« The Editor is a Goof | Main | What Artists Have a Right to Expect »

Wednesday, 02 November 2011

Comments

Especially baby skin tones are a very critical test. My order of preference (own and use all):
Kodak Portra 160 (yes, analog with Contax 645 or N1)
Nikon D700
Canon 5D Mk2

The DSLR's smoothen the skin too much, especially color nuances. That's fine if you want a plastic face, but I prefer to start with every tonality present and if you want to 'improve' on that, do it in post-processing.

Mike: no pro here,but this is a pretty tricky question as there are so many variables in the digi-food chain. My one data point: the files from my Nikon D3 have always really pleased me on the skin-tone question on (sRGB RAW files converted with LR3 or Adobe Camera Raw default settings). Caveats: we are talking natural light portraits of caucasian skin (Vermont, here). For my purposes the D3 and a 105/2 DC are just the ticket. FWIW, I think the lens is as important as the camera for your question. D3 Competition on my photo-shelf = M9, Olympus EP-2, Panasonic G2, Nex-5, which all require a little tweaking.

You do like opening those cans of worms don't you :)

With many of us using raw format as our basis the final image is whatever our personal tastes or preferences tend to be. I'm not sure I can say with 100% surety that say for instance canon is better than nikon on skin tones.

That is why many of us would like to see DNG become the standard raw format , (just sightly off subject).

I've found my A850 renders skin tones quite nicely. And for that matter color in general on the A850.

Olympus E20 (long out of production). Colors, including skin tones, look like Kodachrome II shot with a Leica Elmar. Just beautiful!

Dear Mike Johnston

All cameras perform equally well from a viewers perspective, pick whatever you feel like.

Best regards,
The (fake)real Mike Johnston

I imagine it comes down to three things: (1) sensor layout - traditional bayer, Foveon, Fuji EXR, etc; (2) Lenses; or (3) processing.

• Only the sensor is a function of the camera. So maybe choose the sensor that's "best"?

• Regarding lenses, I really like the Zeiss lenses for skin. Of them, my favorite is the CZ 85/1.4 ZA. Prior to this lens I used the Minolta 85/1.4 G and I couldn't imagine it being bettered by the CZ. I was wrong. Its sharp (which isn't always a good thing when it comes to skin) but its a tad cooler than the Minolta 85/1.4G.
• Processing... This is probably the most significant contributor.

p.s. Fuji's sensors have long been cited for their dynamic range and image quality. I wish I could get the image results of my X100 with the ergonomic benefits of a DSLR.

I get the best skin tones with my Nikon F6 and the 85mm f1.4 Nikon and Plus-X.

1) Fuji S5
2) D2h (outside, no flash)
3) D2x (ISO 100)
4) D7000, d3100 (tie)
5) Olympus Pen series

Watching a program online a while back and the pro photographer said he always used the cloudy day 'while balance' selection when doing portraits outside.

Haven't tried it yet.

Don't know what camera or cameras he used.

I have heard that the Fujifilm S5 Pro produces some of the best skin tones. I do not have any personal experience with it though.

Mike, I shoot with both a Canon 7D and Nikon D300 and have found the skin tones rendered by the Nikon to be more pleasing, at least to my eye and the eyes of my customers. The skin tones from the Canon appear to be a little harsher

Of the cameras I've actually used, I can say that the Nikon D700 far outperforms my Canon 40D or 20D when it comes to rendering not just skin tones but colors in general. I find the D700's color is natural and flattering straight out of the camera, whereas the 40D/20D requires more tweaking in Lightroom.

Perhaps not the fairest comparison, especially when considering price points and tech specs, but these are my conclusions based on actually using these cameras in the field. I have not had the opportunity to compare other cameras.

Consensus? you have got to be kidding.

I adore my D3 and D700, but neither have the skin tones quite right compared to my old Fujifilm S5 Pro (which ended up helping me pay for the D700). For that matter what I have seen of the Fujifilm X100 it continues that tradition of great skin tones and white balance.

The D3/D700 always seem to get the skin a little too cool, almost like Kodachrome at times but without the red/magenta cast to compensate. Nothing a little adjustment in Lightroom can't fix.

I can tell you which camera does not have good skin tones and that would be Nikon D7000. It is possible to extract great skin tones from it but it requires a lot of effort.

FWIW: Ken Rockwell has been loving the skin tones produced by the fuji x100...

95% of the 'top end' of fashion photographers shoot Canon. I'm just sayin'.

My feeling is it's more about the bokeh than the skin tones, though. If the skin tones thing is different between manufacturers, significantly so, it's all worked out in the profiles and subsequent Photoshop manipulations.

Speaking about DSLRs, Fuji used to be #1, and then Olympus. The X100 has the best skin tones i can see, right now.

The smart-ass consensus is probably Kodak Portra. A little more seriously, I recall that skin tone was one of the lauded features of the Fuji DSLRs that were based on Nikon bodies. That and more dynamic range. In fact, those bodies seemed to appeal mostly to wedding photographers. But then, you're probably asking about more current gear, about which I know not much, so I'll shut up now.

Photoshop (speaking as a pro fashion retoucher for 20 years).

(OT alert)

...well, I think it's my trusty old FM10 with Ilford FP4+ pulled 1/3 stop in D-76.

;)

If you read Kirk Tuck he often talks about his old Kodak DSLR as the gold standard for skin tones, and he also likes his old Canon 1Ds Mark 2 as well I think. I use as Oly E5 and to my eyes the skin tones are spot on in raw if I have the white balance right, and also just right in jpeg with the "natural" setting, perhaps with the saturation at -1. The only dslr I've seen give trouble with skin tones is the 5D mark II, which a friend has and gives orange tones under certain indoor light that he finds difficult to correct, but obviously plenty of pros use that camera for weddings and it works well.

5D classic gets good reviews.

Nikon D3s is great unless adobe gets ahold of it and ruins it like they do all Nikon files

For 35m digital, I'd say Fuji had the best for a long time. For medium format, Leaf backs had the best skin tones hands down.

Of course, I've gone back to film and use Portra for 90% of my color portrait work.

Rolleiflex, Verichrome, HC110 dil. B.

Oh... you meant color? 105/2.5 Nikkor, Kodachrome.

:P

I've heard good things about Finepix S5 from wedding photographers, but no personal experience.

should the question be clarified that it relates to JPG rendition within the camera? otherwise, is it that skin tonality corrections in RAW could render other colours "out of balance"?

(sorry if this sound dense... though I already had my coffee!)

Nikon D3/D3s with Zeiss glass.

I photograph weddings and used to use Nikons (D700, D3s) and now use Canon 5DIIs. I find skin tones with the Canon warmer and more 'human'. Nikon skin tones are not quite as pleasing without a little work.

Hi Mike,
On his site, Ken Rockwell loudly and repeatedly sings the praises of the Fuji X-100 as the king of skin tone accuracy. While I think Ken is a more than a bit "enthusiastic" in his use of saturation settings (in my opinion) he has a number of samples and makes a compelling case in support of that camera for accurate color rendition when it comes to skin tones and in general. I use a 5D MKII and think it does a respectable job as well, but it is a bit challenged in Auto white balance with tungsten lighting. Go look at Ken's site and see what you think. He's convinced me to rent an x-100 just to find out if it is as good as he claims. If that Fuji had an interchangeable lens, I'd have already bought it...

Fuji Frontier Scanner with Fuji Pro400h.

Which race are you talking about? White, Black, Chinese etc etc. Bright sun, shade, flash?? Either Nikon or Canon will give you excellent skin tones. Any tweaking can be done in post.

The Canon 5D Mark II appears to be the overwhelming choice for wedding photographers, followed by the Nikon D700 in the Wedding groups on Flickr. I think these guys are interested in skin tones. It appears to me, that the Canon sensor tends to be a touch warmer than the cooler or more neutral Nikon (Sony) sensor.

Nowadays many camera's are excellent for skin tones. It really comes down to using the right RAW converter to get the truest tones.

In 35mm:
1. Canon: Excellent skin tones using ACR based raw converters, especially when you use L glass. It seems like Adobe put some effort into keeping happy it's most likely users.

2. Nikon: Excellent skin tones using ACR if you use custom profiles otherwise skin tones tend to lean RED. In Capture One, Nikon camera's look pretty good without many modification.

3. Sony: Excellent skin tones using ACR if you use custom profiles otherwise skin tones lean RED. In Capture One skin tones come out perfect SOOC.

4. Leica: Using the M9 skin tones look best when using DXO for RAW conversion. The M8 will require some tweaking no matter what you use but in general you have to correct for blue and green.

5. Pentax: Seems to look pretty good in ACR and Aperture. Not so much in Capture One in my opinion. Seems to make the image look 2-dimensional.

In Medium Format:
When Phase One started to create their own backs with Kodak they modified the color algorithm to lean more towards blue. I find it harder to correct than Kodak branded backs which leaned yellowish /red. At any rate you need to use Capture One with these backs. The IQ drop off is too steep otherwise.

In Film:
Fuji 400h - If scanned using the right profiles it produces beautiful skin tones.

New Portra 160 - Excellent skin tones with the added bonus of being a very forgiving film. This film holds up well overexposed by 3 stops and underexposed by 2.


The Canon 5DII does luscious skin tones. Just have to back off the red saturation a wee bit, depending on your white balance setting.

..for me, Olympus ooc jpegs (setting on "natural") beat the heck out of anything other then film, when it comes to skin color rendering at low iso.

Are we talking pleasing skin tones or accurate ones?

cjb,
Pleasing.

Mike

The Fuji S series and X100 really have pretty, pretty skin tones(for all types of skin), and my D7000 has wonderful skin tones for my wife, kids,and her family, but not so great for my side. But she's Chinese and I'm American mutt:) Similar to the output of my wee Canon dye-sub. Amazing skin tones for asian skin, whereas whitey mcwhiteies like me need a bit of printing help:)

...tested the Canon 60D and the Nikon D90 before I bought, went with the Nikon against my better judgment, but it DOES look better, just funkier to use and a lot of teething problems with this thing, might be the Edsel of borderline pro-sumer digital cameras...

...still use filters though, to get it exactly where I want it....

That said, years ago I had some older Olympus digital stuff, and the colors out of that for skin tones was pretty amazing, better than either of the two above, if I was not erroneously steered off the 4/3rd's chip by a so-called 'expert', I might have bought something from them, and you know, I STILL might buy something from them and can the Nikon...

I would think, that the "Joyful nudes" photographers would be expert, in that particular area.
:)

Mike,it looks like most digital cameras do a good job rendering skin tone in a pleasing way. My question would be for weddings. Which makeup on woman, photograph the best and give a natural human look. My problem years ago with film was you could get the face right but the neck tones would do there own thing. No two skin tones are the same and do we really want that really white northern person looking like a sheet of paper and the Floridian a dark toast color, don't think so. Thats why B&W was so popular in the dark ages of photography. Just kidding. I think the new Canon 1D X
Will be a real winner in this department.

Criminy, I have to answer based on stuff I own and not stuff I imagine owning? How's that fair?

In the digital realm my venerable Kodak P880 and my spanking new Oly E-5 stand out for delivering lovely skintones. My oddest entrant is surely the Sigma DP1s, which is baffling to me for its color inconsistency (not that 28mm eq is great for portraits, but still).

In my film days I really, really liked Kodak VPS 120 shot with the 'blad 150mm Sonnar. Lovely combo that I don't believe I ever replicated with 35mm.

Cheers,

Rick

In short, although it isn't an objective appraisal, I found that the lenses made more of a difference on the three digitals I have used (and always on 'Normal' camera setting rather than, say, 'Portrait').
Sony A900 with Minolta lenses, e.g. 70-210, 50 and 28-85 were pretty pleasing. Not good at all with the Sigma lenses I tried - yellow/green murk, whilst the Tamron 28-75 f2.8 tended a little red. I also found that an old M42 mount 50mm with an adapter did a pleasing job, but I can't remember the make and, similarly, on my Nikon D80 the old manual primes were very good - more neutral and 'open'. I recently tried my 50mm M mount Summicron on my Nex 3 and it too was very pleasing: but that was just a few indoor shots.
In my limited experience, I found lenses to make more of a colour difference on sensors than with film. A Fuji S5 has recently come into the shop and I am keen to see if it performs as people say.

Regards, Mark Walker.

The last wedding I covered I used my usual Nikon gear and, for the first time, a newly acquired Fujifilm X100. The client preferred the Nikon pictures, I liked the X100's.

Mike,

You realize you've so far had people voting for Nikon, Canon, Fuji, Olympus, Sony, Kodak, and any number of films? Even Panasonic and Pentax got a look-in.

I suggest you go with the Ferrari 599.

S

CCDs generate better color. I'm now completely convinced of this; in fact, I think Nikon in particular changed their color processing algorithms when they went to CMOS. I simply can't get what I like out of D3 and later Nikons. Everything comes out too cool.

(... and medium format, and Leica...)

"Skin tone" rendering belongs to a family of terms such as "microcontrast" and "presence," which are on the verge of meaninglessness. They're subjective ways to talk about objective image metrics.

When you see "nice skin tones," what you're really seeing is nice lighting, pleasing contrast levels, good RAW conversion, or an attractive subject.

For my hobbyist use: (reflects Marion's comments)
1. D700 with ACR with Camera v3 beta profiles, Mode II if I remember correctly. Seems to match Capture One defaults.
2. Capture One defaults with Sony Nex-5N
3. Fuji X100 in Astia mode (loved the Jpeg processing, but didn't enjoy the camera operation)

Adding to Eric Rose's thoughts...

Are we talking babies, kids, teens, adults or geriatrics?

I don't think the camera matters. For most people subjects, it is how well you smear the petroleum jelly over the front element of your lens.

I'm a RAW enthusiast, always saying you can get whatever you want in post, but the Fuji X100 raw files absolutely have more pleasing skin tone than my Canon 5D. Even in the RAW, and while I can improve both, I can never make the 5d's look as good as the X100's.

Dear Mike,

What is missing in this thread, apart from the 'I own the XXX and it's pretty good' replies is an in-depth analysis by Professor Pixelpeeper. And when it is posted, I'll happily skip it.

Cheers, Peter

I can't really comment on this as I only own one camera (Panasonic Lx3). But having observed the huge effect that lighting has on skin tones, is this not be a bigger factor?

I've never owned one but the sample images I've seen from Fuji cameras over the years have always struck me as being especially nice in terms of skintone. But that's just my humble opinion, and I have to disclose that I've always loved their films.

The answer to your question....

No.

:)

Why, the consensus would obviously be NikonCanonOlympusPentaxSonyPortraKodachromeVelviaLeicaPhaseOneRicohPanasonicSamsungZeissIkonExataKodakPolaroidHolgaAdnEveryDamnCameraMakerThereEverWas.

Not until my D700 (my fourth digital camera) did I feel like I could quit looking for a good portrait camera. My 80-200 2.8 paired with this camera make a great combination that I've been pleased with. I imagine that the software, pre-print, and printing have more to do with it than anything else. I have the Fuji X100 but seriously, who uses a 35mm equivalent lens for portraits very often?

The Canon 5D (mk I) does great (caucasian) skin tones in daylight or flash shooting RAW and converted using Capture One Pro. (Lightroom has been catching up, but in most images I find C1 is clearly better.) The colors break up somewhat over ISO 800.

I'd agree with some of the comments above that the lens matters. I find the 70-200mm f2.8 L is awesome, with the 100 mm f2.8 L macro close behind. The 24-105 mm f4 L is nice taken by itself, but not even in the same league in direct comparison.

When shooting JPEG, the Olympus E-P1 is great with "natural" settings in daylight and at low ISOs.

Neither accurate nor pleasing skin tones are a property hard-wired into the camera.

Very brief, in a nutshell: If you want accurate colours, take your camera (brand doesn't matter) and shoot a Gretag Macbeth colour chart. Download the free DNG Profile Editor from the Adobe website. Use it to read the colour chart and create a profile for your camera. Load the profile into Lightroom and use it to convert your RAW files.

If you want pleasing colours, you can tweak the colour profile in the DNG Profile Editor manually until you get what you like. Save the profile and use it to convert your portraits.

Or, you can use the countless sliders in Lightroom and Photoshop to get what you want.

Make of camera, brand of lens, phase of the moon are irrelevant. Sorry. :-)

I find my D700 best renders skin tones in all kinds of light, followed closely by the D200. I've spent the last 18 months trying to get close to that gold standard with my Panasonic GF1, using all manner of custom profiles and Lightroom tweaking. All to no avail. So I'm selling it.

I'm watching the X10 closely as it may be the perfect compact shooter for casual people work, based on what I've seen so far. Keeping my fingers crossed....

I find the RAW converter has more to do with pleasing colors than the sensor. If you want to see how big a difference use Nikon D3, for example, and make a portrait. Then open the file in the Adobe product of your choice (all settings at default). Then open the same file with Nikon Capture NX2. The file opened in ACR (Adobe's RAW converter) can be made to look even better than the one opened in Capture but it'll take quite a while tweaking settings.

I use a custom profile in Lightroom and Photoshop so that I don't have to suffer with Capture NX2 or do much tweaking.

Is this a racially specific question?

Is it even a relevant question?

Is it a measurable question?

Is it subject to perceptual bias? (i.e. would it require blind testing to eliminate the viewer's unconscious bias about particular cameras or size or type of cameras or reputation of cameras?)

If I may just throw a spanner in the works, doesn't the look of skin tones not only depend on which camera and software you are using, but also the monitor and calibration of that monitor you are looking at and/or the printer you are using to print and view those tones? Just wondering ....

Marlon Richardson (and Benjamin Marks and others) answer may or may not be correct - but I really like that approach to the question.

Considering cameras I own.
Fuji S5
Olympus Pen
Nikon D2h

Mike,

After assisting and working with some of biggest names in the commercial portraiture world, the majority of the photographers only care about two things: noise and resolution. The majority of them shoot with Canons or Hasselblads (with Phase One backs) and shoot tethered into Capture One. From there they basically apply some curves and light post work to get the tones they want.

So basically, to succinctly answer your question, there is no general consensus because they're not looking for the tones. They can find and make their own tones in post. Factors such as flash sync, resolution and noise levels appear to be more important than tonal range (since the majority of cameras out now all record skin tones pretty damn well).

In the 80s I burned through a thousand feet or so of 70mm Aerial Panotomic-X that I got really cheap which turned out to be spectacular for portraits on account of it's extended red sensitivity.
Except with some red haired women with strobe where it would almost see right through the skin to the blood vessels.

Get yer Plus-X at Freestyle...it's called "Arista Premium 100" and sells for $1.89 a roll (24 exposures only).

I'd hoard it for myself, but my freezer also contains food. Just bought 20 rolls, which'll feed my occasional film habit for a bit.

Mike, I'd only be interested in hearing opinions from wedding and portrait professionals who have recent experience with more than one current generation system.

Photographers need some time familiarising with RAW files and developing a PP workflow that gives the most pleasing result.
As manufacturers play leapfrog with sensor and image processing technology, what is best at the moment may be second best next month or year. A photographer who has refined a workflow with Brand A may get more pleasing results than another using Brand B's more recently released product.

I suspect that means there's no clear winner.

For what it's worth, for previous generation sensors Fuji's DSLRs were frequently mentioned for having better DR and more pleasing colour amongst wedding photographers.

I think most wedding and portrait photographers are locked into their lens investments and are therefore unlikely to have current experience with a competitor's products, and so unable to provide an informed opinion.

For film, I like Portra 160.

Kodak Portra 160
Kodak Portra 400

(the new emulsions)

My apologies you asked what digital cameras do the best skin tones... I have nothing to qualify an answer with.

cheers.

Dam, I just read back through the comments after posting.. there are a lot of us filmies commenting today.

#filmisnotdead

#filmies-could-be-worst-handle-ever

Mike,

Are you or anyone tabulating the results?

I've got no complaints about the skin tones I get with my Kodak SLR/n.

Mike, being a Pentaxian I should say that in my personal humble view the most pleasing skin tones were produced by K10D. Close second comes K-5. Between Canon and Nikon I prefer Canon rendition of skin tones. In general though I do prefer warmer color rendering. Specifically in case of skin tones, it seems that Nikon has a tendency to overdo yellows. Or at least the photos that I've seen, which is by no means a sufficiently large representative set.

In sooth, Mike, that's the oddest question you asked. Which camera produce the most pleasing skin tones? That of mine of course. If I shoot people or portraits, would I use anything but the best one for the job?

What skin tone, oh yee WASPs? Since skin tones can widely differ as one look on a regular New York (or any city in so neatly globalises world) street could convey.

Now back to the Caucasian skin.

Eh, my GF1 say's skin tones, do humans have skins, never gave that a thought. But in Silky I have a skintone tool to correct that ommision. Now that makes it a bit better, but not that much. Especially if people are depicted in raw sunlight things can get ugly due to the tendency to redden up the skins (even with correction).

Eh, Velvia 50 cannot be advised either (duuuh) but Porta 160 indeed ROCKS big time using a 250mm on a GX680, if you scan properly that is, with a IT8 target and SilverFast created color profile.

Greetings, Ed

Definitely the one and only - Fuji S5.

What is a 'pleasing skin tone' please? This was obviously something Michael Jackson was after. I wonder if he shot canon or Nikon?

Dont know about consensus, but i will thow in that in my experience the new portra films are really good (160 better, obviously, but i also like the 400). Digital has a hard time competing with the filters built into color film, which are remarkable in stripping away environmental color contamination from skin tones. But, my canon cameras do okay in general, as long as they arent overexposed, which is very easy to do--the camera metering will fail more often than not, and even an lcd histogram that looks totally safe is sometimes horribly wrong (notwithstanding everything digital i do in raw). I suspect that unwittingly blown channels account for a lot of the variation in the 'camera x has terrible skin tones' stories. Maybe not even obviously 'blown'; some colors simply dont look right unless they are Exposed in the middle (or below the middle) of the histogram.

My m9 is easier to expose properly, and i usually like the results i can get from it, except under bad flourescent or sodium/etc lighting, which it doesnt handle well for skin, specifically. Most people dont consider the leica to be great with skin colors, though. At least it doesnt blur away detail into a digiplastic haze.

Fwiw, it seems to me that going off the covers at the magazine store i was at yesterday, no one knows what they think skin should look like anymore. Lined up next to each other, you would think the various visages--some of the same celebrity/model--portrayed vastly different species. This may go double for wedding pros, who often seem to resort to 'actions' that produce stylized and usually well-received skin renderings which, however, bear not the slightest resemblance to reality. (consequently, i dont find them especially 'pleasing'.)

Marlon Richardson wrote:

"In Film:
Fuji 400h - If scanned using the right profiles it produces beautiful skin tones."

I would like to hear more about this scanning procedure. As far as I know, there isn't any profiles for color negative films.

I have found scanning of color negatives very frustrating when compared to color slides.

Of spotty teenagers? Probably a Dianna that has been dropped a few times.

Depends largely on lighting, RAW converter, and profiles used, but i generally like the results from my D700 and A900. My 4/3 and m4/3 RAW files are noticeably worse, and Canon P&S RAW files doubly so. The main trend i am seeing is that the size of the sensor matters.

One trick i have found that helps with skin tones in incandescent lighting is to use an 80B or 80C filter. This was a tip i picked up from Joe Wisniewski on DPR forums, and i have to say that it works quite well.

I've noticed that the Adobe Standard profile in ACR / Lightroom tends to make skin tones more reddish than the old ACR and camera mfr profiles.

Try using the old ACR or camera mfr profiles for shots in incandescent lighting but use the Adobe Standard profile for shots in fluorescent lighting or indoors during the day where the light from the windows might have a cool greenish tint, as it handles these lighting conditions better.

@Jukka - I use a pro lab for my color negative film. But just to give you an idea of what some labs are able to get using the Frontier and Noritzu.

http://www.richardphotolab.com/scancomparison/

Personally, I don't think any digital can touch either of these....

Pentax K20D (+ FA 77ltd.) Hands down.

Well, this thread sold one X100 for Fuji. I'll let you know. ;-)

Of the cameras I've shot portrait more than 1000 frames, considering open shade shots, using Apple's RAW processing within Aperture:

Pentax K10D -- Canon 5D mkII -- gap -- Pentax K-5 -- Pentax K20D/Pentax K-7

The difference between the first two and the last three isn't large, however, and most times post-processing and/or tweaking can close it.

Now, when the light changes, and especially in tungsten:

Pentax K-5 -- Pentax K20D/Pentax K-7 -- gap -- Canon 5D mkII -- Pentax K10D


I do agree with the assertion that CCDs do seem to have the edge over CMOS sensors -- in low ISOs -- although I haven't used any later CCDs to see if they've kept their edge. I also think certain lenses render skintone pleasingly; e.g. the Pentax DA35 is nice, the FA77 is nice, the fabled Canon 70-200 2.8 is nice too; the Canon 50mm 1.4 OTOH and e.g. isn't as nice.

Better than X100 is leica X1 at 11 ounces

We use digi cams today (well, most of us) and you can set them up the way you want. Most people like shooting beauty shots with more smoothness and a softer color set-up as the starting point and handle the rest in post. Just about every pro camera allows you to set-up the cam file how you want. The make of the camera is less of an issue today. I shoot with the Olympus E3 (soon to be E5) and I'm delighted with it. See, I'm an odd ball, but I can set it to give me what I want for any subject. That is my two cents.

I can't hear anything over the sound of how aweosme this article is.

The comments to this entry are closed.