Compare Nikon D3/D300 and EOS 1D Mark III's Colors

[turboman36]

After looking at some of the galleries for all 4 cameras
I noticed that the colors from from the D3/D300 seem to look more vibrant and sharp....even in low light night shot of active subjects the color rendition still looks very natural and true to life....i cant seem to find much nikon images that "red noise" i get from my canon camera..

I had the EOS 1D Mark III and i don't think the colors looked as good as the D3/D300...am i am only one who thinks the colors from the Nikon look a little better?


Thanks.

[ewhalen]

After looking at some of the galleries for all 4 cameras
I noticed that the colors from from the D3/D300 seem to look more vibrant and sharp....even in low light night shot of active subjects the color rendition still looks very natural and true to life....i cant seem to find much nikon images that "red noise" i get from my canon camera..

I had the EOS 1D Mark III and i don't think the colors looked as good as the D3/D300...am i am only one who thinks the colors from the Nikon look a little better?


Thanks.

Jpeg?

Colors are rather user dependent.

[prinothcat]

the D3 and D300 can and do produce very vibrant colors. I suspect the Canon will also. It is definitely user controlled. Check out http://www.kenrockwell.com for some comparisons between the D300 and D200 as well as the D3. He may also have some side by side of the D3 and and the newest FX Canon. The D3/D300 are more vibrant than the D200... It's very difficult to compare galleries online since one has no idea how the individual shooter set his gear up and how much post processing he has done.

[jon_doh]

In Raw, right out of the camera, I have found the Mark III's colors to be very true and lifelike, unlike Nikon's which are false and plasticy looking.

I was in the market for a new camera recently and did a lot of research and compared the Mark III and new Nikons and ended up going the Mark III because of its very realistic colors and per pixel sharpness.

[adz929]

...unlike Nikon's which are false and plasticy looking...

Edit...meh, who can be f***ed responding to such horse s***...

[marxz]

honestly comparing shots taken between these two in raw by a few pro photographers and camera sales people in my local Flickr group at a recent equipment demonstration session it's only when you look at the EXIF that you can tell them apart...

the new Nikon's high ISO performance is stunning they have well and truly caught Canon napping on that side of things and honestly I'd prefer the idea of a "lower pixel count" camera (compared to the 1Ds) that could shoot 6800+ ISO clean than any of the features on either of the 1D models..... to be able to shoot hand held night shots sans flash with f/8 on wide and normal lenses and use 70-200 f/2.8 or f/4 hand held at night would make for a dream come true for what I shoot

but I'm not jumping ship just yet, no point really, by the time I'm ready change bodies in a year's time Canon will have released something similar/better and we start the cycle of brand positioning all over again.

but, yeh, for what it's worth - shot RAW, with equivalent quality lenses, sub 800iso, and similar RAW processing there's diddly squat (if even that) to tell them apart on screen or on A4 and A3+ prints.