Canon or Nikon can you tell
 

I was printing this photo out the other day for someone. It was taken a few years ago, and definately not with my current camera. I was almost squealing with delight at the quality of the image, especially the print. I was wondering if you could tell what camera was used to take it. A Canon or Nikon dSLR, I have owned and used both in recent years. Some say they can always tell, and maybe they can, just wondered if you can and why

**
 

As a complete novice to this picture taking hobby, I sure can't tell. However, I hope it's a Nikon because that's what I bought!:)

Frank

I'd say a Canon....but I'm guaranteed at leat a 50% chance to get it right! :D

EDIT: Just a sidenote - For my own use, I don't care which camera took it - as long as it looks good on the final print!

It was your finger on the Shutter button and your eye at the viewfinder Stephen, thats what realy matters. Get it printed and hung.

Nice One

Brian

Just another little conundrum, can anyone (other than Stephen) say where the picture was taken - perhaps just the country? No prizes (unless Stephen has one to offer!) - just a bit of fun.:) :confused: :rolleyes:
A nice pleasing picture though stephen.

Roger

I'd say somewhere in central Italy for location. Regarding make of camera used to take it, I neither know, nor care. There is so much capability to tweak settings both "in camera" and in external post-processing then this is a totally meaningless question. It's the photographer that takes the picture, the camrea is just a tool.

Duncan.

Stephen,

May just be me but:
Sensor types CMOS , LBCAST, CCD. Lens infinite variety of qualities, prime v zoom from either Canon or Nikon. How can anyone tell ?

I know there is a lot of discussion on DPR about D2Hs v D200 and nobody appears to have provided conclusive evidence either way to satisfy the opposite camp there. One is a 4mp LBCAST sensor v 10mp CCD. I note nobody is pitching the D2X against the D2Hs in that forum though, and that uses a CMOS sensor at 12mp.

Don

I like your picture. It has a nice mood.

They do say that Nikon lenses tend to be very contrasty, and Zeiss and Leica softer i.e. less contrasty. I'm not sure anyone could tell the difference though.

These days the software used to manipulate the image plays just as big a role.

Leif

They certainly used to, but I think the two camps have come much closer together nowadays

Basically the high contrast Nikon-types sacrificed ultimate resolving power of finest detail in order to give the photo a 'punchy' look whereas the Leica types used to resolve very fine detail but at the cost of lower contrast which made the photos appear less sharp at first sight.

This is probably one of the main reasons, apart from motor-winders, why Nikon became the No. 1 press photographers' camera as they didn't need the finer detail for shots that were printed coarsely in newspapers but the 'snappier' Nikon shots looked sharper on the page

I would absolutely agree with you there Duncan. However some people seem to feel that there are inherant differances in the feel of images from Canons against Nikons. Indeed it is a case of preferring one over the other.

BTW the photo was taken in Lucca, Northern Tuscany. Oh I nearly forgot, the camera was a Canon 10D. 17-40mm f.4L

Well if the file name is a big clue it must be Lucca -Tuscany - Italy.

The only trade name in the file is Adobe so it is unlikely the file has come directly from a Nikon DSLR - Unless Stephen has been very crafty in hiding information embeded :rolleyes: Not even a version of Adobe ??

I'll stick my neck out and say I suspect this image has come for a scanned source.

Normally sensor shot and thermal noise is a clue to digital camera images.

HaHa :D you are too clever for your own good Rob, I had forgotten about the file name though, but the exif data was stripped out in PS CS2 using Save for Web. I can't remember the last time time I scanned an image for web use though :)

Which must be a BIG hint it is digital camera :rolleyes: :D

Sorry Rob you must have missed message 10 :)

Indeed - Also I thought it was not clear if the Canon was film or Digital. I suspect that some people could tell the difference by comparing indentical crops from original images of the scene if they know the quirks of Canon and Nikon. I can see a difference in colour and tonal range using different lens on my 20D.

When I was in the TV industry I could tell if the TV had a european or japanise CRT fitted by looking at the image colour only.

I think in the case of Canon and Nikon images, it was the silky smooth noise free tones created by the Canon CMOS sensor, whilst the Nikon seemed to be a little more contrasty and gritty. I think that now with the D200 the difference is less notable.

I can often pick out the images from Fujifilm cameras for similar reasons. The skies often are often more Cyanish than from other cameras.

On a different note, I was quite pleased that some people were more interested in the aesthetics of my photo, there is hope still :D

Don't run yourself down mate, I trawled through your gallery when you joined us. Some very nice work there.

HeHe, there is always much lost in the written word Rob :D

I was meaning hope for some of the 'techno babble' folk here. :D No offence intended guys.

I think we all appreciate an aesthetic shot. Sometimes it getting the local materials to work with is the problem.

I simply cannot tell so I need more information to be certain. Stephen Anstey's website informs me he has been using Nikon and Canon gear but more recently Canon. I am going to pin my answer on Nikon as in post 1 it was taken a few years back. I assume Stephen switched to Canon for the 20D and now 1DSMkIIn and I think the photo predates this move.

I wonder if I am correct :)

Hi Stephen, I actually spilled the beans in post 10. The camera was a Canon 10D.
My first dSLR was a Nikon D1 the first truly affordable dSLR, prior to this there had only been the models done in conjunction with Kodak, but they were far to expensive and not as good as the D1. It was a Pro spec camera but only 2.7mp. Prior to this I had been using a Nikon F5.

I moved from the D1 to a Canon 10D, basically because as a Pro I needed to move up in the pixel stakes and as I could not afford the D1x which was the obvious step up, I had to look at either the Nikon D100 or the Canon 10D. To be honest the D100 was for me not a patch on the Canon, being plasticky and lightweight by comparison. The 10D had a better build quality and with a battery grip attached felt much more substantial in the hand. So I came over from the 'Dark Side' jumped ship and invested in Canon gear. To be honest I have never looked back, and after upgrading to the superb 20D I have decided that I needed to get back to a genuine 'Pro Spec' camera and so am now using a 1DMkIIN (not the FF 1DsMkII)

I think another somewhat important reason was cost. Leica have always been expensive. I think it was during the Korean war that Western photographers discovered that Nikon lenses performed well and were cheap compared to Leica and Zeiss. That is certainly the reason why Japanese companies took over the market for film camera lenses that was once dominated by German, and at least one English, companies.

Leif

Hi Stephen,

I like the picture too and I think the camera is a Canon 10D, 17-40mm. :-))

Luc