Sony A7R IV / A7S III / A9 II to feature 8K video, as new 60MP and 36MP full frame sensor specs leak

[Mokara]

5 hours ago, DBounce said:

The AF on the EOS R is excellent. And in video there is none of  micro-hunting nonsense that the Sonys exhibit. As for ergos, menus overall usability most anything trumps Sony. 

Sony might make the sensors that  lot of manufacturers use. But in almost all cases, the outside manufacturers do a better job of implementing those sensors than does Sony.

No doubt the next Canon flagship will come with a hefty price tag. But those canon flagships are built like tanks and are super easy to shoot with. They make getting great shots so easy it's almost like cheating. I'm not saying you can't get great shots with a Sony, but the Canons definitely have some mojo.

AF on the latest Sony models is as good as on Canons. The a9 will stand shoulder to shoulder with anything, and this camera is not far off the a9 in terms of capabilities.

I don't have a problem with the menus. I shoot with the camera, not menus. They are different from Canon. So what? I happen to like them. I guess it all comes down to what you are used to. To me they are all inherently similar in ease of use however.

"Mojo" counts for nothing. Personally I find Canon's too big and bulky, I am always half afraid that most of them are going to slip out of my hands. Being built like a tank is great if it falls out of your hand. I prefer cameras that are not always threatening to slip, that way I am more free to get the shot that I want rather than constantly having to be aware of where my fingers are.

1 minute ago, Mattias Burling said:

Good color science is equally important when shooting raw.

The only difference is the pigments in the filters, and those are very subtle. You would not be able to tell the difference without spectroscopy. No human can.

And in any case, the whole point of raw is that you can interpret that data to suit yourself. If you can't get whatever color you want out of the file, that is a fault of you, not the camera.

5 hours ago, Mako Sports said:

You are correct, I believe anyone that was truly considering switching brands has already done so at this point, and the rest really are in it for the long haul with their respective brands. 

That depends. Most of the people who might switch are those who currently use DSLRs. Many of those will switch to MILCs when it comes time to replace those. The question then will be which company has the best systems on offer at the time and has managed to do that consistently.

It will not happen all at once, it will be a gradual process as older DSLRs are junked.

[Castorp]

The “you can make any colour from raw” argument doesn’t make  sense.

For example it is easier to edit a raw file from a Nikon Df than a raw file from a Nikon Z6 because the former has better colour raw files (jpegs different story).

Colour starting point matters. 

[Django]

..what do you think about THAT?? LOL

[Mattias Burling]

2 hours ago, Mokara said:

 

And in any case, the whole point of raw is that you can interpret that data to suit yourself. If you can't get whatever color you want out of the file, that is a fault of you, not the camera.

 

Correct, when you get fired for taking all day to color correct a couple of hundred images it is your fault..

That color science doesn't affect raw is an internet myth. But believe what you want.

53 minutes ago, Castorp said:

The “you can make any colour from raw” argument doesn’t make  sense.

For example it is easier to edit a raw file from a Nikon Df than a raw file from a Nikon Z6 because the former has better colour raw files (jpegs different story).

Colour starting point matters. 

Yup, anyone that has used more than one camera will experience it first hand.

[frontfocus]

2 minutes ago, Mattias Burling said:

Correct, when you get fired for taking all day to color correct a couple of hundred images it is your fault..

That color science doesn't affect raw is an internet myth. But believe what you want.

It might be a myth that it's due to the camera, but each camera + converter produces a specific color. And some are just easier to work with. Let's not call it color science but camera+converter collaboration. And yes, there are just some camera+converter combinations that gives the user a better starting point, reducing editing time. 

[hmcindie]

2 hours ago, Mokara said:

"Mojo" counts for nothing. Personally I find Canon's too big and bulky, I am always half afraid that most of them are going to slip out of my hands. Being built like a tank is great if it falls out of your hand. I prefer cameras that are not always threatening to slip, that way I am more free to get the shot that I want rather than constantly having to be aware of where my fingers are.

If you say stuff like "mojo counts for nothing" then that tells me that you're not talented enough to spot what mojo is. And man, if a Canon is too bulky, you would really hate an Alexa then haha.

"not always threatening to slip". Huh? The little ass Sonys are constantly slipping like greased fishes.

[Mattias Burling]

I wonder if for example Eddie who used to visit this forum and was in charge of the color science in the D16 would agree to changing the name of his job

3 minutes ago, frontfocus said:

It might be a myth that it's due to the camera, but each camera + converter produces a specific color. 

Same camera + different converter = different colors.

Same converter + different camera = different colors.

No matter how you turn it. Color science in camera raw files is a fact. Super easy to test, take photo of the same scene, adjust one using curves, Luna etc and then copy paste the adjustments and see if it's identical.

 

[Mako Sports]

1 hour ago, hmcindie said:

If you say stuff like "mojo counts for nothing" then that tells me that you're not talented enough to spot what mojo is.

I'm not even sure what this whole "mojo" thing means as I only ever hear Canon folks say it, guess its slang for the "image speaks to me"

Which in that case I actually understand.

If not it must be some old head/old person terminology  ?

 

[stephen]

1 hour ago, Mattias Burling said:

Same converter + different camera = different colors.

It depends what same converter exactly  means. Same converter program or same program + same settings.

Same converter + different adjustment values in converter + different camera = same colors

Have done tests in photo with different cameras and there is no problem to get the same colors for the same scene  and lighting with different cameras and even different lenses.
For me it boils down to what frontfocus said:

1 hour ago, frontfocus said:

And yes, there are just some camera+converter combinations that gives the user a better starting point, reducing editing time.

And as how we see color is subjective, better starting point is also subjective. So there are some camera+converter combinations that we like more than the others and get us the colors we want and like much easier.  
 

[Grapejam]

3 hours ago, Mattias Burling said:

I wonder if for example Eddie who used to visit this forum and was in charge of the color science in the D16 would agree to changing the name of his job

Same camera + different converter = different colors.

Same converter + different camera = different colors.

No matter how you turn it. Color science in camera raw files is a fact. Super easy to test, take photo of the same scene, adjust one using curves, Luna etc and then copy paste the adjustments and see if it's identical.

 

The question is:

Is it the camera's fault or the converter's fault?

The latest Nikon jpegs and video colors are waaaaaaaay better than earlier generation, especially compared to the DF/D610/D800 gen, yet somehow the Nikon Zs have worse colors in lightroom, but maybe their colors are better in say Capture one, then is it the camera's fault or converter's fault?

Honestly, Adobe Lightroom cameras profiles have been getting progressively worse and worse, not even Canon is spared, just compare the EOS R lightroom color profile to the 6D and 5D3 gen.

[DBounce]

1 hour ago, Mako Sports said:

I'm not even sure what this whole "mojo" thing means as I only ever hear Canon folks say it, guess its slang for the "image speaks to me"

Which in that case I actually understand.

If not it must be some old head/old person terminology  ?

 

The definition of "mojo" is magic. Certainly the term "Hollywood magic" must ring a bell?

Mojo is hard to nail down, but impossible to miss.  It's that which separates a common snapshot from a work of art. I absolutely want it in everything I own. To argue otherwise seems illogical.

If you cannot spot works with "mojo" you may lack the ability to discern the difference.

[webrunner5]

30 minutes ago, DBounce said:

Mojo is hard to nail down, but impossible to miss.  It's that which separates a common snapshot from a work of art.

 

That has little to do with the camera. That is called SKILL what you are talking about. And all of it is subjective.

[jgharding]

I guess it's just for stills really, with that ultra-high resolution sensor and so on, the video is a bonus.

I've still yet to a Sony below the F55 where the colour didn't upset me.

The way they process their sensors seem to turn tungsten yellow and screw with skintones.

I'm guessing it's from the ADC onwards, because the same Sony sensors in other cameras have far better colour.

[webrunner5]

2 minutes ago, jgharding said:

I've still yet to a Sony below the F55 where the colour didn't upset me.

The way they process their sensors seem to turn tungsten yellow and screw with skintones.

 

Oh come on. The new Venice CS is better than Canon new CS theses days. You must have the original A7s if you think that way. And to me the new Nikon CS just flat sucks.

[Robert Collins]

Some interesting info here....

 

[Andrew Reid]

27 minutes ago, jgharding said:

I guess it's just for stills really, with that ultra-high resolution sensor and so on, the video is a bonus.

I've still yet to a Sony below the F55 where the colour didn't upset me.

The way they process their sensors seem to turn tungsten yellow and screw with skintones.

I'm guessing it's from the ADC onwards, because the same Sony sensors in other cameras have far better colour.

Sony A7S II:

Canon 1D C same shoot, same day, same light, same girl:

Sony A7S II (The Death Cam):

Canon 1D C, 10 seconds later SHE LIVES!

Sony ZombieCam Mark II:

Canon 1D C ?

Funnily enough these 1D C JPEGs direct from the card looked much better on one of my Macs compared to the other, so monitor profiles and display settings matter as well.

Although it's not just the camera...

I also agree with the point @Mattias Burling is making about colour in RAWs.

Minimum effort counts for a lot. Who wants to go manually correcting 1000's of RAW files?

What a fucking ball ache!

Default colour in RAW matters just as much. No matter what software you use, you want to open it and do a few simple changes or preset moods and have it singing.

Same with video and LOG.

Sony A7 III got a bit better for colour, but I still don't use it much.

The other thing that matters is white balance, and even the lens. Lenses can have different colour biases.

22 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Oh come on. The new Venice CS is better than Canon new CS theses days. You must have the original A7s if you think that way. And to me the new Nikon CS just flat sucks.

Pro Color exists for a reason I didn't create it on a whim. It solves a real issue with Sony's video processing and I should do the same for their RAW stills as well!

Be honest with yourself... have you used Venice CS? Or are you parroting a second hand experience of it versus Canon? Again same thing with the Nikons... You've got to use them on a subject, then decide.

[webrunner5]

The new Canon CS is a Mile different from the old Canon CS now. Just look at a C100 versus the C100  mk II. You can't compare a 1DC to even a modern EOS-R. And I would argue the original Canon 5D had them all beat. Every Wedding Photographer in the world had one.

And to me on all the 1DC shots her face looks like plastic. Not very becoming. You are going to have to do a Lot better than that to convince me the 1DC is better.

[Andrew Reid]

22 minutes ago, Robert Collins said:

Some interesting info here....

 

Well done for discovering the upmost shit on YouTube that sums up everything I hate about the worst YouTuber tendencies. That is quite some find.

HYPE HYPE HYPE

Shilly McShillFace and his background porno musak, says the SEPERATE QUICK FUNCTION MENU is a MAJOR VIDEO FEATURE as he puts a 1000 watt grin on.

Who needs a 10bit codec or 4K/60P when you have THAT kind of advancement in the market place?!?!

WHAT ELSE IS NEW JOHNNY SHILL IN New York NEW YORK?

OH MY GOD

IT'S A GAME CHANGER NEXT!!

You can change the naming format of video clips.

WHATEVER NEXT FOR OUR MEASILY $3500 POCKET CHANGE!?

GLOBAL SHUTTER!??!

No---No--- wait for it...waaaait for it...

YOU CAN SAVE YOUR MENU SETTINGS IN A FILE!

(Although if you format the card they vanish)

Video then ends...

And it's his sponsor ad for next hour (at least it felt like an hour).

Oh and there's EYE AF. But of course, you make far more advertising money from a 6 minute YOUTUBE HYPE PIECE than a one line blog post saying:

Big new features for video: EYE AF. Erm that's about it. (End of article).

11 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

The new Canon CS is a Mile different from the old Canon CS now. Just look at a C100 versus the C100  mk II. You can't compare a 1DC to even a modern EOS-R. And I would argue the original Canon 5D had them all beat. Every Wedding Photographer in the world had one.

And to me on all the 1DC shots her face looks like plastic. Not very becoming. You are going to have to do a Lot better than that to convince me the 1DC is better.

I'll zip the original JPEGs up and send you to Spec Savers if it helps?

Also Canon CS is the most consistent across camera bodies... Speaking from someone who actually has a 5D Classic, a 1D C and EOS R in front of me right now.

[forofilms]

42 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Well done for discovering the upmost shit on YouTube that sums up everything I hate about the worst YouTuber tendencies. That is quite some find.

HYPE HYPE HYPE

Shilly McShillFace and his background porno musak, says the SEPERATE QUICK FUNCTION MENU is a MAJOR VIDEO FEATURE as he puts a 1000 watt grin on.

Dual UHS-II slots had me smashing that preorder button...

 

[Andrew Reid]

With the Sony A7S II, the RAWS were always just as much of a fucking problem.

This A7S II RAW is opened in Photoshop ACR, with nothing changed but a slight boost in contrast and saturation, saved as a JPEG for the forum. Absolutely dreadful and takes hours of time and expertise to correct multiple files. Why waste such talent on such a talentless camera? The shadow on her neck is a dirty yellow stain. This isn't how healthy skin looks.

And below is the EXACT SAME process for the Canon 1D C RAW shot on the same day, same girl, same light...

The problems are the skin tones. You don't notice it in the landscape behind her or even her hair so much, just the skin. YELLOW as a banana on the Sony shot.

So those labouring under the illusion that colour science doesn't matter because you can edit the RAW, can stop now.

There are also major problems on the OS side. Camera manufactures need to work together with computerland and become less walled off in Japan. They need better communication, better translators and more of them.

Recent Apple display use Display P3 profile by default. The conversion from SRGB or AdobeRGB camera files to P3 adds it's own flavour to colour and not all of it very positive. If you set the display to SRGB the Canon looks even better and the Sony looks even worse.

So what you are seeing on your display might not be the truth or even close.