Yayyy! Congrats to the winner. I am one of those who nailed it and am a Canon shooter. For me, the greenish taint gave away the Sony - this one was easy. Canon vs. Nikon was a bit tougher. Canon colors generally have a slight magenta shift that usually livens skin tones. Also, canon colors are generally a tad warmer - hence my 'A' pick. I have a calibrated monitor and could see some subtle differences. Awesome experiment and interesting results. I settled on 'Camera Faithful' as the LR profile that is often closest to what DPP displays for my R5. However, this isn't always true.
Thank you so much for this detailed analysis, I really appreciate it. I too use Camera Faithful, I have always found Portrait to be way too much punchy - too much saturation, the blacks are crushed too much, and the overall skintone is a bit too orange. Faithful has always been a good starting point for me.
After 8 years with Canon (different models,crop and full frame),after trying Nikon,Sony...the colors that caught my heart are Pentax K1,and Pentax color science in general...never been so happy with this spectacular camera in every aspect,dream camera for landscape/nature photography !
I missed the initial video lol. I could tell the Nikon one, just because Nikon color rendition has always been fantastic. Nikon has also been far more consistent with their manual control placement, and ISO ratings from camera to camera. Canon and Sony also have their strengths, but after being a Nikon guy for this long it will take a lot to make me change. Sony almost got me with the A7R IV, but I felt their menu system was absolute garbage at the time even though everything else screamed "buy me".
It's interesting you mention ISO, one thing I have noticed about Canon cameras (since I own quite a few) is that their WB isn't consistent between cameras. 5000K on one camera will not look the same as 5000K on another camera, and while it is something I can fix manually, it's annoying sometimes when I do something an interview or any multi-cam setup and I can't just set everything to same the value. That being said, no brand is perfect, no camera is perfect, so I will always take the few bad points in accommodation with the many good points.
Yeeeeeah man, part of an elite group 😂 I really thought more people would have got them all but submission after submission, people swapped Canon and Nikon. Kudos to you fam!
I find that Canon is the best for professional photographers who shoot Celebrities, Fashion and sports. Canon has great color and fast image processing.
I use the Canon Picture Style Editor to customize my own color styles. Whatever changes you'd make in Photoshop, you can duplicate in a Picture Style in-camera. Nikon has a similar application. And if you make full use of the Datacolor calibration system, then you've replaced your camera's color science for the Pantone color science. The inherent color science is made irrelevant in at least two ways to those who are serious about getting it the way they really want it. You can make it what you want, so it's the last reason to choose a particular camera system.
@@AnthonyToglife The "added work" of setting the color within the camera is the _same_ work as editing two or three images in Photoshop, and it's a one-time operation. Surely you see more hardware differences between systems that would make it worthwhile to edit two or three images in Photoshop.
@@kirkdarling4120 these days any hardware differences would be rather moot, but at the end of the day, camera color science is irrelevant to you, and that’s okay. For many others it IS relevant, and that’s okay too.
@@AnthonyToglife It's not irrelevant; it's customizable. It's just a setting. In Canons and Nikons, at least, I can change it to what I want it to be with not much more effort than editing a single image in Photoshop. TAnd the "color science" isn't identical from camera model to camera model within those systems anyway. herefore, it's not a decisive factor in deciding on a whole system.
Just goes to show that most ppl don’t know what they’re looking at and that being a fanboy will always keep them biased 🤣😂. I shoot with all these brands and I can make every one of them look the same in the color department in post so color science never really mattered to me.
Fanboys be fanning, lolol. But IMO opinion it matters, and I’d likely never buy a Sony because of it. I often utilize JPG’s and if skin tones SOOC look wonky, that’s an issue for me.
@@AnthonyToglife they definitely do lol I tend to use custom profile settings in all my cameras that keep my Sony JPEGs not looking like the dreaded Sony color science. I actually have it tweaked to resemble the Provia film simulation from my Fujifilm cameras.
to me it's still Canon. The Nikon File seems to me for a raw file already too perfect when the Canon Raw File seem natural and more out of the camera like
I've shot with most of the major camera brands over the years and I've never considered " colour science " as a metric by which I'd choose a system. I'm predominantly a Nikon shooter and have been happy with the files. I apply a linear profile to all my RAW files ( I never shoot jpegs ) prior to post editing so colour science isn't something I worry about. If I need absolute colour accuracy then I produce a sensor profile using the X-Rite colour passport, however its rare I need to do this. I think all this fretting over colour science is a waste of time personally but thats just me, other people's milage will vary 😉
Do you photograph people? Because skin tones is where color science plays a big factor, and while yes, you can use something like an X-Rite, that still is an added step that gets cumbersome. I like to always say, just because there's a work-around for something doesn't negate the fact that a work-around is needed in the first place. ;-) Speaking from experience, the R5/R6 files in LR when those cameras first came out were absolutely horrendous and was extremely difficult to fix. Imagine if those colors were how the camera rendered them and not how LR interpreted the RAW data, that would (and should) be a consideration when purchasing a camera.
@@AnthonyToglife I photograph mostly people given I shoot events and portraiture so for sure skin tones are important to me 🙂. When it comes to skin tones which is more important...how they look subjectively or how accurate they are objectively?😋
@@dunnymonster easy answer, everything subjective! If photography was about “accuracy”, we wouldn’t edit images whatsoever. Even removing one stray hair renders that image no longer accurate.
@@AnthonyToglife Totally agree 🙂 I guess where I was going for this was there is an assumption that for colours to be subjectively pleasing, they also have to be objectively accurate which isn't true. The problem with the whole " colour science " argument and who's is best is always going to be subjective. With calibration we can make any brands colours " accurate ". I do accept that " out of the box " some files will require less post processing to achieve the skin tones you like so that's a good thing from a workflow perspective but honestly I've never felt like I had to do a tonne of moving the sliders in lightroom to make any of my images be it from whatever camera look good to me. I don't see one colour science better than another, just different. Ironically, because skintones are so varied in the real world I might find my Lumix files look better with one tone of skin and my Nikon files looking better with another tone of skin! 😀
@@dunnymonster indeed friend! Anything “best” in photography is subjective so my best is likely going to be different than yours. But, it’s fun to see people get riled up over things like color science. 😁
Yayyy! Congrats to the winner. I am one of those who nailed it and am a Canon shooter. For me, the greenish taint gave away the Sony - this one was easy. Canon vs. Nikon was a bit tougher. Canon colors generally have a slight magenta shift that usually livens skin tones. Also, canon colors are generally a tad warmer - hence my 'A' pick. I have a calibrated monitor and could see some subtle differences. Awesome experiment and interesting results. I settled on 'Camera Faithful' as the LR profile that is often closest to what DPP displays for my R5. However, this isn't always true.
Thank you so much for this detailed analysis, I really appreciate it. I too use Camera Faithful, I have always found Portrait to be way too much punchy - too much saturation, the blacks are crushed too much, and the overall skintone is a bit too orange. Faithful has always been a good starting point for me.
Very well done to the 4 that got it correct. Happy holidays everyone.
Happy holidays to you friend!
Congratulations to the winners
🎉 💪🏾
Congrats to the winner 🥇
🎉💪🏾
After 8 years with Canon (different models,crop and full frame),after trying Nikon,Sony...the colors that caught my heart are Pentax K1,and Pentax color science in general...never been so happy with this spectacular camera in every aspect,dream camera for landscape/nature photography !
I am definitely planning to revisit this next year and including Fuji, Pentax, and Panasonic.
Thanks. So happy to win. Canon EOS T7 DSLR with 18-55mm lense is what I'm mainly using. Love shooting the animals and countryside around my area.
Confirmation accepted. 😁
Please DM me your full address for shipping.
I missed the initial video lol. I could tell the Nikon one, just because Nikon color rendition has always been fantastic. Nikon has also been far more consistent with their manual control placement, and ISO ratings from camera to camera. Canon and Sony also have their strengths, but after being a Nikon guy for this long it will take a lot to make me change. Sony almost got me with the A7R IV, but I felt their menu system was absolute garbage at the time even though everything else screamed "buy me".
It's interesting you mention ISO, one thing I have noticed about Canon cameras (since I own quite a few) is that their WB isn't consistent between cameras. 5000K on one camera will not look the same as 5000K on another camera, and while it is something I can fix manually, it's annoying sometimes when I do something an interview or any multi-cam setup and I can't just set everything to same the value. That being said, no brand is perfect, no camera is perfect, so I will always take the few bad points in accommodation with the many good points.
🎉🎉🎉 I got em right.
Yeeeeeah man, part of an elite group 😂
I really thought more people would have got them all but submission after submission, people swapped Canon and Nikon. Kudos to you fam!
Great video ! I think this settles the Color Science debate in my. Thanks.
And off to 2024 we go! Appreciate you watching.
I find that Canon is the best for professional photographers who shoot Celebrities, Fashion and sports. Canon has great color and fast image processing.
I can get behind this statement! 💪🏾
At least I got Sony right 🤣 Congratulations to the winner!
Hahaha, you are in good company, a lot of people mixed up the Canon and Nikon files.
I use the Canon Picture Style Editor to customize my own color styles. Whatever changes you'd make in Photoshop, you can duplicate in a Picture Style in-camera. Nikon has a similar application. And if you make full use of the Datacolor calibration system, then you've replaced your camera's color science for the Pantone color science. The inherent color science is made irrelevant in at least two ways to those who are serious about getting it the way they really want it. You can make it what you want, so it's the last reason to choose a particular camera system.
But why do all that if you can pick a system without the added work?
@@AnthonyToglife The "added work" of setting the color within the camera is the _same_ work as editing two or three images in Photoshop, and it's a one-time operation. Surely you see more hardware differences between systems that would make it worthwhile to edit two or three images in Photoshop.
@@kirkdarling4120 these days any hardware differences would be rather moot, but at the end of the day, camera color science is irrelevant to you, and that’s okay. For many others it IS relevant, and that’s okay too.
@@AnthonyToglife It's not irrelevant; it's customizable. It's just a setting. In Canons and Nikons, at least, I can change it to what I want it to be with not much more effort than editing a single image in Photoshop. TAnd the "color science" isn't identical from camera model to camera model within those systems anyway. herefore, it's not a decisive factor in deciding on a whole system.
@@kirkdarling4120 at no point was it mentioned that color science was a deciding factor, it was stated as a preference. 👍🏾
Nikon is the king of colour science and I won’t debate it with anyone
You’re not gonna get any arguments from me! 💪🏾
Nice video and interesting result.
Thank you so much!
I was completely wrong. I guess I need to get a Sony now. I will chalk it up to LR not being used for the Canon file. Does anyone use DPP? 😃
Maybe 7 Canon users actually use that crap software 😂😂😂
Just goes to show that most ppl don’t know what they’re looking at and that being a fanboy will always keep them biased 🤣😂. I shoot with all these brands and I can make every one of them look the same in the color department in post so color science never really mattered to me.
Fanboys be fanning, lolol.
But IMO opinion it matters, and I’d likely never buy a Sony because of it. I often utilize JPG’s and if skin tones SOOC look wonky, that’s an issue for me.
@@AnthonyToglife they definitely do lol
I tend to use custom profile settings in all my cameras that keep my Sony JPEGs not looking like the dreaded Sony color science. I actually have it tweaked to resemble the Provia film simulation from my Fujifilm cameras.
to me it's still Canon. The Nikon File seems to me for a raw file already too perfect when the Canon Raw File seem natural and more out of the camera like
That’s an interesting take! Thanks for the perspective.
I've shot with most of the major camera brands over the years and I've never considered " colour science " as a metric by which I'd choose a system. I'm predominantly a Nikon shooter and have been happy with the files. I apply a linear profile to all my RAW files ( I never shoot jpegs ) prior to post editing so colour science isn't something I worry about. If I need absolute colour accuracy then I produce a sensor profile using the X-Rite colour passport, however its rare I need to do this. I think all this fretting over colour science is a waste of time personally but thats just me, other people's milage will vary 😉
Do you photograph people? Because skin tones is where color science plays a big factor, and while yes, you can use something like an X-Rite, that still is an added step that gets cumbersome. I like to always say, just because there's a work-around for something doesn't negate the fact that a work-around is needed in the first place. ;-)
Speaking from experience, the R5/R6 files in LR when those cameras first came out were absolutely horrendous and was extremely difficult to fix. Imagine if those colors were how the camera rendered them and not how LR interpreted the RAW data, that would (and should) be a consideration when purchasing a camera.
@@AnthonyToglife I photograph mostly people given I shoot events and portraiture so for sure skin tones are important to me 🙂. When it comes to skin tones which is more important...how they look subjectively or how accurate they are objectively?😋
@@dunnymonster easy answer, everything subjective! If photography was about “accuracy”, we wouldn’t edit images whatsoever. Even removing one stray hair renders that image no longer accurate.
@@AnthonyToglife Totally agree 🙂 I guess where I was going for this was there is an assumption that for colours to be subjectively pleasing, they also have to be objectively accurate which isn't true. The problem with the whole " colour science " argument and who's is best is always going to be subjective. With calibration we can make any brands colours " accurate ". I do accept that " out of the box " some files will require less post processing to achieve the skin tones you like so that's a good thing from a workflow perspective but honestly I've never felt like I had to do a tonne of moving the sliders in lightroom to make any of my images be it from whatever camera look good to me. I don't see one colour science better than another, just different. Ironically, because skintones are so varied in the real world I might find my Lumix files look better with one tone of skin and my Nikon files looking better with another tone of skin! 😀
@@dunnymonster indeed friend! Anything “best” in photography is subjective so my best is likely going to be different than yours. But, it’s fun to see people get riled up over things like color science. 😁
Canon was never the king. Ninon is miles away
Nikon is miles away indeed. Behind Canon AND Sony.