[Miguel]

Lastly - can anyone actually say what an ideal skin tone is?

I think this is rightfully a rhetorical question. There are many cultural values wrapped around idealized skin tone. I recall being told in the 1980s that Fuji film was preferred in Japan because it rendered skin tones on the lighter side which was more in sync with desired perception. But that was then. The other day Sports Illustrated published the cover pages of each of their swimsuit issues. The rendering of skin tones was almost as revealing as the rendering of skin.

M

[Wired]

Certainly not me. And how many posts have I seen where people say they really like the color rendering of, say, their Zeiss lens? So apparently optics is also a factor. Perhaps just as much as the sensor.

very true. the Zeiss 50mm 1.4 I use renders color and contrast very differently than the 50mm f1.8 G. It's also softer in its rendering which is why I prefer it for taking portraits.

[pinholecam]

Basically the discussion is around the Sony sensor vs Canon sensor utilized in all current dslrs and how they render color within the image.

The Nikon D7100 and the D600/610 now utilize a Toshiba sensor - has anyone done a comparison with this sensor and the Canon's?

Lastly - can anyone actually say what an ideal skin tone is?

For me, I find there there is no such thing as ideal skin tone.
Color cast off the surrounding, shade, type of light, all affect it in real life even if I am viewing it with my eyes and not thru the medium of the camera to monitor.


I'd think not only the sensor response to color is different, its also tweaked as to what RGB is within each companies 'color correctness'
I remember my Panasonic G3 being tested in review sites for being one of the more color 'correct' cameras, but Panny colors have been known to be 'non-pleasing'

[Emacs]

So, I've now sold pretty much all my Pentax gear which included several lenses, a couple flashes and couple bodies. I can live without the gear but not sure I can do without this forum! It's great.

I shared my little gear story when I joined this forum a few years ago. I had built up a full-frame kit of Sony a850 body with some super Minolta glass. I loved the images I got but for my photographic interests which demand mobility and compactness for hiking and travel etc... the kit was too big and cumbersome. Probably my fault for collecting it all. So I switched to Pentax for its small form factor and lovely limited primes. My faves are definitely the DA15 and DA35 macro.

But a few things got me looking elsewhere, specifically to Canon. At the telephoto end I experienced some Pentax disappointments. And I also found that I missed the look I could achieve with a 35mm sensor. Canon came out with the 6D which is the same weight as the K5 and in fact I prefer it's larger grip and am ok with its slightly larger size. Then as I started looking out for lenses (the long term investment) I found the kinds of kit I was looking for. Started with the Canon 70-200 f/4 IS. Fast at f4, super-fast focussing, and light/compact in the neighbourhood of the DA*50-135.

The rest of my lens purchases are turning out to be very much in the Pentax ethos, which I find interesting.

I started with a Canon 40mm f/2.8 stm pancake. Great quality, tiny, fast.

Looking hard for a wide angle, I finally came across the Voigtlander 20mm. It's tiny, and super well made like the limiteds. Actually smaller and lighter than the DA15! And full-frame. And about the same price. And shares filters with the 40. I typically manual focus anyhow at this wide focal length.

Finally, I picked up a used, cheap 50mm f/2.5 macro. Same sort of experience as the DA35 macro which is the kind of hand-held, close-up photography I'm interested in. And with f/2.5 it can double for casual portraits too.

For my middle of the road, walk-around lens I use a Sony RX100 camera that fits in my pocket and takes really decent indoor shots for family events etc, and extremely high quality landscapes. In fact, I sold my DA21 because the RX100 usually provided about the same images outdoors. So I skip the 18-70/24-70 lens range in favour of the RX100.

So, walking around with the Canon 6D and either of the pancakes feels decidedly like a Pentax in terms of small form with a great sensor, dynamic range and, of course... full frame.

I think I've got the best of Pentax compactness and full-frame Canon imaging and AF going on with this setup. Just thought I'd share if anyone was interested.

Congrats. You bought the camera that features ever worst color separation amongs DSLRs (and mirrorless cameras) ever produced. It is beyond the limit that supposed to be acceptable.

Congrats. You bought the camera that features ever worst color separation amongs DSLRs (and mirrorless cameras) ever produced. It is beyond the limit that supposed to be acceptable.

And you know this from experience?

[jogiba]

So, I've now sold pretty much all my Pentax gear which included several lenses, a couple flashes and couple bodies. I can live without the gear but not sure I can do without this forum! It's great.

I shared my little gear story when I joined this forum a few years ago. I had built up a full-frame kit of Sony a850 body with some super Minolta glass. I loved the images I got but for my photographic interests which demand mobility and compactness for hiking and travel etc... the kit was too big and cumbersome. Probably my fault for collecting it all. So I switched to Pentax for its small form factor and lovely limited primes. My faves are definitely the DA15 and DA35 macro.

But a few things got me looking elsewhere, specifically to Canon. At the telephoto end I experienced some Pentax disappointments. And I also found that I missed the look I could achieve with a 35mm sensor. Canon came out with the 6D which is the same weight as the K5 and in fact I prefer it's larger grip and am ok with its slightly larger size. Then as I started looking out for lenses (the long term investment) I found the kinds of kit I was looking for. Started with the Canon 70-200 f/4 IS. Fast at f4, super-fast focussing, and light/compact in the neighbourhood of the DA*50-135.

The rest of my lens purchases are turning out to be very much in the Pentax ethos, which I find interesting.

I started with a Canon 40mm f/2.8 stm pancake. Great quality, tiny, fast.

Looking hard for a wide angle, I finally came across the Voigtlander 20mm. It's tiny, and super well made like the limiteds. Actually smaller and lighter than the DA15! And full-frame. And about the same price. And shares filters with the 40. I typically manual focus anyhow at this wide focal length.

Finally, I picked up a used, cheap 50mm f/2.5 macro. Same sort of experience as the DA35 macro which is the kind of hand-held, close-up photography I'm interested in. And with f/2.5 it can double for casual portraits too.

For my middle of the road, walk-around lens I use a Sony RX100 camera that fits in my pocket and takes really decent indoor shots for family events etc, and extremely high quality landscapes. In fact, I sold my DA21 because the RX100 usually provided about the same images outdoors. So I skip the 18-70/24-70 lens range in favour of the RX100.

So, walking around with the Canon 6D and either of the pancakes feels decidedly like a Pentax in terms of small form with a great sensor, dynamic range and, of course... full frame.

I think I've got the best of Pentax compactness and full-frame Canon imaging and AF going on with this setup. Just thought I'd share if anyone was interested.

The Canon 6D is huge compare to the Sony A7/A7r .

[normhead]

Every Canon user I talk too, still using canon, and that's most of the pros I know, say it's the colour that keeps them with Canon. If I say "Resolution blah blah blah", they say "colour,skin tones blah blah blah".

I'm not going to analyze that, or try and prove what they're talking about, some things you just have to look at and say, well there's something here, and if I ever get into wedding/portrait photography, I'd even give Canon a look. The fact that anything that is thrown out as a reason for this belief, can be questioned, doesn't mean there isn't anything there.

The issue for me, is more magnification for wildlife. My 400mm lens is the equivalent of 600 on FF (and with the 1.7 converter on it, it's about 1000mmFF in a very lightweight package. That's something there is just no getting around.

When I switched from Sony/Minolta full-frame to Pentax, I wrote this post: Going from full-frame to apsc: a short story.

Well, I missed the full-frame experience... but I asked myself how can I avoid all the bulk and weight? I feel like I have now solved it! (I wrote a similar post in the Non-Pentax Cameras forum but all anyone started talking about was colour rendition.)

This post is about building a compact but powerful camera kit... even with full-frame gear.

I've recently sold all of my Pentax gear in order to go full-frame. But this is still the best forum around! And Pentax I think have the best apsc system in a lot of ways. What's been most interesting to me (and this I feel is Pentax-relevant) is that I have been able to put together a full-frame Canon kit that is very much in the Pentax ethos. It's compact, built around primes and good for travel.


I bought:


A Canon 6D, which is the same weight as the K5 that I was using. A titch larger but I like the larger grip better.


The lenses have been really a satisfying find.


I picked up a Canon 40mm STM f/2.8 pancake which is just as small and light as the DA21 it sort of replaces. I forego the metal body for an ultrasonic focus motor and I get a faster aperture and more latitude with depth of focus.


I searched a lot for a wide lens. In the end I discovered the hard to get, beautiful little Voigtlander 20mm f/3.5. This is what I'm considering as a replacement for the DA15, which I had always wished was a little wider (always loved my Minolta 20mm). The Voigtlander is the same weight, metal build, and I am totally comfortable with the manual focus at this length.


I got a 50mm f/2.5 compact macro for 200 bucks used. This replaces my DA35 macro in focal length and use. It's an old, plastic body build but the optics are great, and it's that extra bit faster wide open. About the same size and build as the DFA50 macro.


All three lenses use a 52mm filter so it's a simple setup for polarizers and step-ups with my Cokin holder.


Finally, a 70-200 f/4 IS telephoto, which somewhat covers either the DA50-135 or 60-250 depending on how you look at it. It's light, fast and really sharp.


I just thought some of you current Pentax shooters might be interested in my experience with this change to full-frame but without getting big and bulky with large/heavy equipment. It's been great so far.


Here are a couple shots from this past weekend in Whitefish Montana and a quick 20-minute jaunt up to Glacier National Park to see the sunset and alpenglow. First one uses the 40mm, second one the 20mm.

[ElJamoquio]

Thanks. Will you come back into the fold when Pentax FF comes around?

[Parallax]

One thread on this is sufficient.

[Blue]

One thread on this is sufficient.

I just merged the 2 threads.

[Emacs]

And you know this from experience?

I was shocked how bad the 5d3 was in color separation in practice (compared to my NEX-5n with shots taken in similar conditions). 6d is even worse.

[LFLee]

To me Canon makes skin tones look too orange, Nikon makes them look green, and Pentax makes them ..... just right

For me Canon too red, Nikon too yellow, and Pentax.... more natural. But Fujifilm is better than Pentax in skin tone. --- looking at jpg and minimal post.

For post-process, I think Nikon file is more difficult to process, as I see yellowish Nikon files more than Canon reddish photos online.... so I guess they are more difficult to remove?

Sony seem to look closer to Canon. I would go Fujifilm if I were to switch, but then Fujifilm don't offer FF as well, so might as well stay in Pentax...