I have been super busy working on a couple of big projects lately and this weekend I helped out Lola with her bridal work. While setting up the lights, I decided to try out and shoot with three different cameras – the Nikon D800 (see the recently published review of the Nikon D800), the Canon 5D Mark III (a full review is coming up in a couple of weeks) and the Fuji X-Pro 1 (also coming up for a review soon).
The Nikon and the Canon experience was very similar, both were stellar in terms of color, sharpness and autofocus accuracy. The Fuji X-Pro 1 produced beautiful images with great-looking skin tones, but was rather disappointing in terms of autofocus – it just could not seem to lock well to my subject in indoors environment. I will be writing about my overall impressions of the Fuji X-Pro 1 soon, but to give you a short version, I am rather disappointed by it. To be honest, I was more excited about the Fuji X-Pro 1 than I was with the Canon and Nikon cameras, because I was really hoping for a mirrorless camera that could be a great alternative to the higher-end APS-C sensor DSLRs. The Fuji X-Pro 1 just seemed to have so much potential… I guess it will be a while until we see something that good. Perhaps the second or third generation of the X-Pro? Or the upcoming Canon mirrorless?
Here is a fun game for you – all three of the below images were shot with either the Nikon D800, the Canon 5D Mark III or the Fuji X-Pro 1. Care to guess which one is which?
These are pretty much straight out of each camera.
Update: The Fuji X-Pro1 Review has been posted!
I am disalusioned by the fact that, no one has noticed the studio lights were changed and or moved. This would give the largest noticeable change !!.
Photo A. Has very little fill.
Photo B. There is no fill or the flash failed to fire.
Photo C. The fill light shows its full effect on the background.
How can this be a true representation of each camera, when there are such huge differences in the lighting falling on the model and seen just by simply viewing the background, or does anyone believe different cameras can somehow change the studio lights ?. If they are moved, this is not an objective test ?…
What is amazing to me is that people have such strong opinion about what skin tones look like from different brands, but most of them are genuinely wrong. Which proves my point that people are subjective about what constitutes good skin tones to them.
For example, the Canon biased crowd though that the first Image must be Nikon because of the green and yellow cast. Some of them thought that the first one is Canon is because it Popped more.
Most other people thought that Fuji was the bottom one because, from what I understood, since Fuji produces the best skin-tones, this is what they look like, so they erroneously voted for Nikon.
So can we conclude now that Nikon does not have skin-tones problems as the usual mantra suggests?
I knew that first one was the canon. it tends to make skin tones brownish instead of pinkish.
Some comments seem doesn’t accept that aps format can compete with full size format due to its brand. LOL
and i guess nasim would like to compete the auto white balance capability for each camera cause if he set the custom then the result become really almost same. i guess
Why don’t you use same proper custom white balance for these images ?
1. Canon
2. Nikon
3. Fujifilm
1. Nikon
2. Fuji
3. Canon
1. Canon
2. Fuji
3. Nikon
Canon
Fuji
Nikon…
okay what is the correct answer?
Nikon (great details)
Canon (best colours of skin)
Fuji (best field of depth)
That would be my guess, however
1.Nikon
2.Canon
3.Fuji