I have seen amazing photos taken by D200 with absolutely wonderful colors.. Anyway, you can check the comparison between the models in DPReview reviews itself where color comparisons are given and choose the best out of them...http://budding-nature-photographer.blogspot.com/..

My pentax has some excellent color directly out of camera. Olympus dslr's are also supposed to be very good. I guess it depends as much on the photographer as the camera itself....

Http://www.flickr.com/photos/djmsmc/..

What is your definition of "true" color?.

Do you mean "accurate" colors or "pleasing" colors?.

The real world is actually very boring color-wise..

The old National Geographic magazines 30 years ago had wonderful colors due to the use of Koadachrome slide film slightly underexposed which provided intense colors... but not accurate colors. Fujifilm film (and digital) colors tend to be slightly oversaturated and look great, but are not accurate..

A lot of what people see in the digital world that they like are not accurate colors, but have been post-processed to add some contrast and color saturation (maybe selective color, not general) but that is not accurate colors..

If you plan on doing a lot of landscape photography then the "look" you want is different than if you are doing a lot of people photography. Skin tones and foliage/rocks are totally different..

I use Fujifilm DSLR equipment for portraits and weddings where pleasing skin tones are important to me (and the client), but the colors are not accurate. Just pleasing. A Nikon D200 would have more "accurate" colors, but a lot of photographers then spend time tweaking the colors in post-processing in photoshop to get something more pleasing to their eye..

Different people like different kinds of color..

Some of the most "accurate" recording digital cameras were the old Kodak DSC 14n DSLR (I think I have the right model number). They are still used today by studios that photograph original paintings for reproduction prints. But their skin tone colors leave much to be desired without a little PP tweaking..

My suggestion would be to take some flash cards (SD & CF) into a camera store and see if you can take some sample shots inside the store in full auto mode on different cameras. Take the cards home and view on computer and send prints off to your favorite lab. See which one(s) you like the color. Go back to the store and purchase the camera...

Thank you; that's some great information and excellent advice!.

Sincerely,Eric...

My definition of accurate color would be that it very simply matches what the eye sees at the time of the shot. this is the image that comes out of the camera and to the pc with NO pp..

In the original review done by this website, my pentax *istD was reviewed as having extremely accurate color. later pentax dslrs have been doing the same thing..

It should be noted that all dslrs have satuation adjustments tht can alter the output color to a very large extent. they also have different color modes to shoot in...

Edleg wrote:.

My suggestion would be to take some flash cards (SD & CF) into acamera store and see if you can take some sample shots inside thestore in full auto mode on different cameras. Take the cards home andview on computer and send prints off to your favorite lab. See whichone(s) you like the color. Go back to the store and purchase thecamera..

That's a very difficult challenge. Most camera shops have fluorescent lighting, which can be tricky to use for accurate colour. Also, is it a realistic test, typical of the type of shots that will be taken in future?.

More generally, to match the camera white balance to the lighting, there are three possibilities: 1: auto, 2: preset such as daylight, tungsten, fluorescent etc., 3: custom. Although some people find auto gives the results they like, I tend to use either a preset white balance, or sometimes a custom setting..

So what I'm saying is just going into the store and taking a few test pictures may not help very much. It might be better to look at the sample images from reviews, both on this site and other sites, to evaluate colour. The disadvantage of course is that you are not likely to have seen the original subject in the real world.Regards,Peter..

Truest colors compared to what? Everyone's ability to see colors are different, so this is a totally subjective issue. To my knowledge there is no standard definition of 'good color' and if there is, it's just a bunch of BS designed to scam the suckers..

You can buy cameras that come very close to the colors of Kodachrome, you can buy cameras that come close to the glamourous highly saturated colors of a Michael Mann movie, but both color capabilities have been loved and hated by many people..

Buy a camera with a good lens.STOP Global Stasis! Change is good!.

Now that you've judged the quality of my typing, take a look at my photos..http://www.photo.net/photos/GlenBarrington..

Over at imaging resources, when they were testing the Sony R1 (now discontinued) and shot an image using aRGB setting *but* then viewing the image as if it were sRGB, the resulting file was uncannily true:.

Http://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/R1/R1IMATEST.HTM.

(look about a quarter of the way down the page.).

Imaging resources uses IMATEST to evaluate colors. So if you are willing to flip through their reviews perhaps you'll find other cameras that are noticeably "true" also..

However, a caveat. Digital cameras have so many possible settings for creating jpegs that it isn't possible to test all the combinations..

The best way to proper color is to understand white balancing and now how to do it with your camera..

-gt..

Not ridiculous at all. A little naive maybe, but if the OP already understood the subject he wouldn't be posting a question on a beginner's forum, would he? And let's face it, he's not the only one with a lack of understanding..

Glen Barrington wrote:.

To my knowledgethere is no standard definition of 'good color' and if there is, it'sjust a bunch of BS designed to scam the suckers...

... apart from this bit:.

Edleg wrote:.

My suggestion would be to take some flash cards (SD & CF) into acamera store and see if you can take some sample shots inside thestore in full auto mode on different cameras. Take the cards home andview on computer and send prints off to your favorite lab. See whichone(s) you like the color. Go back to the store and purchase thecamera..

I really don't think you can judge a camera's colour that way. Even if you had a colour-managed system at your disposal, and knew how to use it, there are too many variables in the camera itself to make such a simplistic comparison viable..

The answer to the OP's question is surely that accurate colour isn't the thing to look for, it's control of colour. And any modern DSLR will give you that - I'm not aware of a bad one in that respect. Or you can shoot RAW and control colour on the computer instead..

Generally speaking P&S cameras tend to exaggerate saturation and contrast to give instant appeal - 'wow factor' - rather than faithful colour. DSLRs do that much less (sometimes leading to disappointment amongst first time DSLR owners!) and give you the control you need..

I like the solution Canon has adopted on recent models - 'Picture Styles'. See the reviews on this site for more...

Consider that the lens you use can affect color. A very good lens with very good coatings will outperform a less capable lens on the same body. Contrast comes into play. Lenses with poorer contrast will appear to have washed out colors..

What you can do:1) Always use a lens hood to reduce flare.2) If you use filters use the best you can find..

3) Learn your lens. Don't just look just at it's specifications. Study how it renders images..

I recall seeing a pamphlet many years ago produced by Zeiss I think. It compared a Tessar type (4 elements in 3 groups) lens to a very highly corrected lens by Canon or Nikon (don't remember which). The highly corrected lens had many more elements and air to glass surfaces. The lens tests for the highly corrected lens where superb, far surpassing the Tessar. The next comparison showed the same image in the same light taken by both lenses. The Tessar type had much more contrast and much better shadow detail and colors..

Ref: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Tessar..

The main Portuguese Photo Magazine has just made a test comparing three cameras: the Canon 400D, the Nikon D40x and the Sony A100..

The truest colours (for whatever that means) were delivered by the Sony, the Nikon showing over saturated colours and the Canon dull colours.Just another info to get you more confused 80).

-Just passing by.....

I didn't say it was ridiculous in oirder to be rude, I said it to illustrate the futility of trying to come up with any sort of definitive definition of 'good' color. it can't be done, not now, not ever..

I agree that, on the surface, the question is reasonable. But once you try to work through the issue logically, I would think that after thinking about it, even the OP would probably agree with me that the question is truely ridiculous.STOP Global Stasis! Change is good!.

Now that you've judged the quality of my typing, take a look at my photos..http://www.photo.net/photos/GlenBarrington..

Glen Barrington wrote:.

I didn't say it was ridiculous in oirder to be rude, I said it toillustrate the futility of trying to come up with any sort ofdefinitive definition of 'good' color. it can't be done, not now,not ever..

The OP didn't ask about "good" colour, he asked about "true" and "accurate" colour. That's (a) not an unreasonable aspiration, and (b) not at all the futile exercise you claim it to be. It's just that it's more complicated than choosing an accurate camera - that's the bit the OP didn't know. There's a whole science of colour, and an industry built around the problem (but not insurmountable problem) of accurate reproduction. Have you honestly never heard of colour management?.

I agree that, on the surface, the question is reasonable. But onceyou try to work through the issue logically, I would think that afterthinking about it, even the OP would probably agree with me that thequestion is truely ridiculous..

You are making the mistake of assuming that because you don't understand it, nobody does...

I tried to be polite to some chump who intends to start a fight..

So PUT UP or SHUT UP!.

Show me the definition of ACCURATE COLOR. And PROVE it is not a load of BS!.

I've been doing color photography before you were born and I'll be doing it once your limited attention span has forced you to move on and be rude in forums that cater to the iPhone or whatever shiney bauble catches your eye next..

STOP Global Stasis! Change is good!.

Now that you've judged the quality of my typing, take a look at my photos..http://www.photo.net/photos/GlenBarrington..

Glen Barrington wrote:.

I've been doing color photography before you were born and I'll bedoing it once your limited attention span has forced you to move onand be rude in forums that cater to the iPhone or whatever shineybauble catches your eye next..

It's no good, I am overwhelmed by the quality of your argument, I throw in the towel...

Steve Balcombe wrote:.

The answer to the OP's question is surely that accurate colour isn'tthe thing to look for, it's control of colour. And any modern DSLRwill give you that - I'm not aware of a bad one in that respect. Oryou can shoot RAW and control colour on the computer instead..

I like your answer because when I first got my D200 and was trying to determine what settings to use, the same picture would produce different results. I too was looking for the most accurate color and found the settings that produced it. The printed images matched the scene I shot. However, as others have said, I also found that the pictures were a little bland. As a result I now come close to "true" color but adjusted a little bit to be more pleasing to the eye..

FINE PRINT: I reserve the right to be wrong. Should you prove me wrong, I reserve the right to change my mind...

All blow - no go.STOP Global Stasis! Change is good!.

Now that you've judged the quality of my typing, take a look at my photos..http://www.photo.net/photos/GlenBarrington..

The answer was for the OP, of course.Sorry.Just passing by.....

...a printed magazine "O Mundo da Fotografia Digital".Just passing by.....

So how about a screen shot of the page in question?Doug Walker..

...when this site accepts direct uploading..

Anyway, you believe what I translated or not, I couldn't care less, as anyway I have none of the three tested cameras.CheersJust passing by.....

When a person says "what their eye sees" what is really meant is what their brain processed and remembers..

The human brain fills in a lot of color, saturation and other effects that just are not there. Also the brain ignores "defects" in the picture like power lines, cars, naturally tilted trees, etc..

So it come doen to what is "pleasing" to your brain...