Canon to Sony Qs: EVF, Skin Tones, ISO, Glass/AF, Metabones

Fuji colors

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/Gz83​Jz

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/21vH​BNp

@Rantercsr, that's good to know, and you mention something I've noticed as well--that Canon is a tad "red heavy" out of camera.


That being said, I shoot RAW and nothing gets posted straight out of camera--even my film work.
It may not be a lot of editing, but the "Print" (even if digital) is part of my work flow.

The DPReview-linked Sony vs Nikon vs Canon "color test" really showed that the cameras were different but that
a) none of them were BAD
b) none of them were uncorrectable.
c) none of them were shockingly different.

To my mind "uncorrectable color" is like trying to make Provia look like Velvia in Photoshop.
I've shot both those films and trying to make one look like the other is a color-grade nightmare.

If the digital color-curves and response was way out of whack, and took ages to try to get "right" then it's probably a deal breaker for a given system.
On the other hand, if they're all within about 15% of each other (which seemed to be the case) then each can be tweaked and adjusted--just with a different starting point.


Mystik those are both more than acceptable to me and they're great shots. The sony looks a tick warmer but man they're so close!
Are these H/S/L adjusted? What lenses did you use for both?

mystik610 wrote in post #18696057
Fuji colors

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/Gz83​Jz 1 by Carlo Alcala, on Flickr

Vs

Sony colors

IMAGE LINK: https://flic.kr/p/21vH​BNp 2 by Carlo Alcala, on Flickr

Nice, I prefer the Sony there. Is that straight off the camera?

rantercsr wrote in post #18696053
Im at work now but i can post later tonight.

Although if its to compare colors , my claim isnt that they look the same straight out of camera., thats why i said i was speaking strictly in raw files

Ok, Im not sure what the point would be then because a shot out of any camera could be made to look just alike any other once edited. My problem with the other brands I tried like Panasonic, Olympus, Fuji, Nikon and Sony was that I had to tweak them all for 15-20 minutes to get them to look how they do straight out of my Canon, which is the look I prefer.

The point was that "color science" from different cameras will no longer be a determining factor for me as i edit all my photos,

So yes there would be no point really in posting un edited pics as they will look different.

I have my preferences (as we all do) and no camera gives me raws that are exactly as i want them.

In the begining , yes it took me time .. but so did canons files when i first started this all.

mbell.... "color correcting" is part of working with raw files. It should not take 10-15 minutes to color correct your images. Most photographers have presents set up in lightroom that "correct" or apply the photographers preferences. It becomes a batch process that you define once, and then reuse as often as needed. You can do deeper dives if you want, but its essentially what your are doing when you shoot jpeg. But I know you know this.

Shooting sports you can end up with literally hundreds of shots that need to be submitted. I would die if I had to manual adjust each. So for each venue I shoot at I have a present defined and then just batch the images. For wedding shots like above, each shot is much more deliberate with a lot more attention to detail at point of capture - because you have the time. I use a product called DaVinci Resolve - a video color grading tool that I have come to rely on for volume work.

Bottom line though is with raw files you can give your images what ever look you want - Sony can look like Canon, Canon can look like a cinema grade image. It's up to you. All brands have the capabilities, and its not that much work if you have the right tools.

mystik610 - lovely images btw... its always great to have good subjects to work with. You did good.

Croasdail wrote in post #18696182
mbell.... "color correcting" is part of working with raw files. It should not take 10-15 minutes to color correct your images. Most photographers have presents set up in lightroom that "correct" or apply the photographers preferences. It becomes a batch process that you define once, and then reuse as often as needed.

I shoot JPEG I have for most the 15 years Ive been shooting professionally. I did shoot RAW in the early days but Canon's in camera JPEG processing has been stellar for many years now and I haven't missed RAW one bit. I dont use presets because my lighting changes often. A softbox produces different light than an octabox and an octabox produces different light then a beauty dish etc...not to mention the difference from a one light setup to an 8 light setup is quite vast. What looks great in post for one light setup may not on another light setup and then natural light shots are a whole different ballgame. I know shooting models in studios may look or seem easy but I would argue is actually one of the most difficult genres of photography to pull off as you are the one responsible for producing all the light for your shots with no help from the sun or ambient lighting in an arena or stadium lights on a field etc...natural light presents its own sets of challenges too. The only batch process I use is for light skin softening, everything else I do is manual. Here is a link to 6 of my most recent shots on IG. All lit differently, that would require 6 different presets just for those alone. I also like to use different retouching methods too. My pics all have the same general look but they vary in contrast, saturation, skin tones etc...


**NSFW**
https://imgur.com/K72n​FV2

Mbell - first let me start of with there are lots a flavors of "pros" out there that shoot a variety of different stuff. And there are lots of ways pros differentiate their end product. Could be they are masters of lighting. Or they have a keen sense of who their subjects are and pose people very well. Or they are masters of the post processing. But they need to do something that makes their product discernible.

One of the risks to pros is technology in camera has made getting properly exposed shots a none issue - or at least a lot less of an issue. Cameras sense they are taking portraits, so they shoot wide open. They sense fast moving objects so they set themselves is sports mode. Scenic... they got it figured out. And as you have mentioned, they produce pretty good jpegs.

My only encouragement to you is to look eventually beyond jpegs. You may very well be able to create the Mbell look with your lighting. And that may be enough. But over my 30 years I have had to reinvent my style several times depending on what technology will enable me to do. JPEGS - the camera decides your look. They may be technically perfect images - but are they your images? Your lighting may be your signature. I am sure you are better than me at it. I do natural lighting - its my thing.

Anyway, I get the appeal of JPEGs. Smaller, less work. I am all for that. But it comes at a risk. Jpegs are great for a lot of things. My final submissions are jpegs. Just something to consider.

Croasdail wrote in post #18696520
Mbell - first let me start of with there are lots a flavors of "pros" out there that shoot a variety of different stuff. And there are lots of ways pros differentiate their end product. Could be they are masters of lighting. Or they have a keen sense of who their subjects are and pose people very well. Or they are masters of the post processing. But they need to do something that makes their product discernible.

One of the risks to pros is technology in camera has made getting properly exposed shots a none issue - or at least a lot less of an issue. Cameras sense they are taking portraits, so they shoot wide open. They sense fast moving objects so they set themselves is sports mode. Scenic... they got it figured out. And as you have mentioned, they produce pretty good jpegs.

My only encouragement to you is to look eventually beyond jpegs. You may very well be able to create the Mbell look with your lighting. And that may be enough. But over my 30 years I have had to reinvent my style several times depending on what technology will enable me to do. JPEGS - the camera decides your look. They may be technically perfect images - but are they your images? Your lighting may be your signature. I am sure you are better than me at it. I do natural lighting - its my thing.

Anyway, I get the appeal of JPEGs. Smaller, less work. I am all for that. But it comes at a risk. Jpegs are great for a lot of things. My final submissions are jpegs. Just something to consider.

Thank you and some good points about different variations of pros and I know guys who do exactly what you mentioned. They half ass their lighting and have that "I'll just fix it in post" mentality. I have seen unedited images from some fashion/glamour photographers who's work I really admired and couldn't believe how bad they were. I prefer to get it right when I shoot so I dont have to spend an hour fixing it in post. Not to brag or anything but Ive been published everywhere from Playboy to Maxim to Muscle and Fitness and pretty much everything in between in over 80 countries. Everything has been shot in JPEG with the exception of a billboard I shot for Hustler Lingerie in Hollywood years ago, but that was done on a MF Hasselblad from the 80s. Never had a client, editor or agency complain about the JPEGs. I have also never felt limited or that the camera "defined my look" by shooting in JPEG. I can make any color changes and adjustments to my images I like, especially coupled with LR presets and filters from different apps. I have never once in 15 years of shooting wanted to tweak something in a photo and couldn't because it was shot in JPEG and not RAW. You saw my link to a few of my pic I assume. Here is a before and after from one of my recent shots though, shot in JPEG and I was able to make it look exactly how I wanted in post, took me 5 minutes.

MBell... we absolutely have different shooting styles.... which is ok. That's what makes it fun. Cheers

rogue.guineapig wrote in post #18696059
@Rantercsr, that's good to know, and you mention something I've noticed as well--that Canon is a tad "red heavy" out of camera.


That being said, I shoot RAW and nothing gets posted straight out of camera--even my film work.
It may not be a lot of editing, but the "Print" (even if digital) is part of my work flow.

The DPReview-linked Sony vs Nikon vs Canon "color test" really showed that the cameras were different but that
a) none of them were BAD
b) none of them were uncorrectable.
c) none of them were shockingly different.

To my mind "uncorrectable color" is like trying to make Provia look like Velvia in Photoshop.
I've shot both those films and trying to make one look like the other is a color-grade nightmare.

If the digital color-curves and response was way out of whack, and took ages to try to get "right" then it's probably a deal breaker for a given system.
On the other hand, if they're all within about 15% of each other (which seemed to be the case) then each can be tweaked and adjusted--just with a different starting point.


Mystik those are both more than acceptable to me and they're great shots. The sony looks a tick warmer but man they're so close!
Are these H/S/L adjusted? What lenses did you use for both?

Yeah the difference really is a matter of starting point, not where you can take a photo in post in terms of colors. I process files from lots of different cameras since the second shooters I use for weddings usually don't shoot Sony. Despite Sony having a reputation for bad colors, it takes me longer to process files from non-sony colors..not because they are better or worse, but because they aren't what I'm used to. But I can always get the files to match.

These are HSL adjusted. He used the Fuji 35 1.4 and I used the 85GM. It helps that we were both firing the same strobe so the lighting was consistent between shots.