"superior image quality" of Canon

[Onyx]

Nikon:

http://www.geocities.com/choicebro2004/nikon.jpg

Canon:

http://www.geocities.com/choicebro2004/canon.jpg

'Plastic look' at its best.

[ajo43]

Is it D70 vs 300D.

I'm always willing to have a go at canon but I can't believe that the canon shot is straight out of the camera without any in camera processing or post processing. The pictures are just too fundamentally different. The canon shot is markedly softer (you can't even see her freckles)

One thing is at least the colours seem to be similar.

Thanks for the pics.

[birddog114]

I like the first ones, cos her natural skin tone and cann PP after

[Greg B]

Isn't it the same photo? Looks like it to me with more PP on #2 than #1.

I can't spot any difference in the position, expression etc.

In the words of Matt K - prove me wrong

[phillipb]

Agreed 100% Greg, down to every little strand of hair in exactly the same position. What are they trying to prove?

[W00DY]

Teh two photos have possibly been taken at the same time as you can see a little difference in position by the gold stripe down her top.... But that could also just be cropping.

Anyhow, I am not sure if Onyx is saying the Canon shot or the Nikon shot is better?

W00DY

[Nnnnsic]

Even though I'm a Nikon user... as if the Canon shot hasn't been Photoshop'd... geeze... look at that airbrush work!

There is no way in hell that the Canon lens dodges the detail as such and leaves the skin looking plastic, and yet keeps all other details in-tact.

The giveaways here are the lips and the eyes... if everything else has soft focus, why don't the lips or the eyes? Hell, a few strands of hair near the air look like they've been blurred slightly to gel with everything else.

This looks more like a propaganda job to me.

[gstark]

Same image.

Different PP.

Or, to be more correct, levels of PP applied.

It's not even two images shot at the same time as there's no paralax differences between the model and the background.

[gstark]

What are they trying to prove?

It's an intelligence test!

[Glen]

I will buy a Canon for my wife if that was real, she would never have to apply make up again, the camera would do it for her

[Onyx]

...taking the piss....

Gary's right - it is an intelligence test.

[sirhc55]

Tried a test - opened the nikon shot in PS and then placed the canon shot on a new layer and lowered the opacity - the result a definitive YES that they are one and the same shot

[Matt. K]

Test it this way....place the images into seperate layers in PS and change the blend mode to /difference/

Where 2 pixels have exactly the same value they will cancel out and produce a black pixel. If 2 images are exactly the same the image will go totally black. Where the image has been manipulated you will see the pixels in differing colours. The chances of 2 images taken by different cameras having the same overall pixel value are astronomical. If the general outline/hair/shoulder shape cancel out to black then it's the same image.

[Charandane]

There is no way that the second image came straight out of a Canon or any other camera. It would look good in Mme. Tussaud's wax museum though. I sure hope that whoever started this hoax meant it as a joke.

[Greg B]

Where did these shots come from Onyx?

[Killakoala]

Yep. Fake.

[Onyx]

Let's all ignore it and make it go away. It has not gone the way it's intended...and I can't seem to delete this thread!

Yeah yeah, I didn't take the pics... and the person who did might get cranky at me if they knew that I'd posted.

[Raydar]

What a joke!!

Sloppy PP work to, it stops at the jaw line, nothing has been done to the girl’s neck??


Cheers
Ray

[Kris]

I will buy a Canon for my wife if that was real, she would never have to apply make up again, the camera would do it for her

hehe.. the Canon shot is horrible. Definately the result of extensive PP

[Matt. K]

Hey Onyx
I knew it was a tongue in cheek post from the very start. And I enjoyed it. Thanks mate!