Brakesreleased From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2007, 2 posts, RR: 0 Posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1527 times:
I have a 350d and even with a 50mm prime or 70-200L lens I find the images a bit soft and need a lot of unsharp mask. I'm after a new camera and tried a 40D and Nikon D80 in Jessops. I took 10 shots outside the shop with each camera and had them printed both straight from the camera and after unsharping in photoshop.
The Nikon D80 images are sharper straight from the camera and require a lot less sharpening in P.S. typically 80 vs 200 for the Canon. The bottom line is that the Nikon D80 pictures looked better than any of the canons (both the originals and sharpened) both in terms of sharpness and colour/colour balance. I've looked at many peoples work on a.net and canon users generally seem to produce soft pictures, although some seem to get it right. Features and lens range are all well and good but the bottom line is I want sharp pictures, is it all in the post processing? Are Nikons sharper than canons or does Nikon just do more sharpening in camera?
Any advice before I make the wrong choice.
Thanks in advance.
INNflight From Austria, joined Apr 2004, 3765 posts, RR: 62 Reply 1, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 13 hours ago) and read 1527 times:
Unless you changed the in-camera sharpening, the camera body has little to do with sharpness. Mainly the lens makes the difference!
There are soft(er) Canon lenses and soft(er) Nikons....Same with any other manufacturer.
It's a bit like comparing a Beech King Air and a Citation X...then you ask why are Cessnas faster in general? Makes little sense
NIKV69 From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 2, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 12 hours ago) and read 1501 times:
Quoting INNflight (Reply 1): Unless you changed the in-camera sharpening, the camera body has little to do with sharpness. Mainly the lens makes the difference!
{Checkmark}
With a good lens and proper light the shot should be fine with either Canon or Nikon. As a rule I turn off all in camera sharpening and with my prime lens they come out fine.
I would go with the Nikon anyway, not that I am biased.
SmAlbany From United States of America, joined Aug 2004, 285 posts, RR: 0 Reply 3, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 11 hours ago) and read 1463 times:
I would say that you don't really want the photos to be overly sharp right out of the camera. You have more flexibility if the shot is unsharpened out of the camera (I normally shoot aviation in RAW) and then sharpen in post processing. That way you can just sharpen the areas that need it and leave the rest alone.
Dvincent From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1719 posts, RR: 12 Reply 4, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1455 times:
There are two kinds of sharpening.
One has to be done by the camera (or your RAW converter) and that's capture sharpening. It removes the softness that anti-aliasing filters introduce into the image. Here you're mostly concerned about microcontrast, or fine details. This is also the kind of sharpness you tend to see in a lens, by the way - the ability to render subtle details.
The second is creative or destination sharpening, when you use USM or Smart Sharpen in Photoshop. This renders acutance, or edge sharpening. You perform this on either your camera's JPEGs or post-converted RAWs.
I just moved up to CS3 from PS7 and the difference in the sharpening tools (especially smart sharpen) is huge. It's like getting a whole new lens.
CalgaryBill From Canada, joined May 2006, 686 posts, RR: 6 Reply 5, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 10 hours ago) and read 1447 times:
This same argument came out when Nikon released the D2x. A lot of articles said the 12 megapixel D2x was sharper than Canon's 16 megapixel 1Ds MkII. What most of the reviewers didn't bother checking was that the default sharpening setting on the D2x was just higher!
Like other folks above said, you will have to use comparable quality lenses and settings to get a fair comparison. But it's very likely that both cameras are capable of producing sharp images, just pick the one that you find easiest and most intuitive to use.
GuamVICE From Guam, joined Jun 2005, 151 posts, RR: 20 Reply 6, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 9 hours ago) and read 1431 times:
Quoting CalgaryBill (Reply 5): it's very likely that both cameras are capable of producing sharp images, just pick the one that you find easiest and most intuitive to use
No need to reiterate what everyone said...just go with the body that makes you happy
The two most engaging powers of a photographer are to make new things familiar and to make familiar things new. ~Thacker
Soon7x7 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 2799 posts, RR: 14 Reply 8, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 4 days 3 hours ago) and read 1343 times:
To be safe...put the money in your optics,the unfortunate rule of thumb with photography is, the more money you spend, the better the equipment is.Funny thing is I have always been a Nikon person(film), but with digital, I always believed that Canon had a better handle on it,when I went digital I stayed with Nikon a)because Nikon came out with a body w/ CMOS b).I already had Nikon fast/expensive 2.8 lenses. Think is better to use camera defaults and post op images. You can't loose with either choice,but put the $$$$ in the glass. Can buy great used high end 2.8 lenses on line and ebay...j
Brakesreleased From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2007, 2 posts, RR: 0 Reply 9, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 3 days 12 hours ago) and read 1275 times:
Thanks everyone, I realise it's not fair to compare straight from the camera JPEGS as settings vary slightly, all I wanted was a few opinions before I went and bought the wrong system. Looks like a 40D a lot of time in front the computer.
Cheers all.
Simon.
AC888YOW From Canada, joined Jan 2005, 510 posts, RR: 1 Reply 10, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1160 times:
Is it not true that Canon's CMOS produces a 'softer' (or maybe 'smoother') image than a Nikon CCD (all other things equal)? I always thought the buttery-smooth appearance was a feature of Canon CMOS-based DSLRs.
Soon7x7 From United States of America, joined May 2006, 2799 posts, RR: 14 Reply 11, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1158 times:
So what is it you are saying, the cmos is actually superior or the ccd, as I am considering d200 vs d300 for a back up camera, 200 is ccd and the 300 is cmos, my current d2x is cmos, I am to understand cmos is flat out better but is the difference actually discernable?..j
AndrewUber From United States of America, joined Jul 2003, 2528 posts, RR: 44 Reply 13, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 4 hours ago) and read 1124 times:
Canon guys are going to preach Canon, Nikon guys are going to preach Nikon. It is indeed a matter of personal preference. Both are great equipment. As has been mentioned, your choice of glass has a lot to do with the quality of your images.
Don't spend $1500 on a top-of-the-line camera only to use a $300 lens. Your results will be mediocre at best. It is better to spend $750 on a lower-end DSLR or a used one, and invest in good glass.
Personally, I'm a Canon guy, but as I said - both are impressive. Have a look at both, play with them, get a feel for them and choose whichever one you like!
HangarRat From United States of America, joined Jul 2005, 626 posts, RR: 0 Reply 14, posted (5 years 6 months 2 weeks 2 days 3 hours ago) and read 1109 times:
Quoting INNflight (Reply 1): There are soft(er) Canon lenses and soft(er) Nikons
A bunch of questions from a noob to DSLR photography:
I am buying D80 after years of using point and shoot digitals. I know that the D80 is a powerful camera for a beginner, but I feel that it's something I can grow into. I used to shoot Nikon film cameras, so I'm not a total novice.
Sponsor Message: 
From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2007, 2 posts, 
From Austria, joined Apr 2004, 3765 posts, 
From , joined Dec 1969, posts, 
From Canada, joined May 2006, 686 posts, 
From Guam, joined Jun 2005, 151 posts, 
From Iceland, joined Jan 2005, 3070 posts, 
Printer friendly format 
