Jump to content
Sign in to follow this  
wolf33d

Fun story A7R / 5D III

Recommended Posts

I am following on FB a French Pro photographer. Cool guy, 100% independent (no sponsor whatsoever). Of course his work is top, you can check a few of his pics here: https://500px.com/BeboyPhotographies

Yesterday he posted a funny post on FB so I am going to translate and summarize it here:
So this guy had a 5DIII since day one. Then he tried the A7R thanks to a friend and liked the quality, compared (pixel peep) with 5DIII and was blown away by : 
1- Dynamic Range (I saw his tests and when getting back the shadow informations and so on it was indeed crazy: clean on A7R, horrible on 5DIII)
2- sharpness (36mpx vs 20ish and lack of AA filter)
 

So he was shocked and was like "cool I don't need to bracket anymore, ... .." so he just bought the A7R and used it with his Canon lenses. Almost sold the 5D but never did it. 
He realized at the beginning that when he edited pictures, he got wired colors and "flat" image in the way not really pleasant like it was on the Canon, even after 2 hours of photoshop on it. But he thought that it was because of the learning curve of being on a new system. And then he was just used to it, and 10 months passed. 

And then, he checked back his very old pictures and was like wow... There were looking really nice on the 5DIII! and he remembered those wired colors and lack of nice contrast. 
So he decided to do some test with the old 5DIII again but in "real world" instead of pixel peeping. And the conclusion was easy: the 5DIII produces way better RAWs than the A7R. The result he can get on Photoshop is just better, better colors, better contrasts.... 

And looking at the past ten months: horrible A7R ergonomics, tons of problem (died because of non weather sealing) bad handling due to small body, ...., .... 

So he his now going back on the 5D !!!!

Well.... I got the 5DIII myself. I am super angry like Andrew about Canon and their shits (NO FEATURES on canon: they have the color science and lenses and thats it). Sony is completely focused on specs and features... Look at this awesome AR7II. But at the end of the day, what do we see ? Best results with 5DIII. 
In video, same with A7S and 1DC !!! what a surprise! A7S has specs (120fps, 4K, 23427490284294782048 ISO....) 1DC has nothing but the image is just miles ahead. 

 

So whatever do we say about canon, even if we split on them. 
If Canon does a 4K 5DIV or a 5DC because they choose to segment (and I think they will do one or the other) then it's gonna be a hell of a camera. 

 

I decided to post this stories because of the similarities with the video world (canon colors, sony colors...). 

I was sold with the A7R II, and now I just don't know anymore. 
I am still waiting for a good FF camera that does photo/video WELL... 

What do you think guys? 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
EOSHD Pro Color for Sony cameras EOSHD Pro LOG for Sony CamerasEOSHD C-LOG and Film Profiles for All Canon DSLRs

I honestly think the A7RII will be disappointing for video. Got a feeling.

Most of us want Canon products, because they do create the best images. They absolutely do. I can't help but think if Canon just pulled out their finger a little on the specifications - they would blow the competition out the water.

A cinema DSLR (1DC) that doesn't have peaking, what on earth is all that about? No 4k on the C100 Mk II? No 60fps on the C300 Mk II? They just miss key stuff out. 

I think the reason why they get such a bashing on this website is because we do want Canon products, but we want them with the features that others are offering. Even basic ones. I know I do. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Since I never own any Canon cameras but only used my friend's one the "Canon" colour scheme have no effect on me at all.

 

I guess I am lucky that I didn't stuck with Canon colour like a lot of people out there.  I just choose the tool that will works and make me standout. And portability is a big plus too.

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Can't really tell anyone that their preference is wrong. That guy shoots amazing photographs and if the 5D is the camera for him, then I'm certainly not going to argue. 

However, I personally really value features that make shooting easier. If I have to choose between a camera with a ton of features but a slightly inferior image to a camera that gets in my way, then I would likely go with the feature-packed camera. That's for video though. For stills only, I'd happily go with a DSLR, but I'd likely choose Nikon. Shadow detail retention looks pretty amazing on the 810. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not canon or sony color, it's adobe color science. I don't have an A7R, but the d800 has nice color when compared to canon (in PS). The d3 had very muted color but I tricked PS into using the d800 profile and the muted yellowish thing kinda got away. It's raw after all.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

For stills only, I'd happily go with a DSLR, but I'd likely choose Nikon. Shadow detail retention looks pretty amazing on the 810. 

Sony A7R has same shadow retention as D810!! and that is why he bought the A7R!! cause he did the pixel peep and found out it's like this. 

But then the goal of my post was to show that at the end of the day, it's not about specs, it's not about shadow retention but about the image (to a certain extend). 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

If I was only shooting stills, then I would use a Canon if only for the little things like autofocus, lens availability etc. etc.

For video though, why would you go with a Canon DSLR??

Perhaps I have the virtue of coming here to learn more about the A7s, but I've shot with a lot of cameras - not just Canons and in my personal opinion the Canon colours are incredibly over-rated on here. Nowhere else, either when I'm out working, or on the internet, is there such a cry of 'oh man the Canon has the best colours in the world'.

Maybe it's because a lot of people here have used Canon for a long time, or in some cases, only ever used Canon and so are simply used to the image and colour you get out of it.  I'm sure if the A7s was the 5DmkII of its time, people wouldn't have complained about the supposedly 'strange colours' (which I'm personally still yet to replicate on my A7s).

You can get nice colours out of almost any camera - the point of colour grading is to get colours you like. Personally, for day-to-day usage (i.e. not studio use), I'm looking for a camera that's light, easy to use and gives me a great picture. I've used 5Ds, 7Ds, and Rebels and not once was I happy with the picture straight out of the camera (and even after grading etc. it still looked meh). Now, you can say 'well you get great results if you shoot flat, reduce contrast, reduce sharpening, or use ML raw' - and that's true. But I can also get great results (if not better) by doing the same with my A7s. Except all I have to do with my A7s is turn it to Picture Profile 7.

I continue to be amazed at the quality of the imagery I get out of my A7s, especially paired with the Shogun. I don't want a camera that's going to work against me, or that I have to hack to oblivion to get a half-decent image out of it. The 5D3 raw is nice, but it's not 'mind-blowing' as half the users here would have you think.

I've had friends tell me they prefer the RED image to Alexa because Alexa is 'way too green' (at least it was until I pulled the green ND filter out of the matte box). In this day and age of colour correcting and grading every shot, colours start to matter less and less. Yes, they matter - but one person's dislikes an Alexa because it's too green, another dislikes RED because it gets really red noise in shadow areas from time to time, another dislikes the F55 because it can be over-saturated (or whatever). Do colourists say 'man you should have shot this on a Canon because the colours are oh so much better?' No. They correct the green out of the Alexa that the person operating forgot to take the ND off, they correct the red out of the RED that the operator under-exposed accidentally (which is why there was noise there in the first place), and they correct the saturation out of the F55 that was there because the operator didn't check the saturation setting when they picked up the camera, and the previous shooter had bumped it up.

Imagine the outcry on here of 'it must have been operator error' if I said I'd seen some terrible colours out of a Canon! But you use a Sony and suddenly it's Sony's fault!

In regards to the OP, if the only thing the Canon 1Dc can offer over the A7s is marginally better colours to those who have spent most of their time shooting Canon anyway - and it still costs more than 3x that of the A7s, then Canon have got real problems.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Canon, Sony or any other system for that matter can give you great results. Sony A7s shoots a log image that you an basically push it anywhere you want, you just need to know what you're doing. All "video screen grabs" shot on A7s , colored in Resolve. I posted these before, but I have to remind people it's not the tools....................

 

 

 

 

Screen_Shot_2015-04-18_at_12.30.40_PM.thScreen_Shot_2015-04-08_at_11.54.42_AM.thScreen_Shot_2015-04-18_at_11.55.37_AM.thScreen_Shot_2015-04-18_at_12.03.46_PM.th

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well excuse me but I don't like at all the colors and grading of the 2 images above. 

I never said A7S colors are shit however. I even showed in another post some great videos of A7S with nice colors (and in each case it was not SLOG2, and very little grade). 

Just an exemple :

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it possible the photographer discussed by the OP is suffering from 'fresh is more' syndrome? I do this all the time with everything.... design, video, photography, color, etc. I'll look at something from a while ago, or something new, and feel like it's way better than what I'm doing now. Then come back to what I'm doing now, months later when I'm doing something else and I'm like, dang, that was great. Sometimes moving to a new system, project, environment, whatever, gives us a fresh perspective after looking at the same thing for weeks or months or years. 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canon are famed for their JPG/video colour science, not their RAW colour science. I might be wrong, but I think manufacturers have little control of their RAW colour science? It's all up to the software to interpret the data.

For example I just switched to Capture One Pro from Lightroom and find it to be so much better. 

Lightroom:

P4850820-2.thumb.JPG.695311a4c541dfdebef

Capture One Pro

P4850820_1.thumb.jpg.542efba5dfa3ca8c343

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I am following on FB a French Pro photographer. Cool guy, 100% independent (no sponsor whatsoever). Of course his work is top, you can check a few of his pics here: https://500px.com/BeboyPhotographies

Yesterday he posted a funny post on FB so I am going to translate and summarize it here:
So this guy had a 5DIII since day one. Then he tried the A7R thanks to a friend and liked the quality, compared (pixel peep) with 5DIII and was blown away by : 
1- Dynamic Range (I saw his tests and when getting back the shadow informations and so on it was indeed crazy: clean on A7R, horrible on 5DIII)
2- sharpness (36mpx vs 20ish and lack of AA filter)
 

So he was shocked and was like "cool I don't need to bracket anymore, ... .." so he just bought the A7R and used it with his Canon lenses. Almost sold the 5D but never did it. 
He realized at the beginning that when he edited pictures, he got wired colors and "flat" image in the way not really pleasant like it was on the Canon, even after 2 hours of photoshop on it. But he thought that it was because of the learning curve of being on a new system. And then he was just used to it, and 10 months passed. 

And then, he checked back his very old pictures and was like wow... There were looking really nice on the 5DIII! and he remembered those wired colors and lack of nice contrast. 
So he decided to do some test with the old 5DIII again but in "real world" instead of pixel peeping. And the conclusion was easy: the 5DIII produces way better RAWs than the A7R. The result he can get on Photoshop is just better, better colors, better contrasts.... 

And looking at the past ten months: horrible A7R ergonomics, tons of problem (died because of non weather sealing) bad handling due to small body, ...., .... 

So he his now going back on the 5D !!!!

Well.... I got the 5DIII myself. I am super angry like Andrew about Canon and their shits (NO FEATURES on canon: they have the color science and lenses and thats it). Sony is completely focused on specs and features... Look at this awesome AR7II. But at the end of the day, what do we see ? Best results with 5DIII. 
In video, same with A7S and 1DC !!! what a surprise! A7S has specs (120fps, 4K, 23427490284294782048 ISO....) 1DC has nothing but the image is just miles ahead. 

 

So whatever do we say about canon, even if we split on them. 
If Canon does a 4K 5DIV or a 5DC because they choose to segment (and I think they will do one or the other) then it's gonna be a hell of a camera. 

 

I decided to post this stories because of the similarities with the video world (canon colors, sony colors...). 

I was sold with the A7R II, and now I just don't know anymore. 
I am still waiting for a good FF camera that does photo/video WELL... 

What do you think guys? 

Great post.

With all the interest in Canon clearly they do have something to the images, to the colour.

And maybe it is true that Sony have sacrificed the overall look to chase dynamic range on a chart.

But I think it is more down to colour science than sensor science... Canon's white balance also seems superior.

Sony have work to do but they have not been in the photography business very long compared to Canon, who have a heck of a lot of experience to draw on, so it is not surprising really.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In my extremely limited experience with the A7s (for video), I've noticed that the A7s works brilliantly only if you have the white balance dialled in to the T. Tungsten seems to turn the skin green if unlucky and yellowish if lucky. With Canon the C100 and C300 do have a green tone with Tungsten too. Quite frustrating actually with darker skin.  My biggest gripe with with the A7s though is the Blue Flouro Puke that happens with the Highlights clipping at certain white balances.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canon are famed for their JPG/video colour science, not their RAW colour science. I might be wrong, but I think manufacturers have little control of their RAW colour science? It's all up to the software to interpret the data.

For example I just switched to Capture One Pro from Lightroom and find it to be so much better. 

Agreed. Been using Capture One for the first time since I need it for the new Sony and I'm under the impression that colors have a nicer edge from the start. Will have to compare some Nikon footage (Lightroom vs. Capture One). And the HDR sliders seem to be much more useful than the usual Highlights/Shadows approach in LR.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Canon RAW tends to be more pleasing out of the camera because it has more contrast and a less linear tonal response than Sony/Nikon RAW (except the D810). You can read more about the subject here: http://blog.mingthein.com/2015/03/18/understanding-native-tonal-response/

This is also hugely affected by your RAW converter, your choice of color profile, whether or not you profile your cameras, and your PP abilities in general. Given a flat RAW file shot with good technique, "nice contrast and color" is entirely in the hands of the photographer. 

Ming has also noticed a slight difference in color rendering across the tonal range in RAW files after profiling (as noted in his 5DS review), but he considers it too minor to make a difference in everyday shooting. 

Also, something to keep in mind: "better" is a dangerous and subjective word. Better for what? In what way? With what other drawbacks? At what price point? In what form factor? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isn't the whole point of RAW to have flexibility and grade it like you want? To create your own look instead of a Canon or Nikon or Sony look?

If you're talking about straight out of camera jpeg's; It's great when those are of good quality. Personally I only grade a fraction of all my pictures and leave most of the others as jpeg's. I do agree that some RAW files can be a lot harder to grade then others, especially when you're picky about good skin tones or subtleties in color and tonality.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Well excuse me but I don't like at all the colors and grading of the 2 images above. 

I never said A7S colors are shit however. I even showed in another post some great videos of A7S with nice colors (and in each case it was not SLOG2, and very little grade). 

Just an exemple :

 

The problem is you're just an "arm chair" you fill in the blank......... I've shot countless projects on all cameras and the A7s is no different, people worried about this or that and don't even work anywhere remotely close to any kind of industry..... Canon colors are fine, just like Sony, just like Red, just like etc. I truly wish this forum concentrated more on peoples work instead He Say / She Say bullshit posts........

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem is you're just an "arm chair" you fill in the blank......... I've shot countless projects on all cameras and the A7s is no different, people worried about this or that and don't even work anywhere remotely close to any kind of industry..... Canon colors are fine, just like Sony, just like Red, just like etc. I truly wish this forum concentrated more on peoples work instead He Say / She Say bullshit posts........

Do work. Share results. Learn from them. Repeat. 

For example I just switched to Capture One Pro from Lightroom and find it to be so much better. 

Agreed. Been using Capture One for the first time since I need it for the new Sony and I'm under the impression that colors have a nicer edge from the start. Will have to compare some Nikon footage (Lightroom vs. Capture One). And the HDR sliders seem to be much more useful than the usual Highlights/Shadows approach in LR.

This may be a little OT, but it is a stills topic so what the hell. How are you two finding the transition from Adobe to C1? Is it fast and intuitive enough to use? How do you like the default NR/Sharpening/Color/Tonality? (I'm very disappointed with Adobe in that regard.) Anything else you can share about your experience transitioning? 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

This may be a little OT, but it is a stills topic so what the hell. How are you two finding the transition from Adobe to C1? Is it fast and intuitive enough to use? How do you like the default NR/Sharpening/Color/Tonality? (I'm very disappointed with Adobe in that regard.) Anything else you can share about your experience transitioning? 

To give you an idea of the ease of transition; I heard about C1 the night before I was due to shoot a music festival. I installed it and was immediately impressed by the results (colour and tonality). So I didn't hesitate to sort and edit all the photos from the festival using it. Personally I didn't find the transition hard, but I am used to learning much more complicated programs. 

Some tips:

  • Take your time and hover your cursor over each icon to see what everything does.
  • Set your workspace to "Simplified - Import Edit Export". This simplifies the workspace from having loads of editing tabs to just three tabs (Import, edit and export). On the Edit tab you can still add more tools such as noise reduction.
  • The Auto Adjust option you get during import is actually very useful. It got most of my photos up to where I wanted them.
  • Buy Capture One Styles. It's the equivalent of VSCO. And because C1 brings all RAWs to a similar level in terms of colour and tonality, the presets will work across cameras. 

Can't really comment much on NR and Sharpening because I don't use them much. But from some little comparisons I did I can't say the NR in C1 is any better than Lightroom. I'm not sure why you're disappointed in them though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Guest Ebrahim Saadawi

I don't want to make that compromise between resolution and colour anymore when buying my next A camera (you don't make that compromise when buying a Canon high end 1DC/Cx00 or a Sony FS7/F5/F55 so the capability is their for both companies to give both great colour and resolution)

When are we going to have a 3000$-ish body with 

-Canon-like Colour science & Codec Colour thickness 

-C-Log like filmic gamma and sharpening level

-Sony A7s/GH4/1DC Resolution 

-Sony A7s/1DC dynamic range 

-Sony A7s/1DC Lowlight performance 

Basically a 3000$ Canon with Sony-like resolution or a 3000$ Sony with Canon-like Colours, who's going to be first? 

I think it's not soon, sadly. 

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Restore formatting

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Sign in to follow this  

×
×
  • Create New...