My email to Jeff:
Hello Jeff, just a quick question. Very often I hear you saying that Canon provides "low noise, great skin tone (one of the biggest issues with other manufacturers and high iso..)". Surely you talk as well about Nikon. As much I know, Nikon was always a tiny bit better in high ISO and AF then Canon. What is it that you don't like about Nikon skin tone?
Best Regards Andreas
Hello Jeff, just a quick question. Very often I hear you saying that Canon provides "low noise, great skin tone (one of the biggest issues with other manufacturers and high iso..)". Surely you talk as well about Nikon. As much I know, Nikon was always a tiny bit better in high ISO and AF then Canon. What is it that you don't like about Nikon skin tone?
Best Regards Andreas
Reply 25 November 2009 at 16:44 Jeff Ascough said...
Just for the record, Nikon approached me in June 2008 about using their gear. I took a D3 on loan shot two weddings with it, and sent it back; I didn't like the skin tones. At high ISO they looked artificial and digital. Now in the UK we have very pale, pasty, grey skin - something which Nikon didn't flatter.
To get the skin tones looking good took me a lot of time in post processing, and I wasn't alone. I know of three other world class photographers that switched to Nikon and then spent hours struggling to get the skin tones looking good. Once they got them right, they were happy. As I understand it Canon use a different method of onboard NR to Nikon, which gives Nikon the edge in terms of actual noise but at the expense of skin tone at high iso.
Just for the record, Nikon approached me in June 2008 about using their gear. I took a D3 on loan shot two weddings with it, and sent it back; I didn't like the skin tones. At high ISO they looked artificial and digital. Now in the UK we have very pale, pasty, grey skin - something which Nikon didn't flatter.
To get the skin tones looking good took me a lot of time in post processing, and I wasn't alone. I know of three other world class photographers that switched to Nikon and then spent hours struggling to get the skin tones looking good. Once they got them right, they were happy. As I understand it Canon use a different method of onboard NR to Nikon, which gives Nikon the edge in terms of actual noise but at the expense of skin tone at high iso.
So folks, here you have it. If you need to shoot pale, pasty grey skin toned people in low light conditions take a Canon, but keep in mind the noise, produced at high ISO. Otherwise you are better off with a Nikon :-)
No Response to "Jeff Ascough - skin tone Canon vs Nikon"
Post a Comment