Approve the Cookies
This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and our Privacy Policy.
OK
Index  •   • New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Guest
New posts  •   • RTAT  •   • 'Best of'  •   • Gallery  •   • Gear  •   • Reviews
Register to forums    Log in

 
FORUMS General Gear Talk Changing Camera Brands 
Thread started 16 Mar 2018 (Friday) 02:01
Search threadPrev/next
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

I've switched to Sony twice. Hated it. Now I'm thinking about doing it a third time.

 
Talley
Talley Whacker
Avatar
11,087 posts
Gallery: 46 photos
Likes: 2773
Joined Dec 2011
Location: Houston
     
Mar 28, 2018 04:39 |  #76

artsf wrote in post #18595511 (external link)
Lots of those comparison tests between Sony and Canon colors are done in natural light and in good light. The difference becomes more significant as you shift away from ideal conditions and especially mixed lightning. Canon’s AWB-W is superb combined with its color science.

This is exactly what I'm noticing. Seems like Sony falls apart in low light artificial lit scenarios. Canon holds together better. But lets face the facts. Crap light is crap photos. Convert to black and white is my logic for crap light situations.


A7rIII | A7III | 12-24 F4 | 16-35 GM | 28-75 2.8 | 100-400 GM | 12mm 2.8 Fisheye | 35mm 2.8 | 85mm 1.8 | 35A | 85A | 200mm L F2 IS | MC-11
My Gear Archive

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)
mystik610
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,120 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 9565
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Houston, TX
Post edited over 1 year ago by mystik610. (2 edits in all)
     
Mar 28, 2018 06:01 |  #77

AlanU wrote in post #18595471 (external link)
We get slightly different colours just by changing lenses in the identical Canon camera body. I remember how my 85 f/1.8 seemed cooler vs a canon 100LIS. Two different lenses produced different colour. The Canon 50 f/1.4 is cooler in kelvin vs many Sigma glass.

I think I'm gonna dump my fuji gear :) The Sony A7iii will out perform the Fuji substantially in every aspect. Now people are telling me I'm gonna get the identical colours .......That's it I'm getting my eyes checked again!!!

As far as Fuji is concerned.....it's gonna stick around for a while. We'll see how it goes........the 56mm alone is worthy for it to stick around :)

I'll be picking up a sony 85 f/1.8 for a small form factor sony setup.

I think the difference in rendering between lenses have more bearing on the images than the differences in colors between camera

That said, the Fuji 56 1.2 renders very nicely. I was impressed by that lens.


focalpointsphoto.com (external link) - flickr (external link) - Instagram (external link)
α7ʀIV - α7ʀIII
Sigma 14-24 f2.8 ART - Zeiss Loxia 21 - Sigma 35 f1.2 ART - Sony 35 1.8 - Sony/Zeiss 55 1.8 - Sony 85GM

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mystik610
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,120 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 9565
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Houston, TX
Post edited over 1 year ago by mystik610. (2 edits in all)
     
Mar 28, 2018 06:06 |  #78

artsf wrote in post #18595511 (external link)
I am personally not a fan of fuji files for portraiture. Canon 5div is the best portrait colors I’ve seen by a mile (raw and jpeg). Sony does very nice and competitive colors for landscape but its sensors are not optimized for portrature, has to do with how they are tuned to color channels, luminance response, etc.
Processing a7rii files was pain for me and took much longer than 5div files. A7rii is known for its strong green color casts rendering many jpegs and video files unusable. Sony did take notice and instead of learnig a proper color science, all they did was shifting color balance to magneta with A7riii (and I assume A7iii). Both are equally bad, IMO.
I understand there is a lot of manipulations we can do with raw files even if starting point is far from the final results. However, when shooting in the field, instant jpeg color reproduction on the screen really helps me to understand the colors, light, exposure, etc. right at the scene. So I simply get much better final results with 5div, and much faster too.
One of the bigger problems with Sony is that all those color shifts affect video performance forcing me to color grade. Picture profiles do not work equally well for every situation especially in mixed and changing light. I never have to tweak video colors on 5div, it’s video files look very organic, highly optimized vs. video-like Sony processed video files with varied color balance forcing me shooting in log which I absolutely hate and don’t want to spend my time doing it. I do envy Sony’s beautiful audio vs. noisy Canon.

Lots of those comparison tests between Sony and Canon colors are done in natural light and in good light. The difference becomes more significant as you shift away from ideal conditions and especially mixed lightning. Canon’s AWB-W is superb combined with its color science.

I understand that not everyone is picky or even sensitive to differences in image rendering, I wish I wasn’t either. Canon users are absolutely watching the development of Sony system, particularly becaue Canon lenses can be used on Sony bodies.

I supposed it depends on what you shoot.

For me, the minute artificial lights come into play, usually a speedlight comes into play too because shadows from overhead artificial lights are a no-no for me. By then, WB is a moot point because no camera gets that right.


focalpointsphoto.com (external link) - flickr (external link) - Instagram (external link)
α7ʀIV - α7ʀIII
Sigma 14-24 f2.8 ART - Zeiss Loxia 21 - Sigma 35 f1.2 ART - Sony 35 1.8 - Sony/Zeiss 55 1.8 - Sony 85GM

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mystik610
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,120 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 9565
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Houston, TX
Post edited over 1 year ago by mystik610. (2 edits in all)
     
Mar 28, 2018 06:14 |  #79

Canon colors VS Sony colors. Mixed artifical/window ambient light with speedlights

Canon:

IMAGE: https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4492/37338743421_3c38de5c22_h.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/YTuP​yi  (external link) IMG_7960-3 (external link) by Carlo Alcala (external link), on Flickr

Sony:

IMAGE: https://farm5.staticflickr.com/4421/37309117632_7dcf70761e_h.jpg
IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/YQSY​QQ  (external link) _DSC0866 (external link) by Carlo Alcala (external link), on Flickr

focalpointsphoto.com (external link) - flickr (external link) - Instagram (external link)
α7ʀIV - α7ʀIII
Sigma 14-24 f2.8 ART - Zeiss Loxia 21 - Sigma 35 f1.2 ART - Sony 35 1.8 - Sony/Zeiss 55 1.8 - Sony 85GM

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
normware
Member
45 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 25
Joined Apr 2014
Location: Ottawa Canada
     
Mar 28, 2018 07:31 |  #80

Seems like this discussion has moved to the "which film is better". Didn't we go through this when Fuji started to play a major role in film production.

Fuji versus Kodak , Ilford, Agfa to name a few . And then we debated which chemicals are better and which paper gave better results.

I liked Ilford for B&W, Agfa for colour prints, and Kodak for slides. Never liked Fuji film, but did that have to do with the labs that processed the Fuji film , or the Fuji film itself.

I liked Ilford paper for B&W as I never printed colour, but the difference between Kodak paper and Ilford for me was price. As I recall, these were the only 2 readily available. Anything else was exotic and had to be ordered.

So now we are discussing sensors and software instead of film paper and chemicals.

The difference is now the camera plays a bigger role in how an image is recorded

Everything changes but remains the same.


Canon 6D II - Sigma 35mm f/1.4 DG HSM Art - Sigma 150-600mm f/5-6.3 DG OS HSM C - Sigma 12-24mm f/4 DG HSM Art - Tamron 28-300mm f/3.5-6.3 Di VC PZD | Coming soon Rokinon 85MM with chip
Canon M5 - EF-M 11-22mm f/4-5.6 IS STM - EF-M 18-150mm f/3.5-6.3 IS STM
Luminar 2018 , Aurora HDR 2018, Creative Kit 2018

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,118 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6183
Joined Sep 2007
Post edited over 1 year ago by Charlie.
     
Mar 28, 2018 08:16 |  #81

Talley wrote in post #18595557 (external link)
This is exactly what I'm noticing. Seems like Sony falls apart in low light artificial lit scenarios. Canon holds together better. But lets face the facts. Crap light is crap photos. Convert to black and white is my logic for crap light situations.

I'm betting you it's acquired taste more than anything. I have many pretty much an unlimited supply of canon files shot in mixed lighting, like ISO 6400, brutal stuff, and it's hard to distinguish between the two brands if I process them. I'll say that all my canon stuff of the past, look poor. Colors look off..... but that could be because I've shifted preferences.

the sony has AWB-W and AWB-A modes, but I dont find that it works as well as setting specific AWB modes like incandescent for warm lights or flourescent for cool lights.

here are some older shots from an A7r and 6D, only processed for white balance/colors, and the 6D had additional color correction for the skin. Both at a whopping 12800. Mixed tungsten flourescent, if I gave you the raws, you'de cry :-P. In a blind test, I wouldnt be able to pick out the brands.... and this is the worst shooting I deal with. I can say that one thing is painfully obvious across the albums..... the A7R files are significantly sharper SOOC. Could be that the 6D has a heavier handed approach for noise.

EDIT: FWIW, sony and canon were post processed significantly different for these shots, the same WB values will NOT work. That's all that was done for the sony, and for the canon, skin tint was changed for a more reddish bias as it was a tad too green. Other than that, these are SOOC untouched curves/sharpening/cont​rast/clarity/ect.


HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.



HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Osa713
Goldmember
Avatar
1,439 posts
Gallery: 45 photos
Likes: 1022
Joined Jun 2011
Location: Houston, TX
     
Mar 28, 2018 09:36 |  #82

AlanU wrote in post #18595471 (external link)
I think I'm gonna dump my fuji gear :) The Sony A7iii will out perform the Fuji substantially in every aspect. Now people are telling me I'm gonna get the identical colours .......That's it I'm getting my eyes checked again!!!

As far as Fuji is concerned.....it's gonna stick around for a while. We'll see how it goes........the 56mm alone is worthy for it to stick around :)

 :p


LIGHT>LENS>BODY

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bobbyz
Cream of the Crop
19,446 posts
Likes: 1621
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
     
Mar 28, 2018 10:00 |  #83

AlanU wrote in post #18595471 (external link)
I'll be picking up a sony 85 f/1.8 for a small form factor sony setup.

The Batis 85mm f1.8? I used a little but it was nice. Same as 56mm f1.2 on the XT1.


5dmk3, 35L, 85L II, 300mm f2.8 IS I, 400mm f5.6
Fuji XT-1, 14mm f2.8, 23mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 56mm f1.2, 90mm f2, 50-140mm f2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mystik610
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,120 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 9565
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Houston, TX
Post edited over 1 year ago by mystik610.
     
Mar 28, 2018 10:15 |  #84

AWB for Canon has a heavy green/yellow tint in skintones in artificial light in my experience. Not a good or bad thing... Just is what it is.

AWB is a middle of the ground average of the color temperature in the frame at the end of the day... And if you have a lot of contrasting color casts, it's an imperfect system. The issue with artificial lights is that they are not a neutral color temp, and the casts they put on things like skintones is hard to predict....so if AWB if taking a middle of the ground approach, skintones are almost always off.

I wish AWB had the same flexibility as the metering system in the camera.... You basically need a focus point linked spot AWB so you can select where you want your greys to be neutral. Because just as a weighted average metering system can screw things up in high contrast light, AWB often screws things up when there are a lot of conflicting colorcasts.

Since no such system exists, if i'm shooting a wedding reception, I set the WB via a grey card or expodisc. I also do things like gel lights. Basically put two minutes of effort into things in the field so my life is much easier in post.


focalpointsphoto.com (external link) - flickr (external link) - Instagram (external link)
α7ʀIV - α7ʀIII
Sigma 14-24 f2.8 ART - Zeiss Loxia 21 - Sigma 35 f1.2 ART - Sony 35 1.8 - Sony/Zeiss 55 1.8 - Sony 85GM

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Charlie
Guess What! I'm Pregnant!
16,118 posts
Gallery: 8 photos
Likes: 6183
Joined Sep 2007
     
Mar 28, 2018 11:01 |  #85

bobbyz wrote in post #18595687 (external link)
The Batis 85mm f1.8? I used a little but it was nice. Same as 56mm f1.2 on the XT1.

Sony has a new 85 since you departed, the FE 85 f1.8. Based on MTF scores, it should be pretty much indistinguishable compared to batis, even similar bokeh. what's different is sony rendition of color is different from zeiss, flare, cost, and size (sony is around 100g lighter and shorter near an inch). Fantastic lens.


Sony A7riii/A9 - FE 12-24/4 - FE 24-240 - SY 24/2.8 - FE 28/2 - FE 35/2.8 - FE 50/1.8 - FE 85/1.8 - EF 135/1.8 Art - F 600/5.6 - CZ 100-300 - Astro Rok 14/2.8 - Tamron 17-28/2.8 - 28-75/2.8 RXD, 70-200/2.8 VC

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
Hogloff
Cream of the Crop
7,606 posts
Likes: 415
Joined Apr 2003
Location: British Columbia
     
Mar 28, 2018 11:10 |  #86
bannedPermanent ban

Charlie wrote in post #18595715 (external link)
Sony has a new 85 since you departed, the FE 85 f1.8. Based on MTF scores, it should be pretty much indistinguishable compared to batis, even similar bokeh. what's different is sony rendition of color is different from zeiss, flare, cost, and size (sony is around 100g lighter and shorter near an inch). Fantastic lens.

I’ve tried both and found the Batis to have more contrast and I liked the colours better out of the Batis. I also like the IS in the Batis as it does help with the IBIS of the A7R2 as well as being very useful on my A7R or A6000 which have no IBIS.




  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
quadwing
THREAD ­ STARTER
Goldmember
Avatar
1,029 posts
Gallery: 6 photos
Likes: 29
Joined Sep 2009
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Post edited over 1 year ago by quadwing.
     
Mar 30, 2018 02:27 as a reply to  @ post 18594945 |  #87

I think I'm going to go for the A7III. The more I look into it and think about it, the more ideal it seems. The only thing I'm slightly worried about are adapted lens profiles. That said, we'll see how it goes.

I'm putting my 5DIV up on here in a few days actually. I'll be asking $2500, so if anyone is interested, look out for it within the next week! :)


Camera gear: Canon 5D Mark IV | Canon 24-70mm f/2.8L II | Canon 70-200mm f/2.8L II | Lights: Elinchrom Ranger RX Speed AS

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
mystik610
Cream of the Crop
Avatar
9,120 posts
Gallery: 36 photos
Best ofs: 1
Likes: 9565
Joined Jan 2012
Location: Houston, TX
     
Mar 30, 2018 05:46 |  #88

quadwing wrote in post #18596845 (external link)
I think I'm going to go for the A7III. The more I look into it and think about it, the more ideal it seems. The only thing I'm slightly worried about are adapted lens profiles. That said, we'll see how it goes.

I'm putting my 5DIV up on here in a few days actually. I'll be asking $2500, so if anyone is interested, look out for it within the next week! :)

Canon lens profiles will be recognized even if you use it on a Sony body


focalpointsphoto.com (external link) - flickr (external link) - Instagram (external link)
α7ʀIV - α7ʀIII
Sigma 14-24 f2.8 ART - Zeiss Loxia 21 - Sigma 35 f1.2 ART - Sony 35 1.8 - Sony/Zeiss 55 1.8 - Sony 85GM

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
imageswest
Senior Member
516 posts
Gallery: 2 photos
Likes: 27
Joined Apr 2006
Location: Gabriola Island, BC
     
Apr 04, 2018 11:51 |  #89

Ikehrara wrote in post #18598225 (external link)
how is the sony camera and sony adapter with canon lens 600mm quality?

It will be just like on a Canon camera, except sharper and with more dynamic range... ;-)a


Cliff LeSergent
Images West Photography
www.imageswest.ca (external link)

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
bobbyz
Cream of the Crop
19,446 posts
Likes: 1621
Joined Nov 2007
Location: Bay Area, CA
     
Apr 04, 2018 13:15 |  #90

imageswest wrote in post #18600118 (external link)
It will be just like on a Canon camera, except sharper and with more dynamic range... ;-)a

Has anyone tested this? Just asking as I heard that Canon superteles have issues on Fuji cameras due to not enough current drive provided by the camera.


5dmk3, 35L, 85L II, 300mm f2.8 IS I, 400mm f5.6
Fuji XT-1, 14mm f2.8, 23mm f1.4, 35mm f1.4, 56mm f1.2, 90mm f2, 50-140mm f2.8

  
  LOG IN TO REPLY
sponsored links
(this ad will go away when you log in as a registered member)

23,575 views & 213 likes for this thread
I've switched to Sony twice. Hated it. Now I'm thinking about doing it a third time.
FORUMS General Gear Talk Changing Camera Brands 
AAA
x 1600
y 1600

Jump to forum...   •  Rules   •  Index   •  New posts   •  RTAT   •  'Best of'   •  Gallery   •  Gear   •  Reviews   •  Member list   •  Polls   •  Image rules   •  Search   •  Password reset

Not a member yet?
Register to forums
Registered members may log in to forums and access all the features: full search, image upload, follow forums, own gear list and ratings, likes, more forums, private messaging, thread follow, notifications, own gallery, all settings, view hosted photos, own reviews, see more and do more... and all is free. Don't be a stranger - register now and start posting!


COOKIES DISCLAIMER: This website uses cookies to improve your user experience. By using this site, you agree to our use of cookies and to our privacy policy.
Privacy policy and cookie usage info.


POWERED BY AMASS forum software 2.1forum software
version 2.1 /
code and design
by Pekka Saarinen ©
for photography-on-the.net

Latest registered member is pasztun
668 guests, 333 members online
Simultaneous users record so far is 15144, that happened on Nov 22, 2018

Photography-on-the.net Digital Photography Forums is the website for photographers and all who love great photos, camera and post processing techniques, gear talk, discussion and sharing. Professionals, hobbyists, newbies and those who don't even own a camera -- all are welcome regardless of skill, favourite brand, gear, gender or age. Registering and usage is free.