I'm not missing any detail in what I have now.Thanks.
You won't be upset if you get the D2x. It is a fantastic camera. The files are amazing in the amount of detail they capture. The down side, is the storage space and computer horsepower needed to deal with files of this size.
I've seen this before
ah he is fair skinned that really helps. I am concerned with skin tones in digital. It just doesn't look as peachy. Iso 100 might be fun, but I don't know that I need it. If thats the issue neat image should do the trick on an iso 200 imageJames, you may have seen it in the exif, but the shot I sent you was at ISO 400. In studio conditions at ISO 100 the files are cleaner. Are you concerned with skin tones in digital? Just curious what it is that you are trying get out of the digital that you have not been able to get so far. Also you should note that my son (the one in the photo sent) is very very fair skinned. He is actually that pale. Don't know if that helps, perhaps my file was not a good one for this test. Hope it all works out for you.
And therein lies the issue. It's nothing to do with digital A vs digital B vs film, it's an entirely subjective preference of the person shooting and processing the images.I am concerned with skin tones in digital. It just doesn't look as peachy.
Woody is right on!! I would be more concerned with noise than tone!And therein lies the issue. It's nothing to do with digital A vs digital B vs film, it's an entirely subjective preference of the person shooting and processing the images.
If any one camera was "best" as rendering skintones every photographer shooting that genre of image would use that gear.