Rendition of red color Nikon vs Canon sensor

Now this guy is working for a major USA dealer and sells both Nikon, Canon and every other brand. He has 13 years industry experience.

I am looking to go DSLR and was asking about color rendition between the Canons and Nikons. My man stated that Canon sensors read a narrower spectrum of red compared to the Nikons with a result that a complex red or red-orange would capture better in the Nikon sensor and ultimately in print.

He did say that the lens quality by both companies was equally excellent and probably not a factor in the color question.

I haven't found too much talk here about color differences between the two, but this thread was interesting regarding RAW color:

http://wetpixel.com/forums/index.php?showtopic=1554&hl=

I've been all over the 'net and galleries, not really noticing a difference, the images seem very good to me and both companies seem to be equally represented in contests.

Is the color difference so small, it's moot for most amateur photogs, like myself?

Tanks,

Scott

I am not aware of any differences in the images I have seen. Sure Nikon DSLRs, Canon DSLRs and film emulsions all have recognisable looks. But usually these are much less than the differences between photographers, so they are hard to spot.

I know nothing about this technically. But my feeling is that while your man might be right theoretically I doubt that there would be much of a difference in the real world. As a Nikon shooter I have never looked at a Canon image and said - "what poor red capture"!

Alex

p.s. Go an post this question on DPReview in both the Nikon and Canon forums and sit back and watch the fun unfold. I certainly imagine there will be some complex red colours developing in the cheeks of some members there as they get wound up by this one...

Sometimes these debates rage on and have figures and charts to back it all up but, in the end what does that difference equate to. Is it perceivable to the human eye? One may be "x" percent or gegrees more but if it is only visable under a microscope...

As Alex says there are a number of other factors that also need to be factored in.

IMHO

Todd

I have a fealing that it is a much larger mark up on Nikon cameras than on Canon cameras. Every camera dealer I have been to has really been pushing nikon on everyone. They come up with some pretty creative ways to make the customer buy a nikon.

My favorite was hearing the saleman trying to convince someone that came in to buy a Canon 20D ($1500) that they should buy a Nikon D50 ($750) instead. Because "the D50 was a far superior camera in every way for less than half the cost! And dont worry that you allready have $2000 in canon lenses, the D50 comes with two lenses(18-55 and 55-200) that are better than the Canon (17-40L and 70-200L) lenses you have." I'm not joking about this, and the customer did end up buying the D50?

To answer your question, as both Alex and Tod have said, no matter who you are, if there is and difference between the colours produced by Canon or Nikon, the difference is very small and neither one is superior to the other. You can buy either with confidence that you are getting a good camera that will produce good results.

I agree with all the others that your eyeballs should be the final judge but this does remind me of something I wrote on a little while back relating to the Canon 20Da for astronomers. Canon Rebels, 20D and possibly others have an infrared filter attached right in front of the sensor (after the mirror) and this filter also cuts out some of the red that astronomers need to see Neon nebulas or whatever they fancy. There is a company (hutech.com) that can remove the filter for you to get more deep reds. I initially thought it would be interesting for UW as we need more reds until I realized that the deep reds are pretty much gone once you get just a few meters down.

So perhaps your sales guy was right after all as far as the spec-sheet is concerned, but if your eyes can't see the difference then there is no difference.

Bart

All digital sensors record light as an amplitude value, then use an analog to digital converter to assign R G and B values to each pixel. To say that the sensor has anything to do with the final color output is probably not correct. It's more to do w/ the A to D converter and the JPEG engine in the camera.

If "Perfect" color is important to you then whether you own a Nikon or a Canon you can calibrate your camera/raw converter by shooting a test color chart under controlled lighting and following the calibration routine discussed in other threads here. It's a pain, but you only have to do it once.

Cheers

James

Hi James,

The A/D converter actually has nothing to do with separating the light signal into R G and B and thus should have no effect on color rendering. Each pixel has a dot of pigment on top of it that lets through either the blue, green or red parts of the spectrum. The A/D converter just quantifies how much light has passed through the pigment of each pixel to create the RAW image. The camera then applies a white balance calibration to have the color match up with what we consider to be pleasing and as you say, if you don't like the factory settings you can apply your own color calibration.

Bart