Am I doing something wrong, or is it the camera?

jmeyersnv · Jun 25, 2018

When I purchased my Sony a6500 (and assorted lenses) late last year, I gave my Nikon D7000 (and assorted lenses) to my stepson. This past weekend, we addressed a question both of us had -- which camera was "better". In many regards, both are very fine cameras, but in two aspects, the Nikon was not only better (to my chagrin, I admit) but demonstrated serious deficiencies with my new Sony: accuracy of color and ability to -- what I will call -- overexposure/washout and detail in shadow areas.

I live in the desert of Las Vegas, where the daily temperature has exceeded 105 degrees for the past two weeks. Consequently, vegetation has taken on that dried out appearance. With my Sony, however, the vegetation looks lushly green, whereas the Nikon gets its current coloration accurately. Likewise, the more bright areas in my pictures appear washed out, whereas his incorporate detail in those same areas. (I have attached four pictures to this posting so others can see what I mean.

In order to make as "apples to apples" comparison as we could, he used a 50mm Nikon lens and I used my Sony 18-135mm lens at 50mm. We both used "programmable" for our exposure settings, ISO at automatic, EV at 0, image size and quality at their highest settings available, respectively, and we shot in JPEG.

Nikon D7000

Sony a6500

The difference in our pictures is clearly obvious. Can anyone suggest what I may have done wrong?

--
J Meyers

alvie · Jun 25, 2018

jmeyersnv said:
When I purchased my Sony a6500 (and assorted lenses) late last year, I gave my Nikon D7000 (and assorted lenses) to my stepson. This past weekend, we addressed a question both of us had -- which camera was "better". In many regards, both are very fine cameras, but in two aspects, the Nikon was not only better (to my chagrin, I admit) but demonstrated serious deficiencies with my new Sony: accuracy of color and ability to -- what I will call -- overexposure/washout and detail in shadow areas.

I live in the desert of Las Vegas, where the daily temperature has exceeded 105 degrees for the past two weeks. Consequently, vegetation has taken on that dried out appearance. With my Sony, however, the vegetation looks lushly green, whereas the Nikon gets its current coloration accurately. Likewise, the more bright areas in my pictures appear washed out, whereas his incorporate detail in those same areas. (I have attached four pictures to this posting so others can see what I mean.

In order to make as "apples to apples" comparison as we could, he used a 50mm Nikon lens and I used my Sony 18-135mm lens at 50mm. We both used "programmable" for our exposure settings, ISO at automatic, EV at 0, image size and quality at their highest settings available, respectively, and we shot in JPEG.

Sony a6500

Nikon D7000

Sony a6500

The difference in our pictures is clearly obvious. Can anyone suggest what I may have done wrong?

--
J Meyers

What is your Creative Style settings?

sybersitizen · Jun 25, 2018

jmeyersnv said:
The difference in our pictures is clearly obvious.

Differences in how cameras (and lenses) render color are not unusual at all.

jmeyersnv said:
Can anyone suggest what I may have done wrong?

Since you're shooting JPEGs, what you're doing wrong is that you haven't adjusted the camera's JPEG options to your personal preferences. The default settings mean nothing important - they're just a starting point. Those adjustments exist for the very purpose of allowing you to get the results you prefer.

jmeyersnv · Jun 25, 2018

That was a good question! I used "Standard". The results, however, might give the impression that I had used "Landscape". Perhaps I should, for typical picture-taking, keep it on "Neutral"?

sybersitizen · Jun 25, 2018

jmeyersnv said:
I used "Standard". The results, however, might give the impression that I had used "Landscape". Perhaps I should, for typical picture-taking, keep it on "Neutral"?

Far beyond those choices you also have the ability to control saturation and contrast and make fine-tuning changes to the White Balance settings.

You have some exploring to do.

brilly · Jun 25, 2018

they are not exposed the same, the sony pictures are brighter in general

try comparing -0.3EV on the sony with the nikon or just reduce exposure (or highlights mainly) in post

do you have DRO swicthed on? that should help with the highlights being a bit bright as well

the sony has more detail in the brighter areas despite being over exposed and not being a prime - not bad

snapa · Jun 25, 2018

brilly said:
they are not exposed the same, the sony pictures are brighter in general

try comparing -0.3EV on the sony with the nikon or just reduce exposure (or highlights mainly) in post

do you have DRO swicthed on? that should help with the highlights being a bit bright as well

the sony has more detail in the brighter areas despite being over exposed and not being a prime - not bad

A very good point. The OP is comparing a 50mm Nikon Prime lens, with a Sony consumer 18-135mm zoom lens. Not exactly an apples to apples comparison. Maybe if the OP had the Sony 50mm f1.8 on his a6500, it would have been a much more fair comparison.

IMO, this comparison is negated because compairing a prime to a zoom lenes makes it illegitimate. In otherwords, who does a comparision with a prime lens and a zoom lens?

Although, even comparing a Nikon prime with the Sony 18-135 zoom lens, the Sony did pretty good, IMHO. ;-)

--
Life is short, make the best of it while you can!
http://grob.smugmug.com/

691175002 · Jun 25, 2018

In all honestly the exposure and processing is too different between the paired images. Its impossible to judge camera quality from your samples, only the character of the in-camera post-processing.

I have absolute confidence that both cameras are capturing enough information to reproduce any of the JPGs you have posted, if processed correctly.

I recommend shooting raw myself, but there are quite a few ways to adjust the in-camera jpgs if you prefer. DRO would probably be the critical setting here, and maybe knock down contrast/saturation as well.

Typically point-and-shooters like images with "pop", which is why the Sony seems so gauche. The Sony image more closely resembles what I would expect to see on Instagram, the Nikon is a little too demure out of camera and while it looks more natural it would likely be interpreted as boring.

NetSlob · Jun 25, 2018

I have both an a6500 and a D7000.

For a more accurate comparison you could use a Nikon-to-Sony adapter to shoot with the Nikon lens on the Sony. Stick both cameras on a tripod, take sample shots, and tweak the a6500 color settings until you are pleased.

The a6500 has so many advantages over a D7000 I won't bother to list them here. I'll just say that my D7000 has been sitting in its box for over a year (and I really need to sell it ... or give it away). ;-)

skanter · Jun 25, 2018

It’s an irrelevant comparison, no reason the two photos should look the same - different cameras and lenses, shot on auto. Each camera renders jpgs differently.

Start learning how to use your camera, how jpg and raw works, learn about post-processing - and forget wasting time on these type of tests.

--
Sam K., NYC
“I’m halfway between tightrope walker and pickpocket.” — HCB
—
Native New Yorker:
http://www.blurb.com/b/7943076
__
Street Gallery:
http://skanter.smugmug.com/NYC-Street-Photography
__
Recent Photos:
https://skanter.smugmug.com/Recent-Photos

TJ61 · Jun 25, 2018

If you'd have taken that same shot with your phone, I think you'd both have been disappointed with your cameras. It seems like what you're comparing are the jpeg processors of each camera, and by comparison, a phone camera usually "cranks" the processing (saturation, etc.).

You can take more control of in-camera jpeg processing using the Creative Styles settings. With these, you could make your jpegs look more like the Nikon, if that's what you want. Or start shooting raw, do all your own processing, and make your photos look like no other camera's.

BTW, when I got my a6000 over 3 years ago (my first "real" digital camera), I remember the exact same disappointment. I quickly learned about Creative Styles, and haven't been disappointed since.

engbert · Jun 26, 2018

In spite of comparing a Nikon prime with a Sony zoom, the Sony files show a lot more detail.

Even as jpegs, you should easily be able to adjust them to your taste, perhaps bringing up the shadows a bit.

F-1 · Jun 26, 2018

Sony's jpeg color science has always been weird. I find that it renders midday shots like yours to be kind of "washed-out", also for me. I hope that the A6700 can improve on color like the a7III.

Entropy512 · Jun 26, 2018

sybersitizen said:
jmeyersnv said:

The difference in our pictures is clearly obvious.

Click to expand...

Differences in how cameras (and lenses) render color are not unusual at all.

sybersitizen said:

Can anyone suggest what I may have done wrong?

Click to expand...

Since you're shooting JPEGs, what you're doing wrong is that you haven't adjusted the camera's JPEG options to your personal preferences. The default settings mean nothing important - they're just a starting point. Those adjustments exist for the very purpose of allowing you to get the results you prefer.

Also - the two plant shots look nearly identical. They happen to have identical exposure settings.

The "garden" shots don't look identical, but have significantly different exposure settings.

A proper comparison would put both cameras in manual mode, shoot RAW, then compare developed RAWs with the same software.

Also - I would expect the Nikon to gain some advantage here by running through the center of an FF prime lens, while the Sony is going through an APS-C superzoom.

The 18-135 is regarded as a pretty good zoom/kit lens, but still - it's going to be at a disadvantage compared to even a cheap prime.

uhligfd · Jun 26, 2018

You never say, but you are using out of camera jpegs to compare the two machines.

The Sony images are all exposed much more, maybe a stop more than the Nikon pics: just look at the wall on the right and the brushes in the background of the first two pics; and at the flower pot's rim in the second set.

First things first to do: reduce Sony exposure by about 0.7 stops or raise that of the Nikon and then compare.

The Sony may have a better sensor (more sensitive, different interpretation of what ISO means ...). Color-wise the cameras also interpret the light differently. I bet if I and you would look at the same scene; we, I through your eyes and you through mine, I bet we would see different colors hues ... on MM packages and in the sky ...

So: if you prefer the Nikon and do not want to learn or try to learn, get rid of the Sony as unpleasing. And live happily with the Nikon.

That was bad advice. Good advice would be: shoot raw and post process your images to your own taste, re exposure, contrast, color balance, sharpness ... . That is awfully hard to tackle for a point and shoot shooter; the self-education that it entails.

And when you are mature in pp skills and eyes, any camera can satisfy you I am sure. And you will be confident of your work and feel great. Think of becoming the master of your machine. I assume you have driven different makes of cars and you have mastered them all. Good luck now on your journey!

Robobonobo · Jun 26, 2018

jmeyersnv said:
That was a good question! I used "Standard". The results, however, might give the impression that I had used "Landscape". Perhaps I should, for typical picture-taking, keep it on "Neutral"?

zackiedawg · Jun 26, 2018

jmeyersnv said:
the Nikon was not only better (to my chagrin, I admit) but demonstrated serious deficiencies with my new Sony: accuracy of color and ability to -- what I will call -- overexposure/washout and detail in shadow areas.

As I'm sure you've gathered from comments so far, there are many variables even when you try to set both cameras to 'program' auto and think all is alike - especially when shooting JPGs. First is that all cameras come with their own default color and contrast settings, and all of those can be adjusted to your own taste. It may just be that the Nikon was set up with a picture profile you liked and the Sony is set up differently - so change the Sony settings. You can not only choose a different picture setting (neutral, landscape, etc), but in EACH setting, you can tailor the contrast, saturation, and sharpness. Your Nikon is set up with fairly low contrast and muted color, so the Sony should probably be set to a more neutral color setting, with contrast and saturation both at -1 or more.

Also, both cameras have some form of dynamic range optimization programs - both named differently. In this case, each camera may or may not have this turned on, or set more or less aggressively. This is important because it is what handles bright highlights and dark shadows - Nikon's is 'D-lighting' and Sony's is 'DRO'. They should either both be off, or both be on with similar settings.

Then there's the exposure itself - how the metering is set up. Clearly the Sony shots were exposed a bit brighter - that's to do with the metering mode and exactly how much of the frame was filled with light and dark to set the exposure - with slightly different framing in each shot (see how there's more wall to the right, and no water, and much more sky in the Nikon shot? That's going to affect how the camera meters the scene. Even using the exact same camera to take both of the shots you show above, the camera would have metered each scene differently.

jmeyersnv said:
In order to make as "apples to apples" comparison as we could, he used a 50mm Nikon lens and I used my Sony 18-135mm lens at 50mm.

Of course that's a factor too. Zoom lens vs prime lens is tough to try to compare. You've got a decent zoom lens, but the fact that your lens has to be designed to adjust for sharpness, detail, distortion, falloff, etc for focal lengths from 18mm all the way up to 135mm, and the Nikon lens only has to be designed to deal with one single focal length, explains why it's unfair to compare even an excellent zoom lens with a simple cheap prime.

jmeyersnv said:
We both used "programmable" for our exposure settings, ISO at automatic, EV at 0, image size and quality at their highest settings available, respectively, and we shot in JPEG.

To be truly fair, you should have made sure framing, angle, and distance were identical so both are exposing identical amounts of light and dark areas, and manually set all exposure parameters identically - same ISO, aperture, shutter speed, and EV. That, combined with more custom-tailored JPG color & contrast settings on each camera to suit your personal tastes, should eliminate the issues.

Aside from all that, a true look into your two comparison photos shows a fair bit cleaner and better detail in the mid-ranges on the Sony shot, the bushes behind the waterfall, and the tile work where the water is falling all have more detail. The Nikon appears to have slightly better detail in some of the areas that are way overexposed on the Sony shot, but that's clearly to do with the fact that it's overexposed. Looking at the brick wall on the left, and the mesh fencing down low next to the brick wall, the Sony definitely shows more detail. And the shadows look a bit muddy on the Nikon shot - makes me think it's bringing up those shadows in camera.

You just need to do some work to get your picture settings right, set the contrast a bit lower on the Sony, and get the exposures closer. Change your metering mode if you think in 'multi' that the Sony might be tending to want to overexpose - try center weight...or add in some negative EV to your settings to adjust down if you like things a little more towards shadow exposure.

Robobonobo · Jun 26, 2018

I love my a6000, but I don't think I would recommend it to someone who was interested in letting the camera make all the decisions. When I first got it, I was a little frustrated and disappointed with the image quality, until I took the time to learn the camera and refresh a bit on photography basics.

I also know a family member who switched from an inexpensive Nikon point and shoot to a newer (also inexpensive) Sony point and shoot with similar concerns to yours. Not sure if Nikon or Cannon do a better job for that sort of photography, but Sony leaves something to be desired it would seem.

Dennis · Jun 26, 2018

In the first picture, the Sony shot is exposed by 1 stop more. It looks like the Sony is giving you greater contrast and less magenta in jpegs - you can play with contrast in "Creative Styles". You can't directly address the white balance issue (I think you can only set it to a specific value; I don't think you can apply a shift) but you can play with some of the styles (neutral, landscape, etc) and see what you like. A lot of people here shoot raw, so not all will have advice on settings. And some people might prefer the Sony results to the D7000.

I have both the D7000 and A6500 and have no trouble getting great results from both when shooting raw, so hopefully you can find jpeg settings that help you get what you want.

- Dennis
--
Gallery at http://kingofthebeasts.smugmug.com

CameraCarl · Jun 26, 2018

I've found that Sony RAW colors are not as saturated as Canon RAW colors, so, as with every image I take, I adjust color in post processing.

Am I doing something wrong, or is it the camera?

Active member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Active member

Forum Pro

Senior Member

Veteran Member

Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Senior Member

engbert

Guest

Forum Enthusiast

Veteran Member

Senior Member

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Forum Enthusiast

Forum Pro

Veteran Member

Similar threads

Keyboard shortcuts