Mattias Burling

I only ever use AF for macro. If I was interested in a camera that turned out to be MF only in video I wouldn't care even a little.
In my mind, "automatic focus" is still no yet invented.

The camera has one job, process an image. If it needs 3-4 minutes work per image just to make people look normal.. that's not exactly awesome imo.
It's like whith the white balance in Slog2. Defenders always claimed that setting the right WB needed extra time and effort and that is perfectly normal.. yeah no.. in every other camera on earth it's a basic setting that takes two seconds and always has.
I love Sony cameras.
I've bought many, way more than Canons. And I can get really nice looking images and colors out of them, no problem. But doing it fast, efficient and consistent compared to CaNikon, PanaOly, or even Pentax and Leica.. not so much.

No they don't compare. They are way more suitable for 97% of the situations that the average pro photographer encounters. 

No they don't compare. They are way more suitable for 97% of the situations that the average pro photographer encounters. 

I was talking to a local photographer who also flips cameras as much as I do (we meat every time one buys something of the other). We remenissed about cameras we had used, sold, loved and hated.
But we both agreed on one thing, no matter what you buy or sell, you always keep a GR in your kit.
It's the only thing that's constant.

Sony, Nikon, Canon and Fuji also include free Log in their cameras.
These two are gorgeous.

Personally, the A7riv is the first interesting model since the original A7. So I'm not hating on it. I actually wish I could justify the cost..
..But...
Hilarious irony for someone who has been told a million times that I'm an idiot for shooting a camera with 2016 video specs.. only to see Philip Bloom of all people point out that the Sony flagship is using 2015 video specs.. I spilled my coffee laughing.
(And to be fare to Canon, it at least has 400mbit and 10-bit out with it's 2016 specs.)

That’s exactly my point. Comparing a Hasselblad or Phase One to cameras designed to be used outside of a studio is just plain silly. Sure, the medium format cameras may have an edge in ultimate image quality. But neither is a well suited street camera, travel camera or sports camera. They’re just not made for that sort of work. As I’m not a studio photographer those cameras have zero value for my use.

1DXMK2 is a “real pro” camera. Try shooting sports with a Phase One or Hasselblad... then we can talk.

On some Canons you can choose between the old and the new color in the menu for C-log.
With Raw stills they have been very consistent. Shooting for example the 5D classic side by side with the 6Dmkii it's close enough that most wouldn't be able to tell them apart. 
BTW, you don't even have to be +70 to have been shooting ancient Canons professionally. Could be interesting to have an age poll because it seems to me that many here are old enough to remember the time before the DSLR revolution.

This is not true any more. The Sigma DP1, DP2 DP3, SD and SD H Qattro all shoot native DNGs which of course is editable in any raw editor you can think of.
The original DP1 and DP2 is also Lightroom compatible without shooting DNGs.
Another myth is that one must use a tripod. Obviously you don't need a tripod anymore than you do on a film camera. I've never used one, not once, with a Foveon.
Personally I have loved all my Sigma Foveon cameras and I'm in the process of buying the SD Quattro H to see how I like it compared to the regular Quattro.

The camera has one job, process an image. If it needs 3-4 minutes work per image just to make people look normal.. that's not exactly awesome imo.
It's like whith the white balance in Slog2. Defenders always claimed that setting the right WB needed extra time and effort and that is perfectly normal.. yeah no.. in every other camera on earth it's a basic setting that takes two seconds and always has.
I love Sony cameras.
I've bought many, way more than Canons. And I can get really nice looking images and colors out of them, no problem. But doing it fast, efficient and consistent compared to CaNikon, PanaOly, or even Pentax and Leica.. not so much.

Opposite way round my friend.
Took around 5 minutes? Now multiply that by 1000.
You fix my photos.
I'll pay you $1 for the lot.
Still short of the Canon anyway.
Exactly.
White balance is baked into S-LOG 2.
Then people put a totally different colour temperature on it with a LUT.
No wonder it looks a bit weird.
I remember that Sony recognised this was a problem and on the FS cameras you get to choose S-Gamut White Balance Color Modes like 5300K!
Problem was, then you lost your usual AWB system and had to dive into the shitty Sony menus to select a preset.
The Leica M9 is a perfect example of what I'm talking about.
You open the RAW in Adobe, and then 2 seconds later, it's done. No fiddling or 5 minutes to fix problems.
Do the same thing with a Sony and no matter what, people look like they have big red bags under their eyes, yellow shadow under their chin, magenta rashes and zombie-dead flesh where a nice healthy glow should be.
It's much easier to fix greens and blues in landscapes if needed, than it is to fix skin. Skin is very complicated and you rely on the camera to get it right.

The camera has one job, process an image. If it needs 3-4 minutes work per image just to make people look normal.. that's not exactly awesome imo.
It's like whith the white balance in Slog2. Defenders always claimed that setting the right WB needed extra time and effort and that is perfectly normal.. yeah no.. in every other camera on earth it's a basic setting that takes two seconds and always has.
I love Sony cameras.
I've bought many, way more than Canons. And I can get really nice looking images and colors out of them, no problem. But doing it fast, efficient and consistent compared to CaNikon, PanaOly, or even Pentax and Leica.. not so much.

On some Canons you can choose between the old and the new color in the menu for C-log.
With Raw stills they have been very consistent. Shooting for example the 5D classic side by side with the 6Dmkii it's close enough that most wouldn't be able to tell them apart. 
BTW, you don't even have to be +70 to have been shooting ancient Canons professionally. Could be interesting to have an age poll because it seems to me that many here are old enough to remember the time before the DSLR revolution.

The camera has one job, process an image. If it needs 3-4 minutes work per image just to make people look normal.. that's not exactly awesome imo.
It's like whith the white balance in Slog2. Defenders always claimed that setting the right WB needed extra time and effort and that is perfectly normal.. yeah no.. in every other camera on earth it's a basic setting that takes two seconds and always has.
I love Sony cameras.
I've bought many, way more than Canons. And I can get really nice looking images and colors out of them, no problem. But doing it fast, efficient and consistent compared to CaNikon, PanaOly, or even Pentax and Leica.. not so much.

The camera has one job, process an image. If it needs 3-4 minutes work per image just to make people look normal.. that's not exactly awesome imo.
It's like whith the white balance in Slog2. Defenders always claimed that setting the right WB needed extra time and effort and that is perfectly normal.. yeah no.. in every other camera on earth it's a basic setting that takes two seconds and always has.
I love Sony cameras.
I've bought many, way more than Canons. And I can get really nice looking images and colors out of them, no problem. But doing it fast, efficient and consistent compared to CaNikon, PanaOly, or even Pentax and Leica.. not so much.

CANON:

SONY:

We have both been alive for the same number of years since the A7R II came out. Unless you have lived two simultaneous parallel lives in an alternative universe where all the facts are different and the A7R II shot rubbish video
I bought both the A7R II and a7R III for video... Full frame image wasn't too shabby at all.
It was one of the cameras that strived at the forefront of technology to do BOTH stills and video to the MAX.
And now Sony has decided to hold it back and just tweak it... rather than push forward with the stuff it badly needs to stay competitive with Fuji and Panasonic's hybrid cameras... Like proper colour film profiles, 10bit, ND, etc.
The X-T3 is also a camera massively aimed at stills people, but look at the video mode... amazing.
The skill of the person costs time.
Often it also costs money.
And on top of all that, even more often it is a fucking pain in the ass.
People who are skilled at grading don't suddenly have 200 hours in 1 day to spend on a bunch of RAW files from a Sony A7S II.
@Mattias Burling has said as much again and again, he wants the camera to minimise his effort so he can do simple grades with a big impact.
If you're implying that only post matters, you're also kinda saying RAW data and all sensors are equal... Well it isn't. They have different characteristics.
The default settings matter.
The white balance system matters.
The colour filter array matters.
The readout matters.
The onboard chip A/D matters.
The calibration and imaging pipeline matters.
The Adobe Camera Raw presets matter, for each individual camera.
RAW capture doesn't end when the light wavelength hits the sensor!
 
Yeah, I buy a full frame sensor to crop.... NOT!
I just love that small sensor look so much from my 61 megapixel A7R!
I can't live without 61 megapixel... Gotta crop ALL THE TIME
Who needs a zoom when you can crop to 1/2.3" sensor size!?
100MB per file isn't big enough, I want 2TB raw stills and 2000TB SD cards that take 2 weeks to open!
I've nothing against pixel shift.
I'm just a guy who has difficulty telling the difference at normal viewing distances of 24 megapixel versus 50+ megapixel when I am not zoomed in at 100% on a tiny window of the overall image.
But yes, 240 megapixel... Bring it on
Yes that much is clear. You sound a bit like a Sony exec. They clearly have decided the cutting edge hybrid video/stills focus of 2015 had to be watered down, otherwise they couldn't sell us 3 separate bodies. One for video. One for stills. And one that did neither well, but looks kinda cute.
Segmentation is the name of the game when it comes to profit.
Sony are the new Canon.
(Just not when it comes to colour science)

Good color science is equally important when shooting raw.

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

Good color science is equally important when shooting raw.

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. 

Good color science is equally important when shooting raw.

You and every c100, c300, 5D, Blackmagic operator out there. Clearly you/me are doing something wrong since we manage to get good results