Exposing an image - interesting problem Canon > Nikon Differerence

P

Promocapture

Suspended / Banned
Messages
117
Edit My Images
No
I have search the net for quite sometime to see if anyone else has noticed this issue...

At first I thought maybe it was just me and I was rubbish at photography , time went on and I slowly upgraded my camera's and the problem improved as my camera's improved.

Time went on and my skills got better and i adjusted my post processing to compensate...

Now as I fine my work ok I fine that maybe it wasn't a problem with me exposing an image after all but a fundemental flaw of Canon's


So the problem I have with canon and my question does anyone else have the problem

When exposing the image with a light source to get pixel pin sharp exposure on skin the light source has to be very close to the subject otherwise it seems grainy and almost blurry making retouches double the work specially if you are not a digital artist.

where as with a nikon the light source can be anywhere as long as it is metered correctly the subject is still pin sharp...

This was my test

Canon 5D MkII

Subject about 12 ft in from of me focal length around 100mm ish on an L series glass meters to f8

Light source 4 ft away image is expose perfectly but as the light source is close it doesn't expose the rest of my image...

move the light source to 12ft re meter the subject light power is omitting f8 yet the skin appear grainy and almost under exposed

yet pick up a Nikon D3x same setting between the cameras

the nikon is pixel pin sharp

has anyone else noticed this problem

is it me or the camera

(please don't suggest buying a nikon I have to much invested in canon now)
 
DannyDMR said:
interesting, never used a canon, any chance of seeing the images?
Click to expand...

Right I had to remote into my machine at home to try and find a close comparison not easy to get exif data and crop an image remotely on a slow connection

I will do a better more exact comparison tonight but for now

x1.jpg


Nikon left canon right

look at the hair how sharp it is on nikon compared to canon tonight I will show the difference in skin when I can get to my edit machine

currently at work...
 
did you shoot JPEG with Canon? The blur looks very distinct. There is also some potential backfocus - you should be able to sort that out. All the rest is down to processing, again should be possible to sort out. Finally, D3x is 5k top of the line camera (and the sample is tiny!) and is more refined in all ways than 5DII.
 
daugirdas said:
did you shoot JPEG with Canon? The blur looks very distinct. There is also some potential backfocus - you should be able to sort that out. All the rest is down to processing, again should be possible to sort out. Finally, D3x is 5k top of the line camera (and the sample is tiny!) and is more refined in all ways than 5DII.
Click to expand...

The 5d MKII is the same sensor as the 1Ds Mark 3

I have done this comparison between the 5d MKII and the 1Ds MarkIII

and its the same results...

the Nikon d700 also exposes clearly

I think I am going to have to do the test again when I am next in the studio and match it like for like even down to the closet cm or light position and also mount the camera's on tripods and use the same type of lens also...

so so that there is nothing that can be discriminated againts

(will have to ask to borrow my bosses 1Ds MarkIII and 70-200 f2.8)
 
I may be way off here and I know very little about Canons but could it be the pixel density of the sensors, the Nikon being 12.3m and the Canon 21m.
I`m sure I read that more pixel density can create more noise due to the closeness of the photo sites on the sensor.
 
djinn said:
I may be way off here and I know very little about Canons but could it be the pixel density of the sensors, the Nikon being 12.3m and the Canon 21m.
I`m sure I read that more pixel density can create more noise due to the closeness of the photo sites on the sensor.
Click to expand...

nikon is 24.6 M its the D3x not the D3
 
to compare the images you need comparable lenses and shooting distance too otherwise it can't be an exact science.

the light source is different in both images too.

so hard to tell in tiny jpegs, you could have lost some refinement in compression etc, try printing them to get a better idea.

And I don't think the hair is sharp in any of them.
 
tiler65 said:
to compare the images you need comparable lenses and shooting distance too otherwise it can't be an exact science.

the light source is different in both images too.

so hard to tell in tiny jpegs, you could have lost some refinement in compression etc, try printing them to get a better idea.

And I don't think the hair is sharp in any of them.
Click to expand...



Light source is the same the only difference is the lens

on the canon its the 28-300 L

on the Nikon its the 70-200 shooting distance in MM was roughly the same I was slighting different position from grabbing the nikon to finding where I was standing before

Like I say I will try and make it 100% like for like comparison to make it more comparable
 
You will need to use a better lens on the canon too, the 28-300 is no way comparable to either makes 70-200.
 
menthel said:
You will need to use a better lens on the canon too, the 28-300 is no way comparable to either makes 70-200.
Click to expand...


There is not much in it ...

I use the 85mm F1.2 its one of Canons best lenses and there is not a massive about of differents between the 28-300 other wise I wouldn't bother using it
 
Promocapture said:
Light source is the same the only difference is the lens

on the canon its the 28-300 L

on the Nikon its the 70-200 shooting distance in MM was roughly the same I was slighting different position from grabbing the nikon to finding where I was standing before

Like I say I will try and make it 100% like for like comparison to make it more comparable
Click to expand...


I mean the light source needs to be the same distance away.............not the same light!!!
 
^^^ why are the catchlights different in her eyes then?.........here, I will lend you my spade.
 
A couple of thoughts.

In general Canon I have found tend to underexpose using the camera's meter. Don't know why this is but it my be the desire not to blow out the highlights with JPEG files. I suspect Nikon may not worry too much about this.

Second Canon use a very strong AA filter in the 1Ds mk3 which I assume will be the same in the 5D Mk2. This AA filter can give a softer result than you would normally expect. In fact Canon mention this in a tech pub they put out when the camera was first introduced. You need to increase the amount of capture sharpening that is applied to the file when processed. I don't know if this is done with the in camera processed JPEG file as I only shoot RAW , but increasing this in Lightroom I found the sharpness of my 1Dslll was much improved without any increase in noise.

Finally you may want to check the exact focus point you are using it is possible you may have some back focus problems, a fact you can correct with with the lens correction facility within the camera.

Unfortunately the images are way too small to be able to see accurately what the problem is
 
Promocapture said:
cause her head is facing different directions .... no spade needed :bang:
Click to expand...

The light is definitely coming from above in image 2

And there is some sort of reflector in image one......so not the same light source after all.

You need a a mannequin with a wig and tripod so you can take one camera off to put the other on, then you will have the 'model' in exactly the same place.
 
tiler65 said:
The light is definitely coming from above in image 2

And there is some sort of reflector in image one......so not the same light source after all.

You need a a mannequin with a wig and tripod so you can take one camera off to put the other on, then you will have the 'model' in exactly the same place.
Click to expand...


its 2 lights and a polly board lights were in the same position hadn't moved as was the polly board

the model was put in postition and then metered and the readings were the same

so give or take very small amounts the light were in the same postion...

agreed a manikin would make for an easier test as it wouldn't move

again like I said above I will try and do a more like for like comparison.
 
Chappers said:
A couple of thoughts.

In general Canon I have found tend to underexpose using the camera's meter. Don't know why this is but it my be the desire not to blow out the highlights with JPEG files. I suspect Nikon may not worry too much about this.

Second Canon use a very strong AA filter in the 1Ds mk3 which I assume will be the same in the 5D Mk2. This AA filter can give a softer result than you would normally expect. In fact Canon mention this in a tech pub they put out when the camera was first introduced. You need to increase the amount of capture sharpening that is applied to the file when processed. I don't know if this is done with the in camera processed JPEG file as I only shoot RAW , but increasing this in Lightroom I found the sharpness of my 1Dslll was much improved without any increase in noise.

Finally you may want to check the exact focus point you are using it is possible you may have some back focus problems, a fact you can correct with with the lens correction facility within the camera.

Unfortunately the images are way too small to be able to see accurately what the problem is
Click to expand...


images arnt small they are crops from the full image , thats is 100% zoom

once I get home I will make a better choice of image to show :thumbs:
 
don't forget to post the exif or better still ...leave it on the image.
 
Well the lights look very different to me - the shadows are much stronger in example 2. Something moved a long way somewhere between the two. And no, I wouldn't use 28-300 for anything apart from PJ, video (which I don't do). It is rather soft, heavy and expensive compared to even 70-200mm f/2.8L II or the nikon version. The 85mm sounds good - but might be slightly short for some shots. Focus calibration is the important one.

Furthermore, if these are 100% crops, what were you shooting? Sorry it doesn't make sense to me.

Obviously the ISO sensitivity will be slightly different on two different cameras, and you need to calibrate that with the meter, but either way should be easy to adjust in post. I am sure you are using manual exposure and RAW here, so camera meter doesn't even come to the equation - it is all about the actual lens aperture, and power of lights!

Finally, If you are not happy with 5D you could always give it to me for some advanced testing.
 
daugirdas said:
Well the lights look very different to me - the shadows are much stronger in example 2. Something moved a long way somewhere between the two. And no, I wouldn't use 28-300 for anything apart from PJ, video (which I don't do). It is rather soft, heavy and expensive compared to even 70-200mm f/2.8L II or the nikon version. The 85mm sounds good - but might be slightly short for some shots. Focus calibration is the important one.

Furthermore, if these are 100% crops, what were you shooting? Sorry it doesn't make sense to me.

Obviously the ISO sensitivity will be slightly different on two different cameras, and you need to calibrate that with the meter, but either way should be easy to adjust in post. I am sure you are using manual exposure and RAW here, so camera meter doesn't even come to the equation - it is all about the actual lens aperture, and power of lights!

Finally, If you are not happy with 5D you could always give it to me for some advanced testing.
Click to expand...

sure mate where shall I send it :thumbs:
 
Something wrong about those two images. If both were at 100mm from 12 feet away and 100% crop, why are they different sizes? Both cameras are full frame cameras.

I've just compared shots I did in the studio using my 50D and a 5D mk2 I borrowed and the 50D looks sharp until you compare it with the 5D, just stunning.
 
Byker28i said:
Something wrong about those two images. If both were at 100mm from 12 feet away and 100% crop, why are they different sizes? Both cameras are full frame cameras.

I've just compared shots I did in the studio using my 50D and a 5D mk2 I borrowed and the 50D looks sharp until you compare it with the 5D, just stunning.
Click to expand...

cause ones 24 mp and one is 21 mp
 
The difference between the two pictures you have posted is because of the lighting - one hard, one soft. So you would expect the skin to look different. Not comparable.

With respect, from what you've said, the OP doesn't make much sense.
 
HoppyUK said:
The difference between the two pictures you have posted is because of the lighting - one hard, one soft. So you would expect the skin to look different. Not comparable.

With respect, from what you've said, the OP doesn't make much sense.
Click to expand...


its not different light.... like I say I will do a better comparison and also take image of the light set ups and positions and you will see exactly what I mean...
 
I'm rather intrigued too.
 
tiler65 said:
<<< sits waiting patiently........
Click to expand...

.. Me too. I was so interested in this and the OP said weekend he would get some better samples.

I have always been intrigued with my 7D under exposing most of the times when I expose with its built in meter. I tend to nudge the exposure a touch but with canon not giving me the ability to do that on M mode and leaving the ISO on AUTO is such a pain. I prefer always to shoot with ISO on AUTO and just control the ss and f stop but with it under exposing this means I need to compensate by a 1/3 most times and I cannot use this method.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top