Who has the BEST color? Nikon vs. Sony vs. Canon
ฝัง
- เผยแพร่เมื่อ 7 ก.ย. 2024
- What camera manufacturer has the best color sensor? Is it Nikon, Sony or Canon. We tested all three against each other to look at the color renditions of each sensor. The results may surprise you, they did me. We used a Sekonic color meter to make the test fair. Let me know in the comments what you think is the best color sensor on the market. #nikon #sony #canonphotography #lightroomclassic #photoshop #colormeter #sekonic
One of the best videos on this subject I’ve seen. Like you, I’m a Nikon shooter and this comparison is pretty stark. I notice magentas and pink are challenging with Nikon, and I suspect that has something to do with this blue hue. Canon has it tuned in nicely.
Question- can the bluish Nikon hue be completely removed, and can I make my Nikon files look as good as the Canon files in LR/CR?
I’m sure you’ll cover this in your next video, hopefully it’s not a long wait to see it. Thanks for the excellent work here Terry.
Thank you, I'm working on it this week in fact, stay tuned.
I've used Panasonic, Olympus, Pentax, Fuji and Canon extensively over the past fifteen years. There is no doubt in my own mind than Canon colours require the least post processing adjustment and for me are also the most pleasing out of camera, with my 5D3 and 1Dx sensors rendering the best of all. It's a complete fallacy that everything can be corrected on raw files because they've already been processed by the manufacturer before we even download them. Impossible to make a Fuji landscape look anything like a Canon and when you alter the sky you're changing everything else in the scene. Believe me, I've tried often enough.
Yep, that makes sense.
Your test has inadvertently explained why it's so hard to manipulate Sony raw files and do proper color grading. It also explains why Sony colors look dull when a grade is pushed. If Sony is doing a 0 color mix on some channels for specific colors then there is no data in the file in that color channel to push around when you are trying to do a color grade. If there is no data the editing software isn't going to know what color to push into it or it's going to have to guess which is going to cause inaccurate and unpredictable results. It also explains why if the camera gets it wrong and put's a certain color where it shouldn't be in an image it's hard to pull it out because there are likely going to be no other color values to replace it with if you adjust a color slider. All of the sliders are about balancing color and you can't balance color if one of the channels is at 0.
Interesting take, thanks for sharing that info.
I was thinking the same. I remember the times when I had Sony and missed the white balance, it was a pain to correct the color after the white balance correction. Mostly human skins colors
Well, any colour comprises three components [R G B]. There, [0 0 0] = black, [256 256 256] = white and anything in between. There is no "pushing colours around" as such. There is only adding and/or subtracting from these three numbers to adjust a colour. It matters not whether initially a given colour component is initially equal to 0 or equal to 256. It's very simplistic taking about adjusting a colour in isolation but I hope this explanation illustrates how it works fundamentally.
I like your comparisons and agree with your assessment. I would like to see a follow up video of doing the same out in the field on different subjects. Maybe a portrait scenario, a landscape, a street scene, etc., then use the Adobe Standard profile on all of the files and compare colors, contrast, blacks, whites, etc.. One thing that definitely can affect things is the lens used. Different lenses with different coatings and inherent characteristics have different color casts. Maybe a Canon lens that can be adapted to all three? I’ll watch it for sure!
Thanks for the ideas, I really appreciate it. Yes, there are all kinds of factors going to into color representation, kind of fun to try and figure it out.
Colours are not consistent within a camera brand . There are no Canon , Nikon or Sony colours. They may change from a body to another.
Colours change depending the lens you use .
Colours change depending the software you use ( LR , Capture one…)
Colours change with the same software depending the profile you use.
All those statements can be easily desmonstrated.
You are likely correct. This was not meant to be a be all end all demonstration. I think one large factor would be the lenses. If I could get adapters for one lens that would fit other brands, that would be a big improvement. I was doing the simple test, under typical conditions that others might find themselves in. Thanks for watching.
Portrait = Canon wins
Landscape & wildlife = Nikon wins
Good response, I like that.
Landscape & wildlife Sony wins.
@@brugj03 everyone has a favorite, that's what makes this pastime so fun.
@@tv510 That`s right but reading the comments on this video i conclude that some are just too far gone from the essence.
@@brugj03 I didn't realize I would get so many comments on color opinions, but I guess its works as a forum for some folks, so that is great.
I'm surprised the white balance was so far off, even after taking the color temperature readings and setting the cameras before each shot. The Nikon was so blue, it's almost like the reading was taken in the sun, then a cloud came overhead before the actual shot.
No, I purposely took readings, seconds before each shot. It was quite different though.
I don't mean to sound nitpicky. I've been doing reproductions of two-dimensional artwork for some time now and color matching and color balancing is a large part of what is involved in making an accurate reproduction. The system you're using, I feel it's impossible to determine which one is the most accurate by comparing them to each other. I would use a studio light source that's absolutely the same for each exposure. Then I would compare the exposures back to the original color on the original Target. Doing that, you can tell which one is actually the closest to the real color. One last point during this comparison, you need to make sure that you're viewing the target under the studio light in which it was photographed. My process removes the perceived subjective opinion about color and gives you an accurate and indisputable result. When you see color from the camera compared to the original Target, it will be clear whether or not it is close. Ps. It's important that your monitor color is also calibrated, otherwise it will influence the results substantially.
Thanks Steve. That is no easy task reproducing art work. I had to do that a few times early in my career, and I did't really like it. Difficult to get top quality results. While I was comparing files to one another, I wasn't comparing to the live original product. And I would agree that you would be right about using the studio lights for consistency, however, I wanted to illustrate this test with lighting that "most" people are faced with, outdoor light. Thanks for watching.
Thanks Terry for another great video. I don't know how you can do a color comparison without including the Fujifilm camera which maybe the 4th largest camera maker but has been known as the most pleasing color reproduction of any camera. Some might remember the days of film when the top 2 selling rolls of film was Kodak and Fujifilm. Way back then Fujifilm was very popular for it's color compared to Kodak. Fujifilm digital cameras are popular for the same reason.
Thanks for watching, I used cameras that I had access to. I remember shooting Fuji Velvia but that what when I was looking for heavy saturations. If I do it again, I'll be sure to include Fuji.
loved the green tones from fuji film 100 iso film rolls back in 2004
Skin tones for sure Fuji is the best for me. For slides, I liked Velvia 50, blacks and greens.
because Fuji is a kids toy!
I've always liked the Canon and Nikon for landscape photography. Sony's greens always a little too yellow for my taste. I shoot Canon, but think Nikon is very close to Canon for my taste. Sony not to my taste. Thanks for video, you're honest evaluation. "De gustibus non est disputandum" In matters of taste, there can be no arguing.
Exactly. Also, if you shoot and process files all from the same manufacturer, you get used to that color and that is your perception starting point.
Canon Color Science all day
2nd Nikon
3rd Sony New Color Science (Not the Old One with Terrible Red Tint/Cast in Shadows and Highlights due to old bad sensors)
Hi Wendy, I have heard that before about Sony's older sensors.
I think the methodology is fundamentally flawed. Lightroom, Photoshop etc. are de-mosaicing software fundamentally, and Adobe and others have to reverse engineer Sony, Canon, Nikon etc files. Also the the "Adobe Colour" profile is generic. Adobe is capable of attempting to recreate the respective camera colours profiles which would change the results, but again they are reverse engineered. A better comparison might be obtained using each camera manufacturers software ie Nikon NX studio. Their was no indication of which lenses were being used - I'm sure the lenses will make a difference. Nikon glass is consistent in my experience. But of course colour is subjective 😁
Yes, indeed. I shoot Nikon and use all S lenses - but the other equipment was borrowed, so I can't speak to that. Thanks for watching.
Good point.
I have shot Canon cameras since the days of film. I didn’t stay with Canon due to some sort of loyalty or bias when I switched to digital cameras but rather because I was too poor to consider buying all new lenses at the same time. It wasn’t until I bought a Nikon camera that I realized how much I liked the colors out of my Canons. Granted I was able to adjust the image to get what I wanted but overall I am lazy so the less time I spend adjusting color is more time in the field taking pictures.
Really nice comparison video.
Thank you. I stayed with Nikon for the same reasons, keep all my lenses. However, I have since replaced them all, so I guess I could have switched. But I am very happy with my Nikon mirrorless gear, in spite of the minor color difference, I feel that Nikon makes better glass.
I'll admit up front that I've used Canon for over 40 years, so I of course am biased as well. Plus, if we're just using our eyes, things like the way our monitors render color affect the results as well. All that being said, as soon as you opened the files, before I could even see which was which, the Canon colors just looked best to me.
Yes, the Canon looked great. And you are right, there are a lot of factors that go into color determination. Thanks for watching.
Very good video on calibrating colors from raw shooting. Just taught this novice photographer hobbyist an excellent scientific way to calibrate and balance colors on raw files. Big thumbs up! Much appreciated, thanks.
Thanks Peter! I appreciate the kind words and you taking the time to watch.
If you make the same tests using each manufacturer's development software you will have a different result, Lightroom changes contrast and colors and interprets WB differently, I have done this test with Pentax and Canon with multiple cameras, still interesting to see, nice work.
Yes, there are lots of variables to consider. I was going for a test that most people could relate to. Thanks for watching.
I’m shooting all 3 on a regular basis. Nikon colors are cinematic. Canon is neutral and pleasing. Sony is horrendous. Fixing colors on my A7iv takes 3 times what I spend on Canon or Nikon
There you go. I MOSTLY shoot Nikon, so I don't shoot all of them regularly, Thanks for the input.
Yet when people publish their work and or use photoshop and lightroom, the first thing they do is throw away the manufacturers color. In blind test especially when people dont know they choose the sony colors more. All of them have giant problems. Sony red, nikon green and canon blue.
@@condellmaurice8597 If you could take 3 photos from different brands, go to lightroom, "Throw away the manufacturers color", edit one, and copy paste the settings - ALL 3 IMAGES WILL LOOK COMPLETELY DIFFERENT. That's why your theory is completely pointless and false.
All 3 brands look different. now it's up to you what works best for your work. The point here is: with which brand it takes you the least to get to your final polished image. in my case - with Sony it takes forever and I'm still not happy at the end. while with Canon/Nikon I'm happy very quickly.
@@condellmaurice8597 and thank god they are fixable.
@@nagual2335 All you have done is compare lightroom settings for each camera brand. It is not a theory. This is one of the problems of looking at colour. Even the colour checker thingy is very limited as it is only a very small part of the possible color spectrum.
Wow, really informative video. Thank you very much!
Glad it was helpful!
It's always about the balance of colors not the individual numbers themselves. In any event no one sits around worrying about what the color balance numbers are. They adjust to taste and let it ride. And the people who weren't there when the picture was take n have no idea if the picture is true to life or just the photographers vision unless the photographer was going for something stylized and not realistic. Even other photographers who weren't present when the photo was taken can only speculate as to what the real image looked like. And they will speculate right or wrong. I've never had anyone criticize my pictures as too light or too dark or too saturated or too unsaturated so most people don't notice or car anyway. If it looks good to them then it is good. But I will say I've taken more than a few pictures of household items I had on hand so I could compare colors on various settings as well as color renditions of various print houses and both my Sony and Canon camera pictures of the same item came out looking pretty much the same. The print house changed the color rendition more than any camera ever did. Lighting changes colors as well. And what is accurate in nature except for rendering colors as you see them. Same for the test colors. I judge accuracy on whether the resultant photo matches the test media color regardless of what that color may be. And just because it's accurate doesn't mean it's the most pleasing. I know you're just trying to help and have fun but so many people watch these videos thinking there is a holy grail of absolutes and they are trying to find the guru with the answer as to what they should by. I can tell you this. The most accurate reproduction of images or sounds are often not the ones most preferred by the recipient. So do what you like with what you have and don't worry about what anyone else thinks.
Good points! If you stay true to yourself and your vision of what you want things to look like, you can't go wrong.
I like Nikon blacks and contrast, Fujifilm skin tones, old Olympus CCD E-400 for flowers (violets, pink, blues, reds). Dislike Sony colors. Canon is good and neutral, but Canon cameras are so non inspiring, that I don't even touch them any more.
I'm a Nikon shooter. I feel it gives me what I am looking for in the end product. I wouldn't, however, make a brand decision on how the colors are presented.There is much more to it.
Terry, I'm curious about your thoughts on this topic (as I've only heard information from others that have owned and shot lots of other brands). Comparing color science according to them is very difficult because the manufacturers will change in from camera to camera (RAW) while leaving the picture profiles relatively unchanged - i.e. will produce the same sort of look. An example of this is the "color science" used in the Nikon D700 vs D800 and beyond. The same could be said, I hear, of the Canon 5D classic vs the bodies that came after it. Thoughts? Would using a ColorChecker even this playing field? Ops, I asked that question before watching the entire video. Thanks for being a step ahead of me! Nicely done!
Ha, I appreciate you watching. It was a fun test, I have since thought of some other ways to even the playing field. (i.e. using the same lens throughout, etc.) Thanks again.
@@tv510 Will look forward to future fun.
Thank you for your comparison, but to compare colors of the cameras you should have used JPG out-of-cam.
When you use RAW files to compare different cameras, then you compare the ability of the RAW converter to work with these data, not the cameras.
RAW files have no color information, they only contain luminance values per pixel. The sensor has a matrix of color filters (Bayer pattern) to get luminance values for different colors, but only one filter per pixel. That means that 2/3 of the color information is pure guesswork, done by the RAW converter.
Another influence is the color profile used in LR, in your test - if I've seen it right - you used ADOBE Color as a filter for all pictures. This profile works more or less with all cameras, but can't give perfect results. To get better colors, use the camera specific profiles in LR.
Then the color picker in PS, which size measurement circle did you use? As there is always some degree of noise in a picture, the measure circle should be at least 11px to get a good average reading.
Out of all your suggestions I did use the 11 pixel average when picking the color. If I do the test again, I'll try it with Jpeg, thanks for the suggestion.
Excellent analysis. Thanks for sharing.
Glad you liked it! Thanks for watching.
I've always thought that Canon colours are better than Nikon's.
I had never compared them before, interesting findings.
@@tv510 ....and have D5 and Z9 bodies. Great video 👍
I like the video, but I think you are actually looking at Adobe color science. Try exporting a tiff file out of NX Studio and DPP for the neutral picture style. Adobe scrapes the color info off of the raw file and applies its own, unless you change the profile to camera. Part of my workflow is to export a tiff file from DPP so I am sure I have Canon colors.
Thanks Richard!
Is it possible to know the color formula for the colors in the test chart to have a fixed standard to compare each of the camera photos with? Do one of the color calibration companies provide a test file for this purpose? Would Pantone colors provide a standard? You did not say which ones were more accurate, just which ones were not too dull and which ones are not too saturated for your taste. Is there a test you could do that would show which camera system rendered colors most accurately and how different they were from an objective standard?
I have not seen any tests or offerings provided by manufacturers for color. Accuracy would still come down to the human eye making a determination as which is the most "accurate". I am sure all camera companies would claim that their's is the best anyway. You have to figure which is more pleasing to you. Download the free samples and see if that helps you at all. Thanks for watching.
Color calibration companies or companies such as Pantone, not camera manufacturers.
@@JeanSolari-b6r I think Pantone is for printing on paper, but I'm not positive.
Respect your integrity 🫡
Thank you!
using 3 different lenses is mistake 1. Shooting natural light and messing with kelvin is 2. better to control light by cutting all light and using a strobe for more accurate reading. Using adobe color instead of camera color profile (I'd honestly use capture one if color is super important) is mistake no 3.. test is flawed.
Thanks for watching.
Nikon is always a bit too blue , but you can adjust it. Whenever I shoot people with Canon cameras, I don’t touch saturation and vibrance. Color is good already.
I agree Kenneth. Though I shoot Nikon, it only take a second to tune it up.
I’ve shot Canon cameras since 1970, and Canon DSLRs for almost 20 years, so I’m of course partial to their color rendering. I got a Fujifilm GFX 100S a year and a half ago, and I find its colors easy to work with. On occasion I’m using an adapted EF lens, so there may be some Canon bias to those Fuji shots. I always shoot Raw with my 100S, DSLRs, and my pocket Canon G5X II that I use for travel. I’m pleased with the color that I can get out of all of them.
Thanks for including the Fujifilm GFX.
I take pictures of colored checkerboards every day, so this video is very usefull to me.
The only thing i`m interested in is a pleasing balance in colors and natural skin color and grading.
I work on a calibrated OLED monitor and make prints of most of my work.
I choose the latest generation SONY for it`s exeptional dynamic range and live like vivid colors.
No wonder, they are by far the biggest in producing imaging sensors and it shows.
I know that many manufacturers use Sony sensors in their cameras. I too like to shoot color charts. Much more pleasing than shooting a dynamic landscape :)
When taking photos with a Sony camera, the colors come out too exaggerated and unrealistic. Editing takes a long time, and the range for adjustment is limited, causing stress. To avoid this, it's better to shoot with Canon or Nikon cameras.
From what I have seen, I agree with you.
Thanks for doing these tests. Very informative. Color can be influential in your photography and choices. Similar to camera sensors, our own retinas have different levels of responsiveness to the same three sampled wavelengths of light.
If you think about it these are probably pivotal engineering choices in the design of our optical computers (a.k.a. mirrorless cameras) as well. The blue wavvelength has the shortest wavelengths and highest energy. My guess would be that the more responsive your sensor is to the blue spectrum the better your sensor will be to contrast and sharpness. But people are draw to color and if you shoot people that would be especially true for red.
I've always heard that Canon leans red and Nikon leans blue. I've found that to be true and because I shoot people I find I want that lean toward the red. I shoot sports though so sharpness in low light is imperative. So, according to my "blue-creates a sharper signal" theory my needs are in conflict but I've always shot Canon due to that initial experience with true red tints and the continued preference for their menu and evolving design instincts which seem to fit mine. But the plot thickens: With the R3, Canon revised their color pallete. I can't explain it, but it is definitely more life-like and precise. I found it to be a palpable difference when I first used the R3. After setting for exposure and grey-card based white balance one of the hardest colors to maintain is that off-amber yellow of a gym floor. The R3 manages that well. Now, using both a Canon 5D mark IV and an R3 at the same sporting event, pix from my 5D look overly red. And something about the R3 just cuts through the color clutter in a way that better finds detail. The 5D now seems a little color flat and in situations with too much red, it can be harder to wash it out. That shouldn't be a surprise because Canon went with new input silicon on the R3. The R3 uses a stacked sensor with back lighting. Very different silicon.
Your "higher saturatrion findings with Sony are interesting. One advantage Sony seems to have over my Canon equipment is that their in-camera settings for lifting the dark zones and dropping the brights have a broader range. It' can be tweaked to be more forgiving in higher contrast or if the shadows have something interesting. And this is an innate weakness of cameras relative to the human eye. I would imagine the primary engineering requirement for pumping up this feature would be color saturation so that you don't lose signal in the shadows, so that makes sense. I like my Canon's color better than Sony but I can see how that feature would be attractive.
I'm also surprised at how much difference lenses make. In the Canon world, and probably elsewhere as well, a 70-200 design trades color saturation for sharpness and precision when compared with the 24-70 design. You can bring them back toegther in photo editiing software, but there is a difference. If you've ever heard someone describe the optical design process that goes into a lens you get a sense of why that is the case. Any optical design has to battle the variety of ways in which different colors bend inside a lens. If you are pulling a sharp image from far away there's probably more attention given to taming the CA and preserving contrast.
Thanks for doing these tests. Very interesting stuff.
This is some great info. I hope others take the time to read it. Thanks for sharing.
Fascinating test! But what are the real colour compositions designated by the manufacturer for each patch?
No sure what you mean, but if you are wondering if the test would change if I used each manufacturer's raw processing engine to do the test, and yes it would. Each manufacturer has a different way of dealing with color. However I tried to do a test that everyone could relate to and if they downloaded the files, they could test them, themselves.
@@tv510
I’m very pleased that you have so kindly written to me.
Maybe my inicial question was not properly formulated.
The color chart has predetermined color patches that normally are within a stringent tolerances. Do you know the color composition for each of them?
Let say the red has 200 R 25 B and 10 G.
When a camera sees each patch it depart in its rendition for each manufacturer. It will be interesting to know how much each patch differs from the manufacturer color chart.
If you know the answer or you know someone who knows I will appreciate to have more insight on this subject.
Best regards.
J E Perez E
@@julioestebanperezescudero6246 I am afraid I don't know how each color is built. Part of the problem is that we are comparing ink to light. In ink, they deal with CMYK colors to blend and make up a color. While light, (RGB) works with translated light. If you want, maybe contact the company that makes color charts and see if they have that info. I'd love to hear what you find out. Thanks.
@@tv510
Great advice. I’m very much obliged !
Olympus/OM Systems hands down !
Hi Michell, a few people have brought up Olympus, I have to include that next time.
I’m sorry but the time it takes to make the colour temperature reading then apply that temperature to three cameras and then shoot each camera the actual colour temp could and probably did change. The only way to do this accurately would be under controlled conditions using a light source of fixed colour. Even then the result is entirely subjective.
I took the color temp readings seconds before shooting the images. I decided on using outdoor light, because I figured most people shoot in outdoor light. That's just how I did it.
I presume same, not recognised by camera, lens was used using appropriate adaptors right ? Otherwise it can influence the result.
Yes, lots of outside elements can have an affect on color, no doubt. Thanks for watching.
I do similar tests with Nikon Z and Leica M10. Leica gives best raw files, Nikon exaggerated greens. Linear profile fixes the changes Nikon makes to raw unseen to real base raw. I can also use Nikon neutral profile and auto edit and pictures look great and require little further editing. Leica requires no profile change and auto edit gives great pics.
Thanks Ronald, good to know.
Fantastic video. What exact bodies did you use? Z9 and?
I used the Z9, the R5 from Canon, and the Sony A7* (don't have the exact model on hand as I borrowed it for the test)
why is it hard for you to admit canon has the best colours? isnt it obvious as canon has made camera and printers since like forever? so their colour science is accurate
Ha, only that I have been a Nikon shooter for so long...
These test results were the same 15 years ago....you cant do a real test because no 2 cameras are exactly the same even within brands and the white balance isnt calibrated to the same % of grey between the brands
Yeah, but kind of a fun test. Though my camera bodies (Nikon) files are indistinguishable from one another.
Unfortunately the process you used didn't have sufficient controls to ne of much value.
Thanks for watching David.
Would it be possible to measure the RGB of the card itself with your meter, then see which camera is most true to the actual card ?
Hi Andrew, there might be a device out there, but I don't have it. The color meter I have, measures the color of light that falls on the meter. So, If I had held it up to the card, it would have to be in the exact spot and I think the swatches would have to me much larger, as well as controlled, balanced light.
@@tv510 Ok , cool meter !
Nikon !!!
Yes!
There are two kind of colors: Hasselblad and others.
Ha! A Hasselblad evangelist. Thanks for watching.
@@tv510 the fact. I am working with different cameras but the Hasselblad gave the best results.
@@feherberci You are not alone, others have brought Hasselblad up. I used their film cameras for many years. I tested resolution against the "at the time" Digital Hasselblad against my new Nikon D850 (probably about 8 plus years ago). You couldn't tell the difference and my buddy who owned the Hasselblad equipment , sold it all and bought Nikon. But I'm sure Hasselblad has improved since then. Thanks for your input!
@@tv510 I had a Canon 5DsR before and I think the resolution has reached the medium format in this camera - with the adequate lenses only. But this video is about the colors.
After I resigned from the media (nearly 30 years at the major news and magazines) I sold my DSLR kit and was looking for a solution for a fine art work. I tested everything and regarding the colors the Hasselblad is still the leader.
However if you are looking for a commercial photography work 95% of these projects does not require the Hasselblad quality - especially the resolution - I believe that every 24MP DSLR is perfect even for a cover work.
Why Fuji gear is not considered
I only has access to those three brands but with the Fuji outcry I have heard, If I do the test again, it will include Fuji for sure.
I wish you could have done a GFX100s.
This camera has been mentioned before, if I do another test, I'll add that one.
Using 3 different lenses makes this test totally useless/unreliable. Please repeat with 1 lens and 3 adapters....
I realize that. If I do the test again, I'll see if I can use the same lens, that would be much better.
Panasonic
I'll remember that for next time. Thanks!
Not even seen till the end ITS CANON.
Popular choice, thanks for watching.
LOL, Boy did you pick a rabbit hole!
Of all the subjects you could have chose this is probably one of the most controversial one and very subjective. I have shot all three cameras. Different venues, different. results. One time Sony would be the best. And next time, cannon. And then Nikon. You know all of these cameras are supposed to be calibrated and they are. However, They're not all the same Even the same brands, same models, same sensors are different. You know you can go into the cameras menu adjust your color settings deeper than you showed to calibrate .
I can adjust all three virtually to where you can't tell the difference between them. Even in different venues.. I just bought a Z8 No color cast like yours. The color's great right out of the box unlike My Sony and Canon. You know, that's why they all have in camera color adjustments.
Also, that why all your photo editing programs has color adjustments. And that's why you have a Color light meter that maybe of some help, it's not the end all B-all. If you can't get rid of that color cast. you need to send it back to Nikon for repair. I'm 81 been doing Photography for 60 something years. If you We're talking films are cheap beginner cameras I might agree with you..
Give us a little more info. Are all these your cameras? Year and Model of each. When was the last time you cleaned the sensors?, your sensor could need cleaning on the Nikon? if you been going in and out of hot and cold. Fogy sensor leads to dirty sensor, that will influence color exposure. Do they all have anti aliasing filter? that a lone can cause a color cast sift due to infrared light and big blue sky. The lens, have you clean it to a point to have remove the Nano Coatings.
These are just a very few things your should consider. And also Adobe creates color profiles for each one of these camera models and there has been times they have had to go back and make correction on Nikon and others. Color can also very from program to program as you, demonstrated. From what you have demonstrated and the info you have provided in your test, I would have to take it with a grain of salt. To me this is more click bate then anything else.
Hi Garner, if you have seen my channel before, you would know it's not click bait, of that I would take issue with. Just a simple test I came up with while using a friend's camera and noticed the difference. Color is very subjective and sensors are different. Does that mean you can't correct it or change it later? The power of post processing is immense and everyone can improve their work if do just a few adjustments. Thanks for watching.
NO FILES on your website ...
They are up there now, thanks for letting me know.
This good and useful for jpg shooters 😊
Especially for Jpeg shooters!
Lol you left aut panasonic which has the best colors of them all.
I left out quite a few, based on the comments here. I may do another test and see how they all stack up.
Lumix
This is the first vote for Lumix, thanks for letting us know.
Leica
Leica hasn't gotten the love that I thought it would on this sensor test. Thanks for chiming in.
Who really cares about the colour the sensor renders. Shoot in RAW and adjust. That’s what we all do. Colour is so subjective unless you are photographing a specific subject when you would use colour swatch cards to adjust. Even in the days of film there was a colour cast between different production batches of the same film type. That is why May photographers tested some film them bought a stock of film with the same batch number.
He shot in RAW ! 🙂 But even after adjustment the colors were different...
@@hanswi336 yep they probably were. But that’s not my point. My point is this once you have the image, any image from any sensor you are going to need to adjust it. The sensor colour cast should be of no concern what so ever.
Hot take. Camera color pipelines and rendition are paramount for many photographers. Skin tones especially are wildly different between the big brands. Canon and Panasonic are my favorites and the look of Sony skin tones never looks right.
Yes this is shooting in raw and yes this is with extensive time editing files from each brand.
@@keylanph colour and the look is subjective. So when the title is which colour is best that’s an objective metric. In the days of film different photographers preferred different film emulsions, but they had far far less control than in the digital age using RAW. Also image colour can be affected by the lens. Different lens will also generate a cast of their own. To me this is the worst part of photography, equipment focus. Spend more time on the creative side.
I was one of those commercial photographers who bought my film in batches to keep results consistent. I thought this was interesting comparing sensors, and figured I'd give it a go. Thanks for watching.
Canon.
Thanks, a popular choice.
FUJI THEN OM SYSTEMS ARE BEST !
Fuji has come up a lot, I'll have to add that if I do this test again.
None 😂 Hasselblad on top , Leica next and Olympus third and probably Nikon distant fourth
Thanks for checking in. I've heard Hasselblad and Olympus - but this is the first time I've heard Leica. (Their color renditions are very distinctive.)
@@tv510 thank you so much 👍
OM System
Hadn't thought of that one, thanks.
Hassleblad…
I tested Hassleblad against my Nikon D850 - back when the D850 just came out. Showed it to the Hassleblad owner, and he sold it all and bought Nikon. True story.
@@tv510 - definitely believeable for sure.
(However, that person likely didn’t have the Hasselblad X2D 100C…
@@mikewinburn no, it’s been a few years.