The "Canon look" versus the "Nikon look". . . will anyone really be able to tell?

[Stephen Pruitt]

The "Canon look" versus the "Nikon look". . . will anyone really be able to tell?

Hi all. . .

I currently have a Birger Canon mount on order and I also have the View Factor follow focus on order. I also own 11 very fine Nikon lenses and have access to many terrific Canon lenses. Since I have two REDs, and would like to be able to use both of them during shots (one Canon and one Nikon), I'm curious if anyone would really be able to tell the difference between them if I were cutting between them for dialog shots. And, if there are any differences, would these be easy to address in post?

Thanks much.

Stephen

 

[Tico Llaurador]

Depends on how you grade your footage, Stephen. But I anticipate that the biggest difference would be in the source material's "native" sharpness and contrast values, as opposed to color and tint.

I've owned Nikon and Canon glass and have always seen a "difference" between them as they come out of the camera. There's also a difference between earlier Nikon (AI-S) and current Nikon (D/G - "gold ring"), as well as earlier Canon (FD - "SC" and "SSC") and current Canon (EF - "L"). It's got to do a lot with the lens coatings and designs, obviously.

As far as looks are concerned, I personally prefer the look of newer Nikon glass, whereas with Canon, I prefer the look of the older glass. Of course, like Sanjin, I've always been kind of partial to Leica glass altogether, though.

Why don't you run a quick test with a few select lenses? I'd be intrigued to see the results myself.

 

[Stephen Pruitt]

Hi there, Tico. . .

I'd love to see a test on the same subjects, but I don't have the Canon Birger mount yet, nor even a still Canon camera I could test with using a Nikon-to-Canon adapter ring.

But this is an important issue, as I definitely tend to use two cameras during my shoots.

Thanks much.

Stephen

 

[Joe Vinson]

Stephen,

I've done some shooting with both Nikon and Canon lenses, using both the RED Nikon mount and the Birger Canon mount (with Nikon adapter), and I can't tell any difference between brands per se. My older Nikon manual lenses have a definite look all their own, but footage from newer lenses cut well together. Unfortunately, I don't have matching primes that would provide a good direct comparison.

 

[Stephen Pruitt]

Thanks for the information, Joe. . . that's very helpful.

Do you have a working Birger/Canon???? How do you like it?

Stephen

 

[Joe Vinson]

I wouldn't call it "working"... I got one of the earlier ones that has the back-focus issue, so I can't use any of my really wide lenses on it. I've also had trouble with the electronics, but am hopeful that will be fixed with the revised mount as well. But keeping in mind it's basically been a dumb mount, I love using my Canon lenses. The bokeh on my L-series... so pretty. Looking forward to getting the whole package with wireless knob up and running!

 

[Stephen Pruitt]

Yeah. . . you, me, and about a thousand other RED owners, me thinks.



Stephen

 

[Alexander Alexandrov]

can anyone share a link to the Birger to Nikon adapter?

 

[Antoine Fabi]

Depends on how you grade your footage, Stephen. But I anticipate that the biggest difference would be in the source material's "native" sharpness and contrast values, as opposed to color and tint. ..

...As far as looks are concerned, I personally prefer the look of newer Nikon glass, whereas with Canon, I prefer the look of the older glass. Of course, like Sanjin, I've always been kind of partial to Leica glass altogether, though.

Why don't you run a quick test with a few select lenses? I'd be intrigued to see the results myself.

Absolutely Tico!!!!

Exactly what i see:
I greatly prefer old Canon FD lenses over EF.
I greatly prefer new Nikon (zooms) over old Nikon.

...to be more specific, i hate the "edgy luminance only" look of some EF.

The "new" Nikon zooms look very defined, but rich and full at the same time.
The old FD lenses had plenty of true definition, but had a beautifull artistic smooth "glow". I like them so much i kept ALL of them even after buying a full set of Zeiss ZFs.

Just matter of taste i think...

Antoine

 

[Hop Litzwire]

I like them so much i kept ALL of them even after buying a full set of Zeiss ZFs

Antoine, are you using your FDs on RED? How?

Thanks

 

[Antoine Fabi]

Antoine, are you using your FDs on RED? How?

Thanks

Hi Litzwire,

I did, before RED annonced that the KMuse Canon FD mount may void the warranty.
After i saw the warning, i put a Nikon mount on my camera and used Zeiss ZFs.

...never understood why it could damage the camera, still shaking my head...
it was a piece of art, very solid and stable, still have it in the closet.

I can tell you that FD lenses look different than Zeiss ZFs, less contrast, but plenty of real definition, they look beautifull. The ZFs look beautifull also!!!!

Here's a list of the FD lenses i still have and gave me beautifull results:

20mm f2.8 (Wide angle with superb contrast)
28mm f2 (not in love with this one...) good rez but looks "empty"
35mm f2 (sharp sharp sharp)
50mm f1.2L (sharp and lovely color rendition for portrait type)
55mm f1.2L breech mount (a little less contrast than the 50mm f1.2, more dreamy)
85mm f1.2L (sharp, but creamy at the same time)
35-105mm f3.5 (superb contrast and good focal range for travelling outdoors)
80-200 f4L (incredibly sharp at all focal lenghts, i used it for outdoors sport events)

Cheers!

Antoine