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

[frontfocus]

Andrew you must be doing it wrong. Influenza on Youtube tell us, that Sony colors are the best there are ?

[austinchimp]

47 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

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. n

There has always been something seriously wrong with colour from the Sony A7s sensor, both generations. Id say it's probably what's responsible for the generally bad view on Sony colour science. The other's aren't half as bad, although their default picture profiles are all pretty dire.

[Andrew Reid]

It's always been the same.

Open raw. Apply contrast to liking. Done. No effort whatsoever. Took this with a £65 Canon G10 compact (CCD) in Barcelona:

If I'd used a Sony, it would probably have been pink.

[Skip77]

Sony A7's color sucks ass all day long.  You can't argue with the picture Andrew posted and if you've used a Sony you know this is true.  

Nikon CS and Canon CS are the top companies right now and Sony doesn't have a clue or they would have fixed it. 

Sonly pushes it's color curves around and they disrupt the color balance in a picture.  With Sony you have a small window to get color correct if at all. This is why you have colors that are just off in Sony images. 

If you get good skin tones with Sony something else will be off. The blue sky, brown woodwork or blue jeans will be off. 

And the EOS-R doesn't speak for Canon because that camera is falling in line to what Canon is not the other way around. 

 

[webrunner5]

Well I will be the first to admit that a 1DC is a Really serious camera both photo and video wise. I don't know if it is from compression or whatever, they do not look right to me.

I will agree that Canon CS has always been geared to facial CS. But they have went from a orangish to a redish CS and I really not a fan of the new CS. It is getting cartoonish like an Olympus is at times.

And  have owned several Ferrari's and they were not that Red of a Red. It just isn't accurate. Now Maybe on an Apple screen it is perfect, who knows. I just re calibrated my Monitor 2 days ago. So YMMV.

[Geoff_L]

OFFTOPIC (sorry)

"Sony a7R IV: 60 MP DESTROYS Canon & Nikon!"

Those youtubers are really becoming utterly pathetic, and sound more and more like retail salespersons employed by Sony. Seriously, even better, look at the update :

"UPDATE: Further testing has revealed some issues. We're working with Sony but right now we recommend waiting for our full review before pre-ordering."

WTF is that ahaha ? The title made me sorry (even knowing that those two are Olympic champions of shitty clickbaits), but the update made me laugh so hard.

The good thing is we know where Sony's marketing department money goes : directly to completely flood Youtube with awful stuff like that ; the worst thing being we don't ask for this crap to appear in our "recommended content".

Ah, speaking of the latter ? :

 

Sorry for offtopic !

 

Edit : to correct my struggling English ?

[Andrew Reid]

"This bitch is a show-stopper"

"They have underpriced it"

"It's the best camera ever made"

-------

YouTube huh? The site's getting a bit of a reputation.

It needs to change... Or die.

[Skip77]

Geoff - you posted two of the crappiest YouTubers of all time.  

21 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

Well I will be the first to admit that a 1DC is a Really serious camera both photo and video wise. I don't know if it is from compression or whatever, they do not look right to me.

I will agree that Canon CS has always been geared to facial CS. But they have went from a orangish to a redish CS and I really not a fan of the new CS. It is getting cartoonish like an Olympus is at times.

And  have owned several Ferrari's and they were not that Red of a Red. It just isn't accurate. Now Maybe on an Apple screen it is perfect, who knows. I just re calibrated my Monitor 2 days ago. So YMMV.

Red is that Red. 

The 1DC images might be oversaturated but nothing plastic about how those faces look. You could defiantly grade them to your liking but good accurate color is just that. Take is talk and posting images that show Sony color is up to par with Nikon and Canon is another thing. 

We can do the all day long and Sony would come in third place out of Canon, Nikon and Sony. And I like Canon color over Nikon from what I've seen. 

[Andrew Reid]

Canon 1D C

Sony A7S II

Different opinions are fine but Alternative Facts aren't.

Even a blind person can feel very clearly what the difference is because one is positively radioactive.

And these are RAWs straight off the SD card with no colour adjustment whatsoever.

The amount of time and skill it would take to create a custom grade for that Sony RAW still so that it matches the Canon would be immense.

One preset might not work for all shots, you'd have to tailor it.

The Sony has green and yellow going on with skin, whether it is in the RAW file or the JPEG, it needs adjusting no matter what. And while it's true you have more headroom to adjust it in RAW than JPEG, it is still time and effort down the drain.

[webrunner5]

This is what a 1DC can do. I think both of your examples are pretty terrible to be honest on My screen. People to Me look like the people in this article. Not red or green. Probably not the very best examples of what the 1DC can do but..

 

https://www.digitalphotopro.com/reviews/hands-on-review-canon-eos-1d-c/

[HockeyFan12]

21 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Canon 1D C

Sony A7S II

Different opinions are fine but Alternative Facts aren't.

Even a blind person can feel very clearly what the difference is because one is positively radioactive.

And these are RAWs straight off the SD card with no colour adjustment whatsoever.

The amount of time and skill it would take to create a custom grade for that Sony RAW still so that it matches the Canon would be immense.

One preset might not work for all shots, you'd have to tailor it.

The Sony has green and yellow going on with skin, whether it is in the RAW file or the JPEG, it needs adjusting no matter what. And while it's true you have more headroom to adjust it in RAW than JPEG, it is still time and effort down the drain.

Yeah but if you underexpose six stops the Canon has a little more noise, so it's not even an option.

Isn't Nikon using Sony sensors? Nikon files look fine. I don't get it.

 

[webrunner5]

He seems to Really like it. ?

 

[liork]

51 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Canon 1D C

Sony A7S II

Different opinions are fine but Alternative Facts aren't.

Even a blind person can feel very clearly what the difference is because one is positively radioactive.

The Sony has green and yellow going on with skin

The Sony A7R III got rid of this yellow tint and does not have it any more.

[thebrothersthre3]

The newer sony's are much better I think. At least you have HLG for video. 

[Andrew Reid]

Of course they made improvements to colour with a few of the new models, but I still find myself shooting Fuji, Canon, Nikon, Olympus more often, and I still had to create Pro Color for the A7R IV, to bypass the dreary defaults. There is no EOSHD Pro Color for Fuji, is there?!

[thebrothersthre3]

2 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

Of course they made improvements to colour with a few of the new models, but I still find myself shooting Fuji, Canon, Nikon, Olympus more often, and I still had to create Pro Color for the A7R IV, to bypass the dreary defaults. There is no EOSHD Pro Color for Fuji, is there?!

Could be helpful for matching fuji to canon! Probably not big enough of a market tho.

[Andrew Reid]

18 minutes ago, webrunner5 said:

He seems to Really like it.

I think if someone at a Sony PR event really likes it, we should all rush out and drop $3500 on it immediately.

What do you think?

[currensheldon]

I bought into the numbers and spec game that Sony played for a couple of years (2015-2017). Used the A7s, A7rII, and FS5. 4K! 40+ megapixels! 240fps!

I call these the dead years. 

Yes, I got some good stuff with them and thanks to a great colorist, was able to grade some films so that it looked great. But the day to day shoots, the general travel photos, the one-man band work, the portfolio of work that doesn't have professional colorist attached to it just isn't even in the same ballpark image quality wise as something from a Canon or Panasonic. 

While you use a Sony, you don't really realize that there is something off - you just get used to it. My wake up call is when I looked at old, 8-bit HD footage from my Canon 60D that I shot in 2012/2013. It just looked so much nicer, natural, and beautiful. Quickly tested out some new systems, felt the same about the footage I was capturing on those, and dropped Sony as quick as I could.

Still love Canon and think they have the best CS and best image right out of the box, but Panasonic is very close and also give you the specs that Sony does. So, it's Panasonic for me right now. Maybe if Canon give us a 10-bit C100III with RF mount and a pro-body EOS R with 2020 video specs, they could come out ahead. But feels like Panasonic is the company that will give us what we want spec-wise while also giving us high image quality and color. 

 

[cameraeye]

I follow the Sony A7 line news out of curiosity but, after owning an A7s II cannot consider them again. The argument of colour improving over time is crazy- why not take longer and get the colour science right- why should I wait multiple years, buying 4 generations of cameras to maybe get accurate colours?

I sold my A7s II for the horrid colour alone. The tipping-point was after doing extensive research to grade its video when the best solution I could find was to take a damn canon camera on set for reference photos- and match the Sony to the canon. I mean at that point what's the point? I was, like others, bamboozled by the immense specs of their A7s II. But you can throw the ingredients of a delicious meal into a pot- it's how you prepare them that matters. I am really not a fan of using paying users feedback to improve products- just use the things yourselves and release a well-rounded, considered product.

The mark 3 versions of the A7 look much better than my s II, but I will not give them my money to be a member of a focus group for a future version of the product. Also- no thanks to those menus- do they even use them themselves?

Wish I tried Magic Lantern before buying the A7s II, would have saved a lot of time.

[webrunner5]

37 minutes ago, Andrew Reid said:

I think if someone at a Sony PR event really likes it, we should all rush out and drop $3500 on it immediately.

What do you think?

Well it is out of my Budget as they say, but sure leaning toward Video I would wait the the Panasonic S1H. But if I was into photography I would get the A7 mk IV. Why not , way cheaper than any sort of MF camera is overall cost wise, and most are not by Any means FF MF. Not counting now that Sony has just about any kind of lens you need now, and they all have the latest tech.

I think the silent shutter is a bigger deal than most people think, at least to what I like to do photography wise. It is not a groundbreaking camera Video wise for sure, but the eye focus in video, now that can be really pretty huge.