential more.
 
I appreciate what you're saying fixedimage, but the above pictures are not my showcase of photography. The content and composition have a lot to be desired. But merely changing the angle isn't going to see a sharper focus.

The reason I've shot high shutter speeds on a tripod, is to absolutely and without a doubt, rule out camera shake. As I say, the camera only performs 'well' on simpler subjects. Something I've heard said before on the Canon.

Landscape and detailed captures always lack the focusing highlighted in the first two pictures. I don't believe for a second this is as much as I can expect from paying over £500 on an SLR kitted with a prime lens.
 
Lets distil this into two comments:


i) If you want an excuse to upgrade just go ahead and do it.

ii) If you want some constructive help on what you are doing wrong (which I suspect is a cross between using the wrong setting and poor PP) and how to get the most out of an otherwise capable camera, then post some proper photographs, with the Exif intact, processed as you would normally do, and stop pussy footing about!

The constant line of 'but this' 'but that' isn't getting anybody anywhere.
 
The idea of the above photographs, is to show them on a level playing ground, straight out of the camera, just as they come out of everyone else's.

If everyone can look at them, and say, yep, that's about what they should look like. Or, nope, they're tragic! I just want to know....are they normal, or not? I can post up hundreds, they'll all look the same. Would a 550d produce the same results out of the box? Or a 7d?

Post processed, they look a hell of a lot better. And I'm keen to further my PP skills. But that's another topic.

For now, I'd like to know what I can expect out of the box. And if anyone can point me to a thread of photographs, straight out of the box, that'd be great. Then I'll leave you all alone while I study them :)

edit: and I can say I'm not looking for an excuse to upgrade. I could do without it. Unfortunately I have a wedding to shoot later in the year and I don't want to do it with sub-par equipment.
 
Last edited:
'Straight out the camera' is going to be different from photographer to photographer and camera to camera depending on what picture settings - contrast, colour, sharpening - and what camera settings - iso, white balance, exposure compensation - are used and how well the photographer has metered etc.
For a truly 'straight from the camera' comparison you would need to take the cameras in question, set them up exactly the same, shoot exactly the same scene with the same iso, shutter speed and aperture and look at the results and I'm pretty sure there wouldn't be much between your 350D, a 550D or a 7D or the roughly equivalent Nikons.
 
The overall photograph may be vastly different. And you have a good point about the settings, sharpening, contrast, etc...I'd like to learn more about that and just how different this could make the end result.

But aside from camera shake, and a little softness around the edges using apertures at the opposite ends of the scale, the overall sharpness should be pretty similar no matter what the settings (with the exception of the in camera processing of course).
 
I'm afraid that you are assuming that a digital camera produces images that are the same as film camera's after processing, it doesn't. A digital image needs just as much work after it's been shot as a film one does.

TBH from what I can see the problem doesn't exist with the camera, but its operator, and until you accept that and start taking some advice onboard then your photographs aren't going to improve.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top