Skin tone is decent (but not excellent). Sharpness isn't all that hot but depends on the lens of course. Maybe it's just me but it seems like it's just very slightly underexposed. The model is kind of creeping me out, though (has that, "I met him on Craigs List" look about him - yikes).
No, skin tone is not excellent since this is a mixed light situation (window to the left, fluorescent light from the right) ; not a single camera can produce natural skin tone under these lighting conditions.
Sharpness is excellent, but DOF is shallow due to F1.4. Look at the hairs on the underlip! C'mon give the Canon engineers a break.
Price is way too high though.. who will buy it? For some this is 2 months salaries!
skin tione are natural..but ist me or what..looks like the skin is not sharp at all
Skin tone looks excellent on this one. Natural, no excessive saturation.
What lens is that?
24mm f1.4 L II USM? Most likely..
Skin color is not the strongest point of this camera.
Thats not strongest point of any current dSLR, cause more pixels and high ISO costs something, that something is colors.
But in this case its probably actually best from all new FF cameras. At least until Sony show what they have..
No, skin tone is not excellent since this is a mixed light situation (window to the left, fluorescent light from the right) ; not a single camera can produce natural skin tone under these circumstances.