Side by side Canon 7D and Nikon D300

beetle8

Here's as close a comparison I have between the 2. Everything is the same other than the SS being .05 faster on the 7D so keep that in mind. Distance to subject is longer on the D300 image giving slightly more DOF. Distance for the 2 was @ 25'
Nothing has been done to either of these and all in camera stuff is either off or at standard.
Click the image to view the original size.

kdog

Different lighting between the two, different distances, different subjects, and the 7D shot is underexposed. What's to be gained here?

Regards,
-joel

beetle8

kdog wrote:

Different lighting between the two, different distances, different subjects, and the 7D shot is underexposed. What's to be gained here?

Regards,
-joel

The lighting is not different

I noted the distance and shutter speed,

and different subjects is what it is,

this is not a controlled test, I pulled to similar shots from a real world event after the fact, without the previous intention of a creating a comparison,

take it for what it's worth, if it's worth nothing to you then leave it.

double_b

kdog wrote:

Different lighting between the two, different distances, different subjects, and the 7D shot is underexposed. What's to be gained here?

Regards,
-joel

How can you say the lighting is different? He's clearly shotting from the same spot as proved by the background. Subject distance could affect the lighting I guess if the subject steps out from under a large light source but that doesn't appear to be the case here.

I'm not arguing one way or the other I'm just chiming in saying what I see.

kdog

beetle8 wrote:

The lighting is not different

The lighting is completely different. That's probably because the posture of the two girls is different. The girl on the left is leaning forward and there's no light on her chest at all. The girl on the right is leaning back and there is light on her chest. In fact, there's so much light on the girl on the right that the sequins at the top of her leotard appear to be blown out, while the girl on the left's chest is in a shadow and underexposed.

austinado16

Hey, that's exactly the kind of images I get with my 50D, and with my 40D before that.....go figure. Guess I should have taken your advice to start with and done the D300.

That, and let me tell you how much I love my wopping 9 focus points when shooting gymnasts who are here one second, and over there the next.

It's also the "why" behind the gal (another parent at the gym) who gets some pretty darn nice shots with her D80 and a "normal" Nikkor 18-200/3.5-5.6 lens, standing side-by-side with me and my Canon gear.

Thanks for posting this Keith!

Qarik

it's actually the same girl as well. The Nikon has a slimming effect as well as "rose colored" multicoat that make everyone appears to enjoy things more. I am willing to bet the Nikon girl got a higher score as well.

By the way what lens on each camera?

Dano

beetle8

kdog wrote:

The lighting is completely different. That's probably because the posture of the two girls is different. The girl on the left is leaning forward and there's no light on her chest at all. The girl on the right is leaning back and there is light on her chest. In fact, there's so much light on the girl on the right that the sequins at the top of her leotard appear to be blown out, while the girl on the left's chest is in a shadow and underexposed.

The lighting is not different, the girls poses and the way the light affects them and their differences is different. If I were to set up a studio set a take a picture of one girl standing straight and then brought in another girl to stand in the same place but to look down and slouch, and then adjusted the lights to get light on her chest and face would you say that the lighting was then the same? When now there are shadows somewhere else on girl #2.
The light source is multiple large 4bank flourecents on an all white clean ceiling @ 20' from the subjects. If everything else was identical the difference in lighting due to subject distance would be nonexistent.

But for you, since I have the ability, I'll post a controlled side by side with more legitmate results.

beetle8

Qarik wrote:

it's actually the same girl as well. The Nikon has a slimming effect as well as "rose colored" multicoat that make everyone appears to enjoy things more. I am willing to bet the Nikon girl got a higher score as well.

By the way what lens on each camera?

Each was sporting their respective brand glass 70-200 2.8 is/vr pegged at 200mm

kdog

beetle8 wrote:

The lighting is not different, the girls poses and the way the light affects them and their differences is different.

Yes, I believe we're saying the same thing here. Obviously the lights have not changed, but the posture of the two girls is different. First girl's chest is in the shadows, and the second girl's chest is in the light. That's all I'm saying.

Regards,
-joel

kdog

austinado16 wrote:

Hey, that's exactly the kind of images I get with my 50D, and with my 40D before that.....go figure.

BTW, if either of you guys want to send me a RAW file, I'll be happy to take a run at post-processing using CS4. Not that I'm any expert, I'm not. But I did play around with one of your flat looking JPGs and believe they can be substantially improved.

And Keith may be more familiar with Nikon that Canon and it's likely they require different processing styles.

Regards,
-joel

beetle8

kdog wrote:

BTW, if either of you guys want to send me a RAW file, I'll be happy to take a run at post-processing using CS4. Not that I'm any expert, I'm not. But I did play around with one of your flat looking JPGs and believe they can be substantially improved.

And Keith may be more familiar with Nikon that Canon and it's likely they require different processing styles.

Regards,
-joel

Just to be clear, niether of those images has undergone any processing. Your last statement could be misunderstood as saying that the Nikon image looks a certain way due to my processing, that surely would make the side by side comparison worthless,

kdog

beetle8 wrote:

Just to be clear, niether of those images has undergone any processing. Your last statement could be misunderstood as saying that the Nikon image looks a certain way due to my processing, that surely would make the side by side comparison worthless,

Well something processed the images, otherwise how did they get on the screen? If you shot RAW, you used a converter. If you shot JPG, then you let the camera do the processing. Either way, it's not an apples-to-apples comparison. It's my impression that Nikon pictures tend to have a different look "SOOC" than do Canons. Comparing SOOC images is meaningless except to novices who don't post process.

beetle8

,

O.K. these were shot as jpegs, neither have gone through PostProcessing. Your insinuation that there is no value in comparing the images "SOOC" with the in camera processing either turned off or set to standard (as off as can be) is ridiculous. To suggest that there can be no data to come from such a comparison other than to "novices who don't process" is undeniably asinine.

So in fact it is an apples to apples comparison in that respect.

kdog wrote:

It's my impression that Nikon pictures tend to have a different look "SOOC" than do Canons.

No Sh*t obviously both cameras produce a different look "SOOC" thus the point of comparing them. Is it honestly your suggestion that prior to comparing the product produced by the individual cameras we try to process them in such a way that they look alike? That after running them through a subjective process we will have a legitimate comparison?
Even the iso settings on these cameras have a bit of proprietary nature, so should we run the images through noise ninja before we asses there noise content. Each has a different sized sensor, so should I have cropped then enlarged the Nikon image? Each sensor collects color differently even when producing a RAW image, so we should run independent color correction on each prior to deciding which produces a color balance that we like.
The list goes on,

kdog

beetle8 wrote:

,

O.K. these were shot as jpegs, neither have gone through PostProcessing. Your insinuation that there is no value in comparing the images "SOOC" with the in camera processing either turned off or set to standard (as off as can be) is ridiculous. To suggest that there can be no data to come from such a comparison other than to "novices who don't process" is undeniably asinine.

So in fact it is an apples to apples comparison in that respect.


No Sh*t obviously both cameras produce a different look "SOOC" thus the point of comparing them. Is it honestly your suggestion that prior to comparing the product produced by the individual cameras we try to process them in such a way that they look alike? That after running them through a subjective process we will have a legitimate comparison?
Even the iso settings on these cameras have a bit of proprietary nature, so should we run the images through noise ninja before we asses there noise content. Each has a different sized sensor, so should I have cropped then enlarged the Nikon image? Each sensor collects color differently even when producing a RAW image, so we should run independent color correction on each prior to deciding which produces a color balance that we like.
The list goes on,

Your vulgarities and insults are not appreciated here. Suffice to say we have different opinions on the matter. Conversation over.

beetle8

Oh good,

kini62

Interesting and thanks for taking the time to post. Ignore all the "scientists" who can't accept anything for its face value.

What's clear to me is the Nikon OOC jpegs have much greater NR being applied and the 7D is actually sharper and has more detail. Kind of like and extra 5.5 mps should.

Gene