Canon vs. rest - skin tones / Leica SL2 / ARRI

[jcs]

I've found Canon stills cameras (not cinema!) have excellent skin tones compared to Sony, Panasonic, and Fuji. While the other brands can do OK in some cases, overall in many different lighting conditions, especially mixed, Canon (still cameras) have performed the best (stills and video). Examples of what I'm talking about (Canon vs. Sony, written in 2018): https://petapixel.com/2018/10/09/is-sonys-color-science-really-that-bad/

For video, I still have to "fix" Canon color and tone curves (custom picture style). After trying the Leica SL2 today (will record video in the near future) and studying the published stills, it looks like for the first time there's a camera that's better than Canon for skin tones SOOC (stills + video camera). Maybe they poached some ARRI engineers or got them moonlighting when developing their microlenses/CFA and color science! Nice to see tiny companies doing amazing work vs. the big guys!

 

[rob norton]

I've found Canon stills cameras (not cinema!) have excellent skin tones compared to Sony, Panasonic, and Fuji. While the other brands can do OK in some cases, overall in many different lighting conditions, especially mixed, Canon (still cameras) have performed the best (stills and video). Examples of what I'm talking about (Canon vs. Sony, written in 2018): https://petapixel.com/2018/10/09/is-sonys-color-science-really-that-bad/

For video, I still have to "fix" Canon color and tone curves (custom picture style). After trying the Leica SL2 today (will record video in the near future) and studying the published stills, it looks like for the first time there's a camera that's better than Canon for skin tones SOOC (stills + video camera). Maybe they poached some ARRI engineers or got them moonlighting when developing their microlenses/CFA and color science! Nice to see tiny companies doing amazing work vs. the big guys!

jcs, you mean tiny companies by comparison, not outright tiny companies?

I don't know much about company sizes but it seems like Leica and Arri are a similar sized company in revenue and number of employees? Or are you just referring to C/S/P are the big guys? Leica Arri Canon Sony

Anyway, I'd love to see some SOOC videos. The SL2 sounds like a cool camera so far!

 

[jcs]

jcs, you mean tiny companies by comparison, not outright tiny companies?

I don't know much about company sizes but it seems like Leica and Arri are a similar sized company in revenue and number of employees? Or are you just referring to C/S/P are the big guys?

Leica
Arri
Canon
Sony

Anyway, I'd love to see some SOOC videos. The SL2 sounds like a cool camera so far!

Yeah, > 10x smaller (employees: 1.8K) than e.g. Canon (197K) and Panasonic (274K).

There's a Leica store < .5mi from my home- when I have free time (typically on the weekend), I'll bring this little TLCI/Ra >= 95 cube light and a memory card and get some video footage. I've shot a lot of tests with the EOS R with that light: excellent quality for skin tones and works surprisingly well without any diffusion (hitting 200-320 ISO at the lowest setting (rated at 25hrs per charge!? (1 hr at highest setting)) in total darkness at F2.8).

The SL2 is kinda like an EOS R at the 1DX level, if the 1DX was mirrorless (1DX III won't be mirrorless and will be the same big&heavy body). The SL2 + lenses isn't light compared to the EOS R though.

Sigma is developing L lenses (e.g. 24-70 F2.8; no price yet; guessing around $1k) so perhaps the lens options won't be so spendy as time goes on (with the option of buying/renting Leica lenses for highest quality).

It's technically possible to adapt Canon EF lenses to Leica L, however reading reviews of existing products they aren't usable yet (barely for stills, no AF-C for video). If Leica can work with the adapter folks and get EF lenses working, that will help sell SL2 bodies (which will then translate to Leica lens sales as people discover how good the Leica lenses are and want to upgrade).

 

[jcs]

Some good example footage here (mixed good with over-exposed/questionable post; with proper exposure log should retain bright areas and skin tones at the same time). What's clear is that when exposed correctly, skin tones look really great. AF and digital IS also appeared to work well (this reviewer is using the camera for the first time):

There's a bunch of Panasonic and Sigma lenses for L-mount...

Looks like this camera is going to do very well (EDIT: for stills; looks like it's doing line skipping vs. resampling for video; AF reported not as good as cheaper S1R (which doesn't have as good color)).

 

[Bassman2003]

Thanks for the comparison JCS. It is nice to see a fellow color seeker! I have always used the Adobe DNG profiler and made my own custom color profiles to dial in the purples and pretty much every color. I generally leave the skin tone areas alone for my Canon cameras 5D mk II & III. They are the best. These are the fine details that put newcomer companies on the back foot so to speak. Just because a company can make a camera with great specs does not mean it will be a better choice for pro people photography. Sadly, I feel this gets glossed over in the hype machine.

Given how much I like the Canon cameras for stills, it has been so disappointing to continue to watch the video side of the hybrid market get their second or third best. The workflow and risks were not optimal, but when I shot with the 5DMKIII RAW video, I was able to apply my stills color profile to the video and the camera had awesome color. Would love to see the pro version of the mirrorless R series have serious color but I gave up on Canon for video in this space many years ago...

 

[Bassman2003]

Watched the video and the color does look nice. I will have a closer look beyond the prices of Leica gear! Wish it had a flippy screen though.

 

[Imamacuser]

I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but I think that Canon throws way too much red into the mid tones, which can look good on very pale people, and also look bad on people with more saturated skin tones.

I also think that much of the hype surrounding Canon's skin tones is due to many people using un-calibrated monitors that lean heavily blue, and the extra red helps the skin tones look more natural, all be it on the magenta side.

My opinion is based on using the following cameras:
Canon Video enabled cameras: XL-2, 7D, 5D MK II, 60D, T2i, T3i.
Canon stills cameras: 10D, 20D, 30D, 40D, original 5D, 1D MK II.

 

[morgan_moore]

(this reviewer is using the camera for the first time):

this reviewer is using a camera for the first time

 

[Bassman2003]

I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but I think that Canon throws way too much red into the mid tones, which can look good on very pale people, and also look bad on people with more saturated skin tones.

I also think that much of the hype surrounding Canon's skin tones is due to many people using un-calibrated monitors that lean heavily blue, and the extra red helps the skin tones look more natural, all be it on the magenta side.

My opinion is based on using the following cameras:
Canon Video enabled cameras: XL-2, 7D, 5D MK II, 60D, T2i, T3i.
Canon stills cameras: 10D, 20D, 30D, 40D, original 5D, 1D MK II.

I agree to some extent, but I think the red/magenta mids applies more to the video than stills. It has to be specified because the video side of Canon's still camera line has always had poor color imho. Nowhere in the same ballpark as the C-Series video cameras. I am also a strong advocate of shooting RAW stills with a gray card in a similar frame. White balance is so often wrong when chosen by the camera when shooting people. Color is tricky no doubt.

 

[Imamacuser]

I also liked the GL2's color better than the XL2's color.

I know that color is somewhat subjective, and accurate color might not always be aesthetically pleasing, but I think I'd prefer it to be accurate to reality rather than skewed to someones idea of aesthetically pleasing.

 

[John Brawley]

Ahhh..

In Photography circles I think you'll find most Leica users have talked about both the sensors and lenses being as unique and "bestest" as anything else out there. Maybe it's because they feel obligated to because of the prices paid ?

I own many Leica cameras and lenses, both film and digital.

Within the M users, there's a still long running debate about the legendary M9 camera having the "best" colour....many say it's because it used a Leica tuned variant of the KAF Kodak made CCD sensor.

http://gear.vogelius.se/-editorials/leica-m9/index.html

This guy even is trying to petition Leica to keep making a CCD version of the M series camera
https://prosophos.com/2013/11/16/an-open-letter-to-leica/

I own the M8 (their first digital camera and an APS sized version of the same sesnor), the M-E (basically the same as the M9) and I also own the M10 (their current CMOS sensor) and I also the the Leica S-E (the Medium format version of the M9 CCD sesnor)

I also own a bunch of other digital cameras and I'm even an Olympus Visionary, (for motion imaging) but there's something inherently satisfying going back to the Leica cameras.

I like the older M8 and M9 but the limited DR of the sensor and it's low light performance make it harder to use and I do really like the M10 now.

I often use the M8 as a "teaching camera". On every show, there's always one of the junior assistant that gets really curious, often after I've sent out my weekly burst of photos (something I like to do for the crew) and they will start to ask me questions about the Leica. I just hand them the M8 and teach them a couple of basics and tell them to try it for a week.

This is a camera that is actually an ANCIENT dinosaur in digital camera terms but it still takes a hell of a photo and usually it's it's "colour" that is most often commented upon.

I would say, Leica don't take "accurate" colour. They have their own personality, like a film stock and thats a GOOD thing.

That said, the Leica SL wasn't a camera that impressed me as much and I couldn't figure out why it never wow'd me as much as the M (small size ?) or the S (larger sensor ?)

JB

 

[Guest]

L-Log! Do I stutter?!

 

[DLD]

Ahhh.. there's something inherently satisfying going back to the Leica cameras.

JB

There are no such things as "Leica cameras"!

(a bit of German trivia ... much like "Alles klar, Herr Kommissar")

FWIW, SL-2 has an old Sony sensor (the same as in S1R) but it's likely to have a different color filter array, if for no other reason than to separate itself from S1R.

 

[jcs]

Thanks for the comparison JCS. It is nice to see a fellow color seeker! I have always used the Adobe DNG profiler and made my own custom color profiles to dial in the purples and pretty much every color. I generally leave the skin tone areas alone for my Canon cameras 5D mk II & III. They are the best. These are the fine details that put newcomer companies on the back foot so to speak. Just because a company can make a camera with great specs does not mean it will be a better choice for pro people photography. Sadly, I feel this gets glossed over in the hype machine.

Given how much I like the Canon cameras for stills, it has been so disappointing to continue to watch the video side of the hybrid market get their second or third best. The workflow and risks were not optimal, but when I shot with the 5DMKIII RAW video, I was able to apply my stills color profile to the video and the camera had awesome color. Would love to see the pro version of the mirrorless R series have serious color but I gave up on Canon for video in this space many years ago...

Yeah ML raw showed what was really possible for video- with 2012 tech! After I optimized color for the 1DX II for video using custom picture styles, I did my best with the C300 II (using built-in system- no custom picture styles possible). What I found was that the customized 1DX II color surpassed what I could do with the C300 II. I've now customized color for the EOS R in the same way- a bit closer to the ARRI look with these comparatively tiny cameras. Perhaps the Leica SL2 gets closer out of the box.

I'm sure I'm in the minority here, but I think that Canon throws way too much red into the mid tones, which can look good on very pale people, and also look bad on people with more saturated skin tones.

I also think that much of the hype surrounding Canon's skin tones is due to many people using un-calibrated monitors that lean heavily blue, and the extra red helps the skin tones look more natural, all be it on the magenta side.

My opinion is based on using the following cameras:
Canon Video enabled cameras: XL-2, 7D, 5D MK II, 60D, T2i, T3i.
Canon stills cameras: 10D, 20D, 30D, 40D, original 5D, 1D MK II.

I agree that Canon's stock/standard colors for JPGs and video is helped with custom picture styles to deal with the color imbalances. Canon raw for stills tends to be much better, and also easier to adjust. ARRI raw for video has the best color for skin tones I've worked with. They've come the closest to exposure invariant color, where shadows/mids/highlights don't have major green/magenta etc. color shifts.

this reviewer is using a camera for the first time

lol! That means the camera is pretty amazing then

I agree to some extent, but I think the red/magenta mids applies more to the video than stills. It has to be specified because the video side of Canon's still camera line has always had poor color imho. Nowhere in the same ballpark as the C-Series video cameras. I am also a strong advocate of shooting RAW stills with a gray card in a similar frame. White balance is so often wrong when chosen by the camera when shooting people. Color is tricky no doubt.

Color has been tricky, however AI Color will solve the problem (so far I haven't heard any big manufacturers talking about this- only AI upscaling. AI Color will be a big deal when it comes out: this prediction isn't based on any industry news, only awareness of color, camera systems, complexity of skin tone and human perception, and what AI can do).

I also liked the GL2's color better than the XL2's color.

I know that color is somewhat subjective, and accurate color might not always be aesthetically pleasing, but I think I'd prefer it to be accurate to reality rather than skewed to someones idea of aesthetically pleasing.

When developing custom picture styles, I use a calibrated monitor with the camera, and also a simple hand mirror to see what I look like in the same conditions the camera is seeing and the monitor is displaying. The difference between the mirror and tech is a long way off- try it yourselves! Cameras should have built in spectrometer sensors, capturing calibrated color, and monitors should also have built auto-calibrators- done constantly in real-time, adjusting to ambient conditions too.

 

[jcs]

Ahhh..

That said, the Leica SL wasn't a camera that impressed me as much and I couldn't figure out why it never wow'd me as much as the M (small size ?) or the S (larger sensor ?)

JB

The SL2 is looking pretty good- your thoughts on stills + video posted so far?

L-Log! Do I stutter?!

I Leica Log!

FWIW, SL-2 has an old Sony sensor (the same as in S1R) but it's likely to have a different color filter array, if for no other reason than to separate itself from S1R.

I read the S1R has 3 layers of filters and the SL2 has 2 (very different types), which sounds like the CFA is also different, along with color science may account for the better looking skin tones on the SL2. The sensor was stated to be from Tower Jazz (S1R & SL2).

 

[Bassman2003]

JCS, when you say making custom profiles with the Canon software, have they improved it from the 5DmkIII days? I never found the ability to tweak very much with their software. Nothing like the DNG profiler where you can pick individual hue & sat. Proper image controls and getting rid of the stupid 4k crop would go a long way for me to consider Canon again.

 

[DLD]

... The sensor was stated to be from Tower Jazz (S1R & SL2).

It's the same sensor as in Z7. DxO is basically giving Z7 and S1R the same score (with A7RIII, and significantly above 5D MKIV).

Obviously, after that, it can be up to a particular company to tweak and those engineers ain't dummies.

 

[jcs]

JCS, when you say making custom profiles with the Canon software, have they improved it from the 5DmkIII days? I never found the ability to tweak very much with their software. Nothing like the DNG profiler where you can pick individual hue & sat. Proper image controls and getting rid of the stupid 4k crop would go a long way for me to consider Canon again.

Canon's latest Picture Style Editor still requires very careful adjustments, however it's good enough to get 'closer to ARRI' looks from Canon DSLRs for JPGs and video (all videos here using a custom picture style with little or no post color work): http://www.dvxuser.com/V6/showthrea...-24-105-vs-1DX-II-80D-First-Impressions/page3 . I prefer my custom picture styles over Canon Log (Canon Log has slightly more highlight preservation of color, however I don't like the Canon Log color for skin tones (can't change it)).