I'm planning to get a FX camera later this year. Either a D610 or a DF. While shooting DX I found it much easier for me to get nice skin tones from an older D200 than from my D7000. I'm curious if the D600 is more like how a D7000 renders color and is the D4 sensor "known" for good skin tones? Or are they close to the same.
Obviously you can get decent skin tones from any of these but I do believe some sensor/rendering engines deal with skin tones better out of the camera. If the D4/DF sensor is known for better skin tones, that would probably influence the D610/DF choice for me. TIA
--
Stacey
Here's a hunch: you're gonna hate both.
The big problem, here, is in how modern cameras (or you) process the massive dynamic range they collect down to the comparatively small dynamic range a print or your computer monitor can actually display.
Older cameras (or modern Canon cameras--oooo, dig!) deliver "better" out-of-camera tones because they aren't trying to jam 14.5 stops of information into the 8 or 9 your screen can show you.
Punchy, crisp, engaging photographs and portraits often end up having a pretty steep "S" - shaped contrast curve: shouldered blacks and whites if you want to retain detail, with a (very) steep mid-tone slope. Nikons of the D200-era (both CCD and CMOS) were only collecting 10-11 stops to begin with, and the "Gen 1" JPEG processing started with a naturally steep "S" curve. Goofy DR compression schemes like ADL didn't exist. So it's a recipe for great, punchy tone--provided you hit the exposure you want.
Same deal with Canons of the era. Head on over to the Canon forums and you'll find thread-after-thread-after-thread about how much more crisp and satisfying the original 5D's out-of-camera color was than the 5DII or 5DIII. Why? Relatively low dynamic range + steep native JPEG contrast curve.
These days, Nikon sensors can collect 14.5 stops or so, and the native JPEG processing defaults are all designed to show it off--they aren't willing to "scrub" highlights and shadows with a steep curve. Quite to the contrary: turn on ADL, leave contrast at its default, and the tone curve you're getting is actually a shallowed-mid range. It's a recipe for horribly flat color and *terrible* skin tone, but it does visibly jam 14.5 stops of tonal information into 8, so all the gadgeteers out there can geek out about "retained" shadow and highlight detail.
Of course, I shouldn't sell the modern sensors short. If you missed your intended exposure, those extra stops of DR can come in very handy. Obviously, a D200 RAW file (or a 5DIII RAW--oooo, feel the burn, Canon!) just can't be pushed around quite like a D800 file can be.
In the end, it doesn't really matter: you can always get in there with any camera and set the curve you want. If Nikon's defaults won't scrub detail for tone, you can always do it yourself--but with the modern cameras, you do actually have to do it; with the older cameras, it was the default behavior.
So don't lament CCD vs CMOS or any other pointlessness. If you want your new camera to behave like an older camera, use the older camera's tricks: push your tone curve's mid slope and be willing to trade visible detail at the edges for crisp tones in the 8-9 stops your prints or your monitor can actually show you.
