G1 compared to Nikon D700

[petermcwerner]

I make a lot of orchid shots and have noticed that red orchids are amongst the most difficult objects to capture with good color fidelity.
All pictures on tripod from the same position, illumination by Xenon lamp. RAWs developed in Raw Therapee.

G1 - Macro Switar 50mm/1.9 @ f/11 - ISO=100

Nikon D700 - Kiron Macro 105mm/2.8 @ f/11 - ISO = 200

The G1 catches the color of the flower correctly, the D700 colors are not realistic .
​

100% crops

G1

D700 - resized to same dimensions as G1. Both crops slightly sharpened​

 

[Vivek]

The G1 catches the color of the flower correctly, the D700 colors are not realistic .

Are these done with AWB settings and as recorded by the camera to come to that conclusion.

Peter, Have you ever noticed color differences (all else being the same) with different lenses on the G1? I have.

 

[jonoslack]

Hi Chaps
Vivek I hope you're well.
I must say, it looks like a typical Nikon response to anything natural. It helped to shoot 'daylight' or to take a WB reading - but I always found yellow creeping in where it shouldn't be, trouble was it was variable, and not very easy to shift in PP.

The G1 colours look fine to me.

 

[Vivek]

Hi Jono, I am not a brand fanatic (of any brand or format for that matter!).

I am not crazy about "Nikon colors" either (they are not..hmm.. "pleasing", shall we say? :ROTFL

Look at the blue bells shots here: http://forum.getdpi.com/forum/showthread.php?t=7389

 

[petermcwerner]

Are these done with AWB settings and as recorded by the camera to come to that conclusion.

Yes Vivek

Peter, Have you ever noticed color differences (all else being the same) with different lenses on the G1? I have.

Most G1 shots are spot on. There are subtle differences between different lenses, some are slightly warmer than others but never such a big difference as here.

 

[Diane B]

Maybe this is the place where I can ask a question that's been rattling around in my brain. A number of years ago I moved from an Oly E10, whose default color I really liked--to Canon (I had been a film Canon shooter and had the original Canon G1)--the D60 and D30. The Canon color sort of beat me over the head----Canon blues, reds not easy to deal with, etc. I've always shot in RAW and have moved around from RC to RC--but found C1 around my 10D time to deal the best with reds in particular. I've never liked using Canon's DPP---and colors are much better with the current camera profiles derived from DPP in ACR and LR--so its not as though they are 'bad'--but certainly different from the G1's.

I've been finding my G1 colors to be very nice generally--with both my MF lenses and the Panny and Oly lenses. They seem closer to what I remember with my one Olympus camera, the old fixed DSLR. So--not really remembering and not having paid a lot of attention to the consortium (?) between Oly and Panasonic, did that result in Panasonic's colors being closer to Olympus's or do they both have very 'signature' color palettes?

I hope I've been reasonably clear as to what I'm questioning. Its not important, but having shot with both the 5D and the G1 this past week side by side, some of the same shots actually--though I like the 5D's (with the 24-70L mostly) pleasing for the most part and using the 'neutral' camera profile in LR--I still found the G1's more correct--and actually easier to deal with.

Diane

 

[GrahamWelland]

One recommendation I have is that if you want anything like 'natural' Nikon colour then you might want to consider comparing images rendered by Capture NX 2 vs your brand of raw converter. Not all conversions are equal, regardless of the camera but at least in the case of the Nikon software I personally find that it does the best job for colour (at the expense of speed/integration & other irritating factors alas).

As a paid up Nikon biggot I would say that the Nikon/Kiron macro blows away the G1 image as far as detail, micro contrast and sheer 3D imagery.

 

[Vivek]

As a paid up Nikon biggot I would say that the Nikon/Kiron macro blows away the G1 image as far as detail, micro contrast and sheer 3D imagery.

Wrong on all the 3 counts and you missed the only area where the D700 shot is better- noise. :ROTFL:

G1 shows it clearly even at its base ISO.

Does Nikon pay anyone to use their crummy software? If they paid me ~$500 to use it (provided they give the software for free), I would use it to upgrade my machine's memory so that it will seem less of a snail and may even consider using it.:ROTFL:

 

[Diane B]

I probably should start a new thread to get my question answered--probably not a good idea on a Nikon/G1 thread LOL.

Diane

 

[petermcwerner]

Maybe this is the place where I can ask a question that's been rattling around in my brain. A number of years ago I moved from an Oly E10, whose default color I really liked--to Canon (I had been a film Canon shooter and had the original Canon G1)--the D60 and D30. The Canon color sort of beat me over the head----Canon blues, reds not easy to deal with, etc. I've always shot in RAW and have moved around from RC to RC--but found C1 around my 10D time to deal the best with reds in particular. I've never liked using Canon's DPP---and colors are much better with the current camera profiles derived from DPP in ACR and LR--so its not as though they are 'bad'--but certainly different from the G1's.

Diane, the Fuji S2 and Canon D20 were my first "serious" digital cameras and the results when trying to photograph red/pink/magenta or maroon orchids were a disaster with both of them. The DMR convinced me that it was not the fault of the digital technology per se and I could get some excellent colors with it, not only pleasing but "realistic". By that I mean by comparing the actual flower standing near the (calibrated) monitor with its picture.

I've been finding my G1 colors to be very nice generally

That is my experience too, not only with the G1 but also with previous Panas. Even the simple FX01 P+S renders (orchid) colors better than Canon and Nikon top end DSLRs. I wonder if this is not due to the collaboration between Panasonic and Leica. Panasonic must have learnt a lot from having to pass stringent Leica quality tests for their Leica branded lenses. I believe it is Leica and Pana that have very similar 'signature' color palettes

 

[monza]

Didn't the G1 score very high on color accuracy, I think it was Pop Photo's testing?

 

[Ranger 9]

I can't answer Diane's question because I haven't used most of the cameras she asks about.

I should say, though, that in my experience, Nikon's color response quirks aren't limited to natural subjects. (But keep in mind that I'm comparing raw files in Adobe Lightroom, which could be introducing its own distortions.)

Here's a Panasonic G1 image:

And here's a Nikon D300 image from the same production:

Note that this is after I've tried to adjust the images to make them appear as similar as possible! To me, the reds in the Nikon image seem more saturated and warmer; the Panasonic image's reds aren't as vivid, and pick up more of the subtle purple bounce off the floor.

As an off-the-top-of-my-head generalization, I'd say that the Nikon (again, as processed in Lightroom) seems to target colors that already are saturated and ramp up their saturation further, while the Panasonic seems to be more linear in its response to saturation. This makes the Nikon images look "punchier" and possibly more immediately appealing, while the Panasonic colors look more "natural" and subtle.

To be fair to Nikon, they provide lots of controls for adjusting the camera's color response, storing different profiles, etc. So it may be that they ship cameras set up to provide a vivid, appealing image when you try them in the store, and trust you to tailor the color response to your needs later.

Anyway, it's interesting to see different manufacturers' interpretations of how color should look... harks back a bit to the days when we'd choose from a raft of 50- and 100-speed color transparency films to pick the one that had the right "personality" for a particular subject...


[Note: If you examine the attached images, you'll find that the filenames -- "panasonic_example" and "nikon_example" -- are switched. The text above identifies the originating cameras correctly. Sorry for the mixup...]

 

[Ben Rubinstein]

Re: the OP, have you tried actually getting an accurate WB for the Nikon shot? There looks like at least 1000K difference. Posting a claim about colour without at least trying to normalise the WB means less than zero. Shoot the same test with a white balance card, apply the WB in software (not in camera) and then post the images.

Heck those dancing pictures look exactly the same difference, the WB is nowhere near the same between the images. All these images tell me is that the AWB on the Nikon is warmer.

Just to mention I'm a canon shooter so don't have any personal interest. You can't compare colour unless the WB is equalised in both images using the same point of reference.

 

[Diane B]

I wonder if this is not due to the collaboration between Panasonic and Leica. Panasonic must have learnt a lot from having to pass stringent Leica quality tests for their Leica branded lenses. I believe it is Leica and Pana that have very similar 'signature' color palettes

Interesting. I, of course, knew about the Leica/Pana collaboration, but hadn't thought about similar color palettes. I do spend time in Leica forums--so I'll have to pay attention.

Diane

 

[GrahamWelland]

Wrong on all the 3 counts and you missed the only area where the D700 shot is better- noise. :ROTFL:

G1 shows it clearly even at its base ISO.

Does Nikon pay anyone to use their crummy software? If they paid me ~$500 to use it (provided they give the software for free), I would use it to upgrade my machine's memory so that it will seem less of a snail and may even consider using it.:ROTFL:

Well, we're obviously looking at two different images or our own particular rose tinted specs are significantly different. :argue:

As regards Capture NX 2 - crummy? Again we must be talking about different software because I don't consider it crummy or anything like as slow as you're making out. It may not rock your boat and I'd certainly concede that it could be faster but crummy it isn't. However, this is the G1 forum so I really don't expect an objective discussion about Nikon imaging here anyway .... :talk028:

 

[petermcwerner]

Posting a claim about colour without at least trying to normalise the WB means less than zero. Shoot the same test with a white balance card, apply the WB in software (not in camera) and then post the images.

Perhaps one could get better color from the Nikon with a lot of postprocessing and time. The G1 gets the colors right spot on. I think this is a very meaningful claim.

 

[Vivek]

Graham, I am not anti Nikon and my N2X user opinion is not unique either.

Yeah, agree on the tinted glass (different lenses).

 

[petermcwerner]

However, this is the G1 forum so I really don't expect an objective discussion about Nikon imaging here anyway

I recently bought the D700 and am rather disappointed by the results I am getting. I would have expected the D700 to fare much better than the G1.

 

[ddk]

I know that its mostly subjective and a matter of personal taste, but from what I've seen the G1 is the only dslr on the market that competes with Fuji dslr's colors and tonal range. Outside of the D3x which I haven't tried, I can tell you with full certainty that no Nikon can touch the G1's colors and tonal range, specially when coupled with all this gorgeous glass.

PS. I'm not in Nikon nor Panasonic camp, I'm a Fuji and Leaf shooter, so I have no political agenda here, just going by what I'm seeing and personal experiences with various Nikons.

 

[Ranger 9]

Heck those dancing pictures look exactly the same difference, the WB is nowhere near the same between the images. All these images tell me is that the AWB on the Nikon is warmer.

I don't use auto white balance. Both images were made with the cameras set to the same K value -- 3200K for tungsten theater lamps. Besides, I was shooting in raw format, so color-balance settings on the camera don't affect the actual files -- only the embedded JPEG preview images, which aren't what you're seeing here.

However, Ben makes a worthwhile point that it isn't easy to compare camera color renditions accurately, since so many other things are involved in the imaging chain and we can't always measure the effect of those things individually. For example, a raw processor may use profiles with different values to convert raw files from two different cameras, resulting in different-looking results even if the cameras have identical settings and are used under identical conditions.

(Correcting to a gray card alone doesn't guarantee globally accurate color matching because the color differences may be non-linear -- similar to the "curve crossover" phenomenon some of you may remember from the pre-digital era of color printing. Typically when changing paper batches you'd try to match your basic filter pack by comparing prints from a test negative, which featured a gray card and a skin-tone reference generically called a "shirley," after the Kodak employee who was photographed for it. Because of curve crossover, you usually could get a fairly exact match for the gray patch OR the shirley, but not both.)

All I can say for sure is that in situations like the ones shown in my previous pictures, it's surprisingly hard to get the Panasonic image to match the Nikon image, or vice-versa, even when using raw files made with the same settings under the same conditions.