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.

[stevebrot]

If you liked your Pentax, you should have shopped Nikon for FF.


Steve


(...planting the evil seeds of discontent...)

[RyanW]

If you liked your Pentax, you should have shopped Nikon for FF.


Steve


(...planting the evil seeds of discontent...)

If you know what grass, and skin are supposed to look like I can't see why you'd consider Nikon.

[KungPOW]

Nikon images when processed from RAW in ACR or lightroom will look flat and grey unless you adjust them with a camera profile.

This has resulted in the myth that there is something "wrong" with Nikon colours.

[Root]

A quick custom white balance takes care of color issues.

[tuco]

Nikon images when processed from RAW in ACR or lightroom will look flat and grey unless you adjust them with a camera profile.

This has resulted in the myth that there is something "wrong" with Nikon colours.

I've noticed that LR will by default set the color profile to Adobe Standard instead of one of the many Nikon camera profiles you can pick on the fly in the RAW editor. The above shots are the camera portrait profile.

[Aegon]

I think Nikon may be more accurate than Canon, but I like the look of Canon files better.

I really love the look of Canon images.

It was very jarring for me to go from a 5DC to a D600. Eventually I returned to the 5DC.

There is nothing "wrong" with NIkon that can't be fixed in post. I don't believe that Canon is "right".

But I know that I love Canon files.

I think part of it may be that Lightroom is goosed for processing Canon files. Another thing I've considered is that Canon smooths the red channel in a way that is very pleasing for skintones. Whatever the cause, I think that Canon images are seasoned with a pinch of salt and a pinch of MSG. Nikon images can be salted in Lightroom (or whatever), but it is hard to get that MSG flavor. I say this knowing that MSG is kinda weird and gross, I think Canon is also doing something strange to get where they are going.

[stevebrot]

Nikon images when processed from RAW in ACR or lightroom will look flat and grey unless you adjust them with a camera profile.

This has resulted in the myth that there is something "wrong" with Nikon colours.

You mean sort of like Pentax colors?


Steve

[RyanW]

A quick custom white balance takes care of color issues.

Not for many folks. Read StaceyK
Skin tones D4 vs D6xx: Nikon FX SLR (DF, D1-D4, D600-D800) Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review or ask any Nikon shooter than moved their from the Fuji dslr about skin tones.

[tuco]

NNikon shooter than moved their from the Fuji dslr about skin tones.

I have an XP1. Skin tones are no different between my Df/D800 and XP1 to me

[RyanW]

Nikon images when processed from RAW in ACR or lightroom will look flat and grey unless you adjust them with a camera profile.

This has resulted in the myth that there is something "wrong" with Nikon colours.

That is part of it, but not all of it in my opinion, I use Capture NX2 on with the D5000 I have and I still don't like the skin tones in many conditions. But yes, ACR doesn't do Nikon or Canon any favors. For my Canon I use DPP for raw conversion

For and example of skin and greenery in the same shot here is a nice companions. The Nikon looks far from any sort of reality. Granted I don't know what settings were used, but I've seen the same in my raw images using each vendor's raw developer and ACR
Canon colors vs Nikon colors - Canon Digital Photography Forums


Another example of the greens
green color too punchy on D5100: Nikon DX SLR (D40-D90, D3000-D7100) Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

[RyanW]

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

If you use ACR on Canon, definitely. DPP is much better. There are times where I really like the Pentax skin tones a lot. I could shoot Pentax and be perfectly happy with the colors, same with Canon, but not Nikon.

[RyanW]

I have an XP1. Skin tones are no different between my Df/D800 and XP1 to me

I can't say on the new Fuji's except for the X100 I owned. It's skin tones were ahead of my D5000. Can't say for the XTrans chips. I meant the Fuji DSLR's built by Nikon for Fuji (S2,S3 and S5), but Fuji did the color processing in them. Most of those folks migrated to Nikon and then thought the skin tones sucked.

Perfect example of what I'm talking about here
Nikon D7000 Skin Tones Problem | Fuji S5 Comparison: Nikon DX SLR (D40-D90, D3000-D7100) Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

as to you're original question a few posts back "Honestly, that's the first I've heard of that. Are these bad representation of skin tones ( sincere question I haven't used a Canon yet)? " I think those are good. They are not examples of what I've seen and don't like.

[tuco]

Perfect example of what I'm talking about here
Nikon D7000 Skin Tones Problem | Fuji S5 Comparison: Nikon DX SLR (D40-D90, D3000-D7100) Talk Forum: Digital Photography Review

And here is someone's reply in that thread which I really agree with. Computer monitors are a big factor too.

There is nothing in photography that is more subjective than color. Some like it hot, some like it cold. Some like it punchy, some like it neutral. I have yet to see a modern DSLR by any maker that wouldn't allow one to get whatever color balance they want. This whole thing about green's in this thread or skin tones in other threads is just a bunch of BS. Bottom line: If you can't use your camera's settings in combination with post processing to achieve the color balance you want then you just aren't trying very hard or are clueless about how to use your tools. Also, the very idea that color is right or wrong is incorrect. What one person sees as perfect another will find as hopelessly off. Beauty, as has been said, is in the eye of the beholder. All of this ridiculous debating about color is really nothing more than more internet forum noise.

[pinholecam]

I think Nikon may be more accurate than Canon, but I like the look of Canon files better.

I really love the look of Canon images.

It was very jarring for me to go from a 5DC to a D600. Eventually I returned to the 5DC.

There is nothing "wrong" with NIkon that can't be fixed in post. I don't believe that Canon is "right".

But I know that I love Canon files.

I think part of it may be that Lightroom is goosed for processing Canon files. Another thing I've considered is that Canon smooths the red channel in a way that is very pleasing for skintones. Whatever the cause, I think that Canon images are seasoned with a pinch of salt and a pinch of MSG. Nikon images can be salted in Lightroom (or whatever), but it is hard to get that MSG flavor. I say this knowing that MSG is kinda weird and gross, I think Canon is also doing something strange to get where they are going.

Thats the same for me too.
Between Pentax, Canon, Sony, Panasonic, I prefer the Canon for skin tones.
Something pleasing to skin tones (smooth, a bit orange... , just can't make it out)

Just yesterday, I was trying to search for a LR preset to change my A7 colors to look like my 5D colors for skin tones.

Other than that, I feel that I like Pentax colors for all other stuff.