Sony A7R IV - can confirm colour is still SH**!

[Andrew Reid]

21 hours ago, Super8 said:

I would kindly tell Andrew if he is wrong but he is 100% correct in his assessment  of Sony color.  Sony sales are not based on Sony color and Sony shooters have nothing to compare it with except what they've shot from Sony.

So many Sony photographers have stopped caring or able to see good color because they're blinded by brand loyalty. 

I am not a Canon shooter, yet.

Arri and Canon have the best color by a mile.

I can only guess most Sony shooters don't shoot much JPEG.

The problem for us video shooters is our colour and white balance are baked in... yes even in S-LOG to some degree. And that is a pain enough to grade, so if I want immediate impact and the complete image, wonderful skintones etc. from a Sony, I have to spend hours experimenting with 100's of combinations of settings in the creative styles, picture profiles, and white balance menus.

I don't mind, if Pro Color is the result.

But don't you find it slightly ridiculous that Sony with all their billions can't get it right after 8 years of trying?

And they change the damn colour science with almost every camera, there is ZERO consistency.

They are also very inconsistent between different kinds of subject.

And by the way let's not get too excited about Sony's sales. It is still a dramatically shrinking camera market overall, it's just Sony now has a greater slice of the smaller pie compared to 10 years ago.

Every Sony shooter should pick up an old full frame 24 megapixel A900 for $400 and see how much better things were in the Sony-Minolta days of 2008

[Mako Sports]

2 hours ago, Andrew Reid said:

The problem for us video shooters is our colour and white balance are baked in... yes even in S-LOG to some degree. And that is a pain enough to grade, so if I want immediate impact and the complete image, wonderful skintones etc. from a Sony, I have to spend hours experimenting with 100's of combinations of settings in the creative styles, picture profiles, and white balance menus.

I don't mind, if Pro Color is the result.

But don't you find it slightly ridiculous that Sony with all their billions can't get it right after 8 years of trying?

And they change the damn colour science with almost every camera, there is ZERO consistency.

You want them to make sooc color better (which they are) but at the same time, want them to stop trying to update it?

[noone]

9 hours ago, Super8 said:

Most of these users are not serious photographers or videographers either.  If they do video then they know how much work goes into fixing Sony color.

I've seen professional photographers that use Sony and post work with horrible unnatural skin tones that can't be fixed by shooting RAW.  Sony is not being used by serious professionals. 

 

 

Yeah that is why most of the video pros i see with a "proper" camera and not a DSLR or mirrorless ILC are actually using Sony.    As for not being serious photographers (and increasingly serious hybrid shooters) You really need to get out more....there are more that i see with Sony than other brands around here now with quite a few who switched from 5D mk whatevers.

Again, to many there IS an issue with Sony colour and its seems I am not alone in thinking a LOT of that is due to auto white balance but it is hard to take you seriously with what seems an extreme bias against Sony. 

[Andrew Reid]

8 hours ago, Mako Sports said:

You want them to make sooc color better (which they are) but at the same time, want them to stop trying to update it?

Yes. The idea is not to keep updating it.

How often do Arri change their colour science?

Once you get it working, once you get it looking beautiful, there is no need to keep tweaking it.

Sony had it right in 2008 then fucked it up and tweaked it for past 8 years to the point where it's only 10% better than the fuck up.

Honestly head should roll, but just like they doggedly stick to the same broken menu system, it seems they stand by their failures in people management too.

7 hours ago, noone said:

Yeah that is why most of the video pros i see with a "proper" camera and not a DSLR or mirrorless ILC are actually using Sony.    As for not being serious photographers (and increasingly serious hybrid shooters) You really need to get out more....there are more that i see with Sony than other brands around here now with quite a few who switched from 5D mk whatevers.

Again, to many there IS an issue with Sony colour and its seems I am not alone in thinking a LOT of that is due to auto white balance but it is hard to take you seriously with what seems an extreme bias against Sony. 

My reading of the situation, is that most people are attracted to Sony by the high-specs. I am sure they have more enthusiast usage than pro for stills. I think most stills pros are on Canon / Nikon / Leica. If you buy a stills camera for the high specs you are not going to care about JPEG very much. You are going to care about the raw files, and have ample skill in Lightroom to do what you like to the colour and dynamic range. In video, it's a different story and you are at the mercy of the image processor to a much higher degree. It has to be right.

I have had lovely results from Sony's cameras because they at least afford us a great control over the picture profiles, gamma modes, colour gamuts, etc. and enable us to mix up the settings to patch over any shortcomings in the default ones... of which there are legion. But it is still the case that my 1D C beats it every time for skintones and teal / orange shooting where you want to maintain a nice emphasis on warm and cool tones in a single frame. The auto white balance is also far better. I will do a comparison between the 1D C, Leica SL2 and Sony A7 III soon which proves there is a big difference in the ways the cameras handle colour and WB.

The good thing like I said above is that Sony is not shy about giving us a lot of settings to play with.

When you have the Minolta colour science to compare with (Sony A900), a Leica SL2 and a 1D C, or even an Alexa, you have the best industry reference for colour science in the world to act as a guide. This is what makes EOSHD Pro Color possible, so thank you Sony for allowing us all those complex options to diddle with while I compare.

On the other hand if you are a non-technical shooter with a great eye and a job to do, but no time to diddle around and not a high level of nerd ability and nerd patience,  are you going to have a spare 100's of hours to test settings or even the benchmark cameras to compare to? I don't think so. You just want the damn camera to deliver out of the box effortlessly like your last one did. If I were the latter, I would not let a Sony mirrorless camera within a yard of my shoot. It would be Leica SL2, Fuji GFX, or Canon 1D X III all day long.

[noone]

Andrew, I agree that there ARE a lot of stills pros STILL with Canon and Nikon (I actually do not think the number with Leica is huge at all and many of those that DO actually use dual systems) but there ARE an increasing number using Sony (or rather an increasing percentage in a shrinking market).     I also think a LOT of Pros that use Sony are also dual system users including quite a few Canon users who investigate Sony (while keeping their lenses still though that is dropping off a bit now maybe or some have settled on Sony and selling off their canon gear).    Again though there is an increasing number, at least around here.

It also depends on what you mean by "pro" as around here at least there are a LOT of people who hang out a shingle and shoot weddings on the weekend...many of those are still "serious" photographers and seriously good.    Then there are those using APSC cameras to take Santa pics/portraits at the mall.

I would also take the work of many high end "enthusiasts" over many pros too and are clearly "serious photographers".

This is the bit i objected to especially...

"Most of these users are not serious photographers or videographers either.  If they do video then they know how much work goes into fixing Sony color.

I've seen professional photographers that use Sony and post work with horrible unnatural skin tones that can't be fixed by shooting RAW.  Sony is not being used by serious professionals."

And THAT is as ridiculous as it would be to say that ONLY Sony users are serious photographers/videographers....it is rubbish!

 

[Super8]

You can direct the later comments to me and not Andrew if you like since I wrote that.

I was a little harsh about correcting stills in RAW with the Sony but I stand by the photo's and video that I've seen.

Just look at Tony and Chelsea's videos record on Sony A7 series that they post.  I believe since they switched to Sony, all content they create in studio is shot with Sony.  Skin tones and color depth is so off on that footage that I'm surprised you and Mako don't notice or acknowledge how they look.

 

[SRV1981]

6 minutes ago, Super8 said:

You can direct the later comments to me and not Andrew if you like since I wrote that.

I was a little harsh about correcting stills in RAW with the Sony but I stand by the photo's and video that I've seen.

Just look at Tony and Chelsea's videos record on Sony A7 series that they post.  I believe since they switched to Sony, all content they create in studio is shot with Sony.  Skin tones and color depth is so off on that footage that I'm surprised you and Mako don't notice or acknowledge how they look.

 

Can one really make an evaluation of a tool, such as a camera, purely on a single video by a user many here don't seem to care for?  I think there is plenty of examples of good images coming from Sony A7 III etc. but can also agree that SOOC of XT2/3 is typically more appealing.  If you don't AB the heck out of it and just watch quality filmmakers with any camera the images look good.  Sometimes its more of a limitation of the user than the tool.

[Andrew Reid]

12 minutes ago, SRV1981 said:

but can also agree that SOOC of XT2/3 is typically more appealing.

Nobody is denying you can't make a Sony image look great.

But you said it yourself - other brands straight out of camera colour is superior.

Quote

Sometimes its more of a limitation of the user than the tool.

In terms of content, composition, production values yes. But not in the case of Straight Out Of Camera colour where there's nothing for the user to do - stick it on default, no grading - the same shot A/B on Fuji vs Sony will be superior looking SOOC on the Fuji, as it will be Canon vs Sony also, and many others.

If I knew no better and just shot with the Standard creative style or Cine2, I would not be getting anywhere near as flattering skintones as I would be with a Fuji, Canon or Olympus.

I bet you anything the majority of A7 III users don't shoot video with an exotic mix of settings and when they use S-LOG, well, just look at the average grade on Vimeo and that tells you everything about how challenging that is to get right.

I remember well when S-LOG first came out how much awful sick and dead looking subjects there were shot with the Sony cameras.

These days, people have learnt to grade, people have tons of quality LUTs to choose from, so that's a positive.

But at no point did Sony help us out.

If anything Sony makes cameras that get in the way too often.

[Super8]

3 minutes ago, SRV1981 said:

Can one really make an evaluation of a tool, such as a camera, purely on a single video by a user many here don't seem to care for?  I think there is plenty of examples of good images coming from Sony A7 III etc. but can also agree that SOOC of XT2/3 is typically more appealing.  If you don't AB the heck out of it and just watch quality filmmakers with any camera the images look good.  Sometimes its more of a limitation of the user than the tool.

I've used Sony A7 cameras and graded tones of footage.  I know that footage inside and out.  I hope the post about the Sony is directed at defending color produced and not directed at me.

If you follow Andrew's comments you'll find he addresses auto WB and WB and calls out Sony for getting it wrong.  Without any proof you guys are saying Sony users aren't WB before they shoot or are using AWB and that's why Sony color is off.

So you mean Tony and Chelsea don't know how to operate the Sony cameras they're using? That doesn't seem to be the case.  I do think Tony has switched back to Canon. 

I've actually liked Tony and Chelsea's video in the past.  They became hard to validate once they switched over to Sony because what they were saying and claiming didn't match what I was seeing.

 

[noone]

2 hours ago, Super8 said:

You can direct the later comments to me and not Andrew if you like since I wrote that.

I was a little harsh about correcting stills in RAW with the Sony but I stand by the photo's and video that I've seen.

Just look at Tony and Chelsea's videos record on Sony A7 series that they post.  I believe since they switched to Sony, all content they create in studio is shot with Sony.  Skin tones and color depth is so off on that footage that I'm surprised you and Mako don't notice or acknowledge how they look.

 

I did address it to you.     Just pointed out that part is what i objected to.

Look, you can have an opinion that YOU do not like Sony (or any camera or brand) if you want but to say that a brand is not used by serious photographers or videographers (and especially one that is selling quite well) is simply trolling as well as being absurd in my opinion as well as being insulting to the many people who make their living using such gear.    You don't like it, fine....others DO.

I like all the brands of photography gear I have used and just occasionally do i not like a piece of equipment.      I never got on with a Canon 7d for instance but that does not mean others did.

I almost never watch Tony and Chelsea and have not for a year or so and last I was aware of there were just a few more Sony Users than the Northrup's.

No gear is perfect ...for ME, the A7s (first version is still the camera I want and use), for others it would be the last thing they want...same with the newer higher FF Sony's and all those cameras from any brand.

Yes, Sony has a colour issue for many people (not all) but equally, other people find greater limitations with different brands.   I think the main issue is AWB for Sony and I mainly use Jpegs and do not grade the songs i video....I do not consider myself to be anything but an old amateur but my photos and (odd video) do get used by newspapers, councils, record companies, bands and others from time to time.    I have to use RAW with  my old Canon DSLR as there is a noticeable difference but with my A7s, not so much.

[Super8]

Andrew posted the OP about Sony color still being sh%$.  

That's the topic being discussed . I've added my 2 cents and and I have experience shooting and color correcting Sony footage.

I know professionals use the FS7 and other cine cameras from Sony. I also know Some professional photographers use the A line up for photography. 

Here's my OC about the A7 series camera, i.e the A7III and A7IV -  "Most of these users are not serious photographers or videographers either.  If they do video then they know how much work goes into fixing Sony color."

Andrew made some very solid statements about Sony WB  "The white balance system Sony is using baffles me.". He clearly doesn't give Sony and out and say Sony's AWB system is off.

Just discuss Sony color in this thread and not so much my opinion about Sony users.

It's Sony fanboy talk to give them a pass and say " I think the main issue is AWB for Sony".  If that was the case then EOS Pro Color wouldn't be needed and Sony AWB would be addressed on endless You Tube channels.

[noone]

Again, you can hold whatever opinion you want but when you make a blanket statement about Sony not used by serious photographers, as far as I am concerned your opinion is as valid as if you said your "opinion is that one plus one equals three".     I AM a fan of Sony (because of the A7s and Sony Zeiss 55 1.8 among others) but equally i am a fan of Canon (because of the 17mm  TS-E for example) and there are things i like in most brands.     I see great work from Sony users and Canon users and Nikon ETC ETC ETC if you don't that is your problem.

[Robert Collins]

5 hours ago, Super8 said:

You can direct the later comments to me and not Andrew if you like since I wrote that.

I was a little harsh about correcting stills in RAW with the Sony but I stand by the photo's and video that I've seen.

Just look at Tony and Chelsea's videos record on Sony A7 series that they post.  I believe since they switched to Sony, all content they create in studio is shot with Sony.  Skin tones and color depth is so off on that footage that I'm surprised you and Mako don't notice or acknowledge how they look.

 

Since Tony and Chelsea switched to Sony for stills (with the A7r4) they have been using the EOS-R for video (whilst also still using the GH5 and Blackmagic.)

He posted a video about it about a week ago.

That being said - the fact that they are using different cameras for stills and video obviously speaks volumes about what they feel about Sony's video capabilities.

Sony has absolutely nailed stills photography (particularly autofocus) and seems to have got very lazy with the video side.

[Django]

Who cares about what T&C uses? Since when have they been an authority on videography..or even photography?

They use what they see fit for their needs. Like most people.

Sony has had a long head start on FF mirrorless. Chances are if you've made the switch to Sony before CaNikon entered the market, you're going to stick with it.

Main reason EOS R has been so successful with Youtubers is because it has a flip screen, DPAF.. and solid CS SOOC. 

Sony is in a coma though concerning video specs in 2020, I think we all agree. Same codec/resolution for the last 5 years. Still WB/CS issues.

It's quite mind-blowing considering how competitive the FF mirrorless market has become. They seem to have totally abandoned the video side!

[noone]

Not sure I would say TOTALLY abandoned the video side but yeah, it is a bit behind some of the opposition now (they only really had the A7s pair and a few odds and ends before that in the ILC space that were more video centric though).    I would just say NOT class leading and they still make great hybrid cameras with excellent stills and decent enough video for many serious users.  They are due for something soon I think (as are some others).     Great time to like and use photo/video gear.

 

[IronFilm]

8 hours ago, Super8 said:

Just look at Tony and Chelsea's videos record on Sony A7 series that they post.  I believe since they switched to Sony, all content they create in studio is shot with Sony.  Skin tones and color depth is so off on that footage that I'm surprised you and Mako don't notice or acknowledge how they look.

Well, they're giving up on 4K now and going back to Canon

2 hours ago, Robert Collins said:

Sony has absolutely nailed stills photography (particularly autofocus) and seems to have got very lazy with the video side.

Once they've got the market share they want (via aggressively pushing out new specs), then they'll be turning into the Canon of the future. 

[Mako Sports]

3 hours ago, Robert Collins said:

Since Tony and Chelsea switched to Sony for stills (with the A7r4) they have been using the EOS-R for video (whilst also still using the GH5 and Blackmagic.)

He posted a video about it about a week ago.

That being said - the fact that they are using different cameras for stills and video obviously speaks volumes about what they feel about Sony's video capabilities.

Sony has absolutely nailed stills photography (particularly autofocus) and seems to have got very lazy with the video side.

That video made me laugh so hard.

So uppity about the EOS R and RP's DPAF but the video is FULL of auto focus hunting.

And the audio was horrific. 

[Video Hummus]

Tony’s video reminds me of a nightmare I had recently. 

[Andrew Reid]

Your nightmare is my reality.

[Mako Sports]

On 1/13/2020 at 2:47 PM, Super8 said:

I've seen professional photographers that use Sony and post work with horrible unnatural skin tones that can't be fixed by shooting RAW.  Sony is not being used by serious professionals.

@Super8

Latest Sports Illustrated cover was shot with a Sony A9 with a 400 2.8 GM.

But serious pros don't use Sony right?

?

 

Sometimes its better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and remove all doubt 

- Abe Lincoln