I'm going to give it a shot! I have shot with both Canon and Nikon, and currently shoot with a Canon 5d mkII. By the way, I LOVE Canon!
So based on your port, I would say you shoot with a Canon. Reason, color saturation in the photos. Nikon seems to get better saturation out of the box.
Probably one of the rebel series. Reason, sharpness in the details.
As for which model of rebel, I would guess the Rebel XTI or maybe the rebel XSI for the video!
My personal favorite is Sony.
Sony/Canon are good.
I've never worked with the other brands myself, but friends have, and they are disappointed once they try my brand. ^^
Brennans Photography wrote: I'm going to give it a shot! I have shot with both Canon and Nikon, and currently shoot with a Canon 5d mkII. By the way, I LOVE Canon!
So based on your port, I would say you shoot with a Canon. Reason, color saturation in the photos. Nikon seems to get better saturation out of the box.
Probably one of the rebel series. Reason, sharpness in the details.
As for which model of rebel, I would guess the Rebel XTI or maybe the rebel XSI for the video!
Natalia Drulle wrote: hahaha... you have exif info on your shots
Its like going to a revival sermon, where some one asks your name and your illness at the door, and then when the preacher calls out your name and describes your illness you think its really God speaking through him.
Garry k wrote: Personally I do not understand this Canon vs Nikon vs Minolta vs ( etc ) ....debate
Maybe I will understand it better if people can correctly tell me what brand of camera that I shoot with and how they can tell
Good work from a Canon Rebel with a kit lens I'd say. At least in the first couple I looked at. Low color saturation which COULD be post work. The sort of sharpened looking sharpness as opposed to the sharpness with good glass and top notch sensors/processors. But again, it could all be post processing too I guess.
Christy Catastrophe wrote: My personal favorite is Sony.
Sony/Canon are good.
I've never worked with the other brands myself, but friends have, and they are disappointed once they try my brand. ^^
Actually my first digital WAS a Sony. Good, over priced and sharp due to the camera automatically sharpening the images AND the noise. It was Leica glass and that helped so maybe the new SLRs are good...but the Ziess glass is over priced, and Ziess makes glass for Canon and Nikon too. So I too was disappointed with Sony ..is that what you mean by your comment..or are you saying that YOUR photos look soooo much better than mine because I use Nikon Equipment? Each to their own...unless of course you have deluded yourself into thinking the camera makes the shot. Cheap cams take more work to make good pics with BUT it is done all the time. I prefer what I use for a number of reasons that likely only mattesr to me. I've used most everything in the past from Leicas to 8x10 Views. Each had their uses AND their pitfalls. Pre digital I settled on medium format as the best COMPROMISE. However a digital MF is out of my price range AND..I want square format when I go back to digital not 645.
Its like going to a revival sermon, where some one asks your name and your illness at the door, and then when the preacher calls out your name and describes your illness you think its really God speaking through him.
Sorry you have both lost me on this ... Ive posted no information regarding this in the credits ...is there some other way to see it that I am not aware of ?
Garry k wrote: Personally I do not understand this Canon vs Nikon vs Minolta vs ( etc ) ....debate
Maybe I will understand it better if people can correctly tell me what brand of camera that I shoot with and how they can tell
Good work from a Canon Rebel with a kit lens I'd say. At least in the first couple I looked at. Low color saturation which COULD be post work. The sort of sharpened looking sharpness as opposed to the sharpness with good glass and top notch sensors/processors. But again, it could all be post processing too I guess.
Actually my first digital WAS a Sony. Good, over priced and sharp due to the camera automatically sharpening the images AND the noise. It was Leica glass and that helped so maybe the new SLRs are good...but the Ziess glass is over priced, and Ziess makes glass for Canon and Nikon too. So I too was disappointed with Sony ..is that what you mean by your comment..or are you saying that YOUR photos look soooo much better than mine because I use Nikon Equipment? Each to their own...unless of course you have deluded yourself into thinking the camera makes the shot. Cheap cams take more work to make good pics with BUT it is done all the time. I prefer what I use for a number of reasons that likely only mattesr to me. I've used most everything in the past from Leicas to 8x10 Views. Each had their uses AND their pitfalls. Pre digital I settled on medium format as the best COMPROMISE. However a digital MF is out of my price range AND..I want square format when I go back to digital not 645.
Sorry you have both lost me on this ... Ive posted no information regarding this in the credits ...is there some other way to see it that I am not aware of ?
Sorry you have both lost me on this ... Ive posted no information regarding this in the credits ...is there some other way to see it that I am not aware of ?
Garry,
You have the exif data in the image. If anyone saves your image on to their hardrive and looks at the properties of the image, it reveals a lot of information about the image, including in may cases the camera used.
You have the exif data in the image. If anyone saves your image on to their hardrive and looks at the properties of the image, it reveals a lot of information about the image, including in may cases the camera used.
If you are using Firefox you don't even have to do that, just get the exif addon. Not all of his photos have the exif info, but some do.
You have the exif data in the image. If anyone saves your image on to their hardrive and looks at the properties of the image, it reveals a lot of information about the image, including in may cases the camera used.
Well I did not know this , so it a valuable learning ..thank you
EXIF data. It's in every pic unless you do something to strip it out.
the ability to read EXIF is built into many programs. The easiest one is built right into windows. Right-click on an image on your computer and select PROPERTIES.
Click on the SUMMARY TAB
it will display
width height resolution camera brand focal length when the pic was shot flash what editing software used etc etc.
EXIF data. It's in every pic unless you do something to strip it out.
the ability to read EXIF is built into many programs. The easiest one is built right into windows. Right-click on an image on your computer and select PROPERTIES.
Click on the SUMMARY TAB
it will display
width height resolution camera brand focal length when the pic was shot flash what editing software used etc etc.
I hope whoeever said he was using a Holga was joking....his work dosn't look anything like the Holga I've used.... but I don't know.
As for the brands... I also don't understand the brand war. I've seen people that spend thousands on an expensive Nikon 5D and still suck and others that use Canon Rebels (me) and D40s and are fucking excellent.
Maura- wrote: As for the brands... I also don't understand the brand war. I've seen people that spend thousands on an expensive Nikon 5D and still suck and others that use Canon Rebels (me) and D40s and are fucking excellent.
Did they finally put an end to brand wars and merge?
