faris
Well-known
I am really confused when I read that one prefers colors from one modern day camera over the other.
I am not being sarcastic or anything like that, I just want to understand.
One either shoots jpg, raw or both.
One chooses the AWB, if one doesn’t do Raw.
Each and every camera has its own processing engine for jpg...and maybe a slight tweak for raw. I am no expert.
I can change the sat, color temp, hue, tint whatever in a sw raw editor.
So make me understand what do people mean when they say Leica or Sony, or Xxx camera colors are better?
What colors? They must have set their AWB to something. Or their color simulations.
If raw, the point is moot.
Thanks.
I am not being sarcastic or anything like that, I just want to understand.
One either shoots jpg, raw or both.
One chooses the AWB, if one doesn’t do Raw.
Each and every camera has its own processing engine for jpg...and maybe a slight tweak for raw. I am no expert.
I can change the sat, color temp, hue, tint whatever in a sw raw editor.
So make me understand what do people mean when they say Leica or Sony, or Xxx camera colors are better?
What colors? They must have set their AWB to something. Or their color simulations.
If raw, the point is moot.
Thanks.
Paul T.
Mentor
I think if you have an established Lightroom routine it will make marginal difference. But personally, I use a Fuji X100 and a Sony RX100 and they do have characteristic looks; it would be beyond my abilities to consistently make the Fuji files have the colour balance of the Sony. Different sensors will have different physics.
It is perhaps not a primary concern, as like everything else it's adjustable, but there's something to be said for a camera where you like the 'look' straight out of the machine .
RichC
Well-known
^ What Paul T said...
It’s very clear that the default processing of raw files differs between cameras, whether using the camera maker’s software or third-party programs like Lightroom or Capture One; the difference may be minor or obvious. Additionally, the third-party converters not only have different defaults from the camera manufacturers’ but also have their own signature (e.g. Lightroom defaults are generally more neutral than Capture One’s, which tend to be warmer with more contrast).
Theoretically you’re right, that raw files can be processed to always give a certain default look with the same colour balance, saturation, tonality, etc. In practice, that’s incredibly difficult. I can’t do it, despite having used umpteen digital cameras since the late 90s, having a recent MA in photography and using Photoshop for 20+ years and raw converters for over 15, and dealing with images and colour daily (I’m a graphic designer).
It’s very clear that the default processing of raw files differs between cameras, whether using the camera maker’s software or third-party programs like Lightroom or Capture One; the difference may be minor or obvious. Additionally, the third-party converters not only have different defaults from the camera manufacturers’ but also have their own signature (e.g. Lightroom defaults are generally more neutral than Capture One’s, which tend to be warmer with more contrast).
Theoretically you’re right, that raw files can be processed to always give a certain default look with the same colour balance, saturation, tonality, etc. In practice, that’s incredibly difficult. I can’t do it, despite having used umpteen digital cameras since the late 90s, having a recent MA in photography and using Photoshop for 20+ years and raw converters for over 15, and dealing with images and colour daily (I’m a graphic designer).
faris
Well-known
Rich, Paul..thank you your responses.
So, if I understand correctly, what is meant by liking the colors coming out of the camera, is RAW files with possibly the exposure settings used by one.
That is the file which one might prefer using a camera versus using another one.
Am I correct in my understanding.
Thank you both.
So, if I understand correctly, what is meant by liking the colors coming out of the camera, is RAW files with possibly the exposure settings used by one.
That is the file which one might prefer using a camera versus using another one.
Am I correct in my understanding.
Thank you both.
kuuan
loves old lenses
same here. Used to use Pentax dSLR, later Sony mirrorless together with Ricoh GXR M. It would be beyong my editng ability to make them look the same, even when shooting RAW.
craygc
Well-known
Logically, I would completely agree with your thinking. However, as an example, I find that between my Ricoh GR and Sony A7II - only shooting RAW - both run through Capture One, the GR colours are way better than the Sony. It's something I find difficult to accurately articulate the 'why' in words but the GR RAW files don't seem to need anywhere near as much tweaking or work as the Sony files. I also find the GR files deliver better B&W conversions (regardless of workflow) ...and strangely, they're both Sony sensors
kuuan
loves old lenses
in my post above I did not mention my personal preferance, actually I also prefer the colors, generally output of my Ricoh GXR M over that of my two Sonys. Though the later usually are ok for me too.
Michael Markey
Mentor
RichC
Well-known
Certainly for me and photographers I know who shoot raw.
The camera hardware and internal processing (e.g.dynamic range and colour sensitivity) are the initial factors influencing appearance. For example, the Leica M8 was very sensitive to infrared contamination, so black artificial fabric came out dark magenta when photographed - not something that can be fixed automatically by a raw converter.
Secondly, appearance varies depending on the raw converter used, each giving a consistent but distinctive look to the raw files from a particular camera. A camera manufacturer’s raw converter will preserve the appearance of any styles (e.g. extra saturation or contrast) added in camera, to match JPGs out of the camera - but third-party raw converters cannot read this information, so appearance is decided by what the software companies prefer (e.g. Capture One default conversions tend to be warmer than Lightroom’s).
ColSebastianMoran
( IRL Richard Karash )
Agree (with post way up above)... There is a significant improvement in handling and usability from first to second generation. In the first generation, for example, shutter release button feels to me to be in the wrong place.
mod2001
Old school modernist
Regardin color science, in this case Canon versus Sony, they are different, even as RAW in the same converter. And at least for me, I never got the Sony colours work for me without extremly time consumimg adjustments. Probably with the A7s as exception, really liked the files somehow.
https://youtu.be/NaXXrVNeLXo
Jürgen
willie_901
Mentor
What they mean is they prefer the perceived color rendering aesthetics. While that preference is authentic, it also highly subjective.
With raw files the in-camera color temperature parameters (WB) are irrelevant. Raw data is unaffected by in-camera color temperature parameters.
However the in-camera color temperature parameters can affect the in-camera live and post histogram estimates. Other in-camera JPEG rendering parameters can affect the histogram as well. A unique exception is the M Monochrome which can display a raw file illuminace histogram.
Color rendition and perception is extremely complicated. However, sensor assembly IR filter layer and color-filter array optical properties are important. We all know IR contamination can be detrimental to perceived color rendering. Likewise inferior CFA materials can cause problems. No amount of post-production rending can eliminate IR or CFA deficiencies. By now these are minor issues.
Another variable are differences in raw rendering demosaicking algorithms. The in-camera and third-party, post-production demosaicking results are rarely identical, but they can be similar.
faris
Well-known
Thanks to William, Rich , cray and to others, for taking the time to respond to my query.
Thank you all, and may the Good Light always be with you.
Thank you all, and may the Good Light always be with you.
Ronald M
Mentor
As above, wides do not work well on Sony although the camera can be modified.
Sony will be in financial stress very soon.
I have three M`s so poor service time is of no consequence to me. To be honest, Leica is a money pit. Buy a current model and trade it for the next one. M10 is a fantastic camera.
Sony will be in financial stress very soon.
I have three M`s so poor service time is of no consequence to me. To be honest, Leica is a money pit. Buy a current model and trade it for the next one. M10 is a fantastic camera.
airfrogusmc
Mentor
Another vote for the M 10.
jim0266
Established
Late to the party...
M film user from way back. M-E and then M262. Picked up an A7 for use with a Leica BEOON. Fantastic! Experimented with my glass collection on the A7. Hmmmmm... This was interesting. Sold the Fuji X100T. Now the A7 and M262 are co-existing.
Then tried the A7II when they plummeted to $1K. IBIS is great even for MF. Body feels better in the hand. Solid. A7 feels like a toy. That's OK, it now lives on the BEOON.
Rented an A7R3 for a week. The EVF is another world better than the A72 EVF. Have compared the A72 and A73 EVFs along with the A7 EVF. Even though all these have the same specs, as to EVF's: A7 < A72 < A73, but the A7R3 is sweet for MF. Sony must have tweaked each gen of the EVF in that line
The Zeiss 35/2 Loxia is better than any Leica M 35 I've put on my A7's. For 50mm the Zeiss ZM Planar is superb and small. Although the auto mag MF feature with the Loxia is handy.
Would hope to see the a7R3/A9 EVF make its way to the A7IV. Don't need or want the pixels in the A7R3.
For $1k the A7II is a hell of a camera.
M film user from way back. M-E and then M262. Picked up an A7 for use with a Leica BEOON. Fantastic! Experimented with my glass collection on the A7. Hmmmmm... This was interesting. Sold the Fuji X100T. Now the A7 and M262 are co-existing.
Then tried the A7II when they plummeted to $1K. IBIS is great even for MF. Body feels better in the hand. Solid. A7 feels like a toy. That's OK, it now lives on the BEOON.
Rented an A7R3 for a week. The EVF is another world better than the A72 EVF. Have compared the A72 and A73 EVFs along with the A7 EVF. Even though all these have the same specs, as to EVF's: A7 < A72 < A73, but the A7R3 is sweet for MF. Sony must have tweaked each gen of the EVF in that line
The Zeiss 35/2 Loxia is better than any Leica M 35 I've put on my A7's. For 50mm the Zeiss ZM Planar is superb and small. Although the auto mag MF feature with the Loxia is handy.
Would hope to see the a7R3/A9 EVF make its way to the A7IV. Don't need or want the pixels in the A7R3.
For $1k the A7II is a hell of a camera.
ampguy
Mentor
I'm thinking about a new A7 original. The features and size are fine for my intended use. Has anyone first hand had problems with sensor reflections or the weaker mount? Plan to use with Konica adapted SLR lens.
kuuan
loves old lenses
no problems. However I have not been using big, heavy lenses and sensor reflection might have happened but I had not noticed or identified as such
ampguy
Mentor
Emile de Leon
Well-known
I use a Noctilux F1.0 on the A7 and no problems there with the mount.