Colour rendition

AshleyMC wrote:

minglukhan wrote:

Let me preface this by saying that I love Canon's colour science. I love the M50 and the m100 before it.

I've always had good results with the 22mm and adapted 50mm 1.8 STM with very little effort and post editing.

What does that mean, exactly? Post processing of Raw files? SOOC JPEG files with minor enhancements? For the latter case, which Picture Profile(s)?

I've gone on a recent splurge and bought two of the Sigma primes - the 30mm and 56mm. The autofocus is nice and snappy on both and I get nice clean images.

However the Canon colours and image 'pop' that I was getting with ease before is not there. I find the colours and rendition more muted and sterile.

Hmm?

Am I crazy?

Maybe.

For many years, I have been using interchangeable-lens camera bodies of multiple brands and lenses of multiple brands, including (mostly) the OEM like Canon and others like Sigma, Tamron, Tokina and various Korean and Chinese manufacturers.

That said as background, I have not encountered any degradation or, rather, difference, in colour rendition to the point of negative reaction. I am not one who claims that OEM lenses are the best and non-OEM lenses are always problematic in one way or another. My Sigma lenses, including the recent 56mm for EF-M mount, mingle easily with my favourite Canon L lenses. No problems.

Note that Canon, understandably, operates and optimizes within its own world of bodies, sensors, processors, algorithms, firmware versions, lenses and lens firmware versions, and flashes and various accessories. Canon does not guarantee “comparable” (and “error-free”) performance if the users, like you and me, mix any non-OEM parts into the total solution. One practical example: you cannot enjoy the “lens correction” features if you mount, say, a Sigma lens on your M50 - in fact, it is advisable that you turn off all “lens correction” features in such cases.

So, if you happened to use a pre-built and pre-optimized Picture Profile with a Sigma lens when producing your SOOC JPEG images, no Canon-comparable performance and results would be guaranteed.

You are on your own.

And, like all decisions behind a final photographic creation, it is up to you. Yes, it is up to you, from the moment you put the viewfinder up to your eye and to the moment you save the JPG file after a post-processing session on your computer.

If you happen to ask Canon to “help” along the way, imagine the Canon guys whisper in your ears, “We can only help you with Canon stuff, OK?”

I'm still not wholly convinced it's Canon's lack of support of third party lenses that's entirely the problem, but I am convinced it's a contributor to the problem. It may be that both my theories are correct: Sigma glass doesn't have the same color transmission, and, Canon's metering data and Standard JPEG profile's proprietary selection criteria doesn't work flawlessly with third party glass.

If I were a betting man? It's probably both. Canon's been making glass for a long time. Not saying Sigma hasn't either, but the scale of business, is a different magnitude and Canon themselves has been known to produce some lesser color transmission lenses every now and then. Sigma isn't just going to wake up and learn all the lessons Canon did overnight, well, unless they hired some of their former optical engineers anyways.

Part of Canon's secret sauce is their glass. Not saying other people can't make glass equal or better, just saying they have alot of experience with it, just as Sony does with sensors. Doing that much business in a segment does give you a competitive advantage. Sigma is no slouch though, they are first-rate for third party. Rumor has it Canon tried to buy them and they said no. Good for them I might add.