Camera Comparison - something odd with Sony A7R IV test shots

Started Dec 17, 2020 | Discussions
foot Veteran Member • Posts: 4,585
interesting talk by professional photos, looking at the pros/cons of Sony skin tones
1

Mlrapa wrote:

DenverSteve wrote:

Mlrapa wrote:

DenverSteve wrote:

Mlrapa wrote:

I've been trying to measure how much better the Canon R5 is (or is not) when compared to Sony A7R IV.

Why? That's rhetorical so no need to answer. If you're (universal "you" not the OP) a Canon shooter (like I was for 30+ years), then work within the Canon lane and buy what you like. If you're a Sony or Nikon shooter............. do the same. It is completely pointless to compare cameras across platforms unless you are planning a total change. Otherwise stay in your lane, focus on your photography instead of technical specs. Every one of the cameras from every manufacturer will do an excellent job.

Sorry, but can't agree with you. A camera is a tool, I'm not wrong in trying to find the best of them since we all (I'm assuming you as well) have limited budgets (well, except Elon Musk) and can't acquire every of them, so research is key. Also think brand loyalty may limit you to other better choices, so except having a Fuji, I am also open to Canon or Sony, since they all seem to have great products and I'm not limiting myself against a potential brand switch (or addition if budget allows).

My question was an open question, I did not state that the Canon is better than Sony, or vice-versa, I'm questioning the results of a test, that for me has an odd result.

That's the problem with "seekers" in any arena. You/they continue to seek the "best". The problem is - there is no best. I have found over decades that the "best" are the people who take the time, effort, expense, sweat.... to learn how to use what they have. Every quality camera, guitar, pistol, hammer, router (tool), car.... outperforms its owner. It's the owner's onus to learn to operate the tool as well as they can. Not expect the tool to be "best". If I lost all battery capability today, I could go out and buy a 40+ year-old Canon, Nikon, Petri, Yashica, Hasselblad...... and satisfy almost any client's needs. It's not the camera it's the person behind the shutter-release button. My advice to all who seek - become the best photographer and stop looking for the best camera.

Ok. So I come here asking politely for advice on a test result because I can't interpret it, and I get a response that can be summarized as "stop asking questions and get good". Seriously?

This is a camera comparison site, god forbid if I ask about a test that was done that seemed odd for me.

I did a quick google search and these popped up.

google: "sony skin tones"

Both an interesting talk by professional photos, looking at the pros/cons of Sony color.

"Skin Tones in Portraits: Canon vs Sony and How to Correct" - Sean Tucker

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMjb7sMiAsg

"Canon vs Sony skin tones- I was WRONG! - Manny Ortiz"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDtEALddw94

btw, many people really like Sony colors for landscape, but I think for portraits they all do alot of pp to fix the skin colors...lol

And yes, the dpreview test scene for portraits is a bad test. Many of us have noticed the same issue, and there is some technical reason why taking a photo of an image printed out and pasted on a board is a bad test. I'm glad they keep the tests available, since it would be impossible to go and re-run the tests across all the cameras, iso, jpg vs raw...

I think it would help people seeing the tests for the first time to have a brief explanation and a link to a more detailed, in-depth explanation.

Here's a cropped image from the Sony test...do any of these look good??

 foot's gear list:foot's gear list
Sigma dp2 Quattro
(unknown member) Forum Pro • Posts: 19,317
You cant be serious
5

Its a pathetic test scene. I just sold 600 portraits over the last few weeks shot with my a7r2 and i can tell you there is nothing wrong with skin tones of sony sensors.

Don

-- hide signature --

Olympus EM1mk2, Sony A7r2
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9412035244
past toys. k100d, k10d,k7,fz5,fz150,500uz,canon G9, Olympus xz1 em5mk1 em5mk2

Josh152 Senior Member • Posts: 2,196
Re: Camera Comparison - something odd with Sony A7R IV test shots

DenverSteve wrote:

Mlrapa wrote:

DenverSteve wrote:

Mlrapa wrote:

I've been trying to measure how much better the Canon R5 is (or is not) when compared to Sony A7R IV.

Why? That's rhetorical so no need to answer. If you're (universal "you" not the OP) a Canon shooter (like I was for 30+ years), then work within the Canon lane and buy what you like. If you're a Sony or Nikon shooter............. do the same. It is completely pointless to compare cameras across platforms unless you are planning a total change. Otherwise stay in your lane, focus on your photography instead of technical specs. Every one of the cameras from every manufacturer will do an excellent job.

Sorry, but can't agree with you. A camera is a tool, I'm not wrong in trying to find the best of them since we all (I'm assuming you as well) have limited budgets (well, except Elon Musk) and can't acquire every of them, so research is key. Also think brand loyalty may limit you to other better choices, so except having a Fuji, I am also open to Canon or Sony, since they all seem to have great products and I'm not limiting myself against a potential brand switch (or addition if budget allows).

My question was an open question, I did not state that the Canon is better than Sony, or vice-versa, I'm questioning the results of a test, that for me has an odd result.

That's the problem with "seekers" in any arena. You/they continue to seek the "best". The problem is - there is no best. I have found over decades that the "best" are the people who take the time, effort, expense, sweat.... to learn how to use what they have. Every quality camera, guitar, pistol, hammer, router (tool), car.... outperforms its owner. It's the owner's onus to learn to operate the tool as well as they can. Not expect the tool to be "best". If I lost all battery capability today, I could go out and buy a 40+ year-old Canon, Nikon, Petri, Yashica, Hasselblad...... and satisfy almost any client's needs. It's not the camera it's the person behind the shutter-release button. My advice to all who seek - become the best photographer and stop looking for the best camera.

Exactly. The quote "fear the man with only one gun because he probably knows how to use it" is very true. If you can't operate your camera without looking at the controls, guess the exposure for a given scene and be at least within a stop of the correct optimal exposure, don't know what is the sharpest aperture on all your lenses. Can't tell from experience what aperture you need for the DOF you want without having to take test shots, Don't know how to get the best out of your AF or when to not even bother and go MF just by looking at the thing you're focusing on, can't pick your focal length before even looking through the camera or putting a lens on, can't compose images by feel on the fly and are constantly cropping to fix your compositions, dont' know what a specific angle or point of view combined with the focal length you are using will communicate to the viewer, dont' know what the optimal lighting for your subject and what you are trying to communicate with your photo is, ect, you need practice and experience WAY more than you need a new camera.

Any camera made in the last 10 years is more than good enough for 99% of photography. Constantly switching cameras or especially systems just to chase the "best" on some test sheet just means you are never an expert at using it and will in most cases result in poorer work than sticking with one camera for 3-5 years+, becoming an expert at using it, and focusing on the stuff that's more important than the gear.

a_c_skinner Forum Pro • Posts: 12,081
Re: Camera Comparison - something odd with Sony A7R IV test shots
2

That is really good advice.  If you need to look as closely as in the OP to see a difference then there really isn't any.  Skin colour is really tricky and subjective but is easy to fix.  I don't follow Sony but your best bet might be to look at Sony reviews and fora with the specific question about colour rendition.

Which one is better is about lens range, handling, personal preference and so on.  IQ is comfortably enough in pretty much any modern camera (and truthfully has been for years).

-- hide signature --

Andrew Skinner

 a_c_skinner's gear list:a_c_skinner's gear list
Fujifilm X-T2 Fujifilm X-E3 Fujifilm XF 35mm F1.4 R Fujifilm XF 14mm F2.8 R Fujifilm XF 55-200mm F3.5-4.8 R LM OIS +5 more
D Cox Forum Pro • Posts: 31,260
Re: interesting talk by professional photos, looking at the pros/cons of Sony skin tones
1

There are two squares on the Color Checker that are more like real life skin colours than those misleading prints of faces. These squares do have reflectance spectra similar to those of skin.

 D Cox's gear list:D Cox's gear list
Sigma fp
fferreres Veteran Member • Posts: 7,363
Re: Camera Comparison - something odd with Sony A7R IV test shots

onlyfreeman wrote:

Mlrapa wrote:

I've been trying to measure how much better the Canon R5 is (or is not) when compared to Sony A7R IV.

Better in what way?

I'm confused by the test shots in the studio scene comparing the image quality from its peers. It seems the A7R IV has a horrible color cast and less detail in skin at base ISO at RAW which seems odd.

The colour difference is most likely down to the raw processor, in this case Adobe, but also there were some issues with the studio scene colours fading (as far as I remember). It's possible the studio scene was updated in that time. Check the studio scene comparison of the a7C and look at the updated colours.

As far as detail is concerned, I opened both raws in Affinity Photo at default settings, but resized the a7r IV to match the R5 and it looked more detailed to me.

This might have been discussed extensively since A7R IV was launched last year (if that is true, sorry for my mistake) but when comparing to decide a possible brand switch, the studio comparison left me scratching my head.

Below a quick sample I extracted. Look the difference between the A7R IV and the Canon R5, it is night and day (look at the color cast and the detail below the eyes). It is worse even when compared to A7R III.

I know noise performance is worse on R IV because of the higher pixel density, but does it explain the worse quality at base ISO? My suspicion it is something odd with this test.

What has been discussed a lot is that people had trouble matching Canon colours from Sony raw files, or that Sony JPEG colours were not pleasing. Sony have updated the JPEG colours a lot in the latest cameras, see a7C.

I would say the difference in image quality due to the camera is negligible. The lens used is going to matter much more for detail, and colours can be manipulated to whatever you want, even JPEGs to a certain extent (use in camera profiles, including custom settings).

Yes, and I didn't know to what extent, but colors are affected by the lens type of glass and coatings. Although some lenses are well balanced, most have color character as well.

spider-mario
spider-mario Contributing Member • Posts: 989
Re: Camera Comparison - something odd with Sony A7R IV test shots
2

DenverSteve wrote:

Mlrapa wrote:

DenverSteve wrote:

Mlrapa wrote:

I've been trying to measure how much better the Canon R5 is (or is not) when compared to Sony A7R IV.

Why? That's rhetorical so no need to answer. If you're (universal "you" not the OP) a Canon shooter (like I was for 30+ years), then work within the Canon lane and buy what you like. If you're a Sony or Nikon shooter............. do the same. It is completely pointless to compare cameras across platforms unless you are planning a total change. Otherwise stay in your lane, focus on your photography instead of technical specs. Every one of the cameras from every manufacturer will do an excellent job.

Sorry, but can't agree with you. A camera is a tool, I'm not wrong in trying to find the best of them since we all (I'm assuming you as well) have limited budgets (well, except Elon Musk) and can't acquire every of them, so research is key. Also think brand loyalty may limit you to other better choices, so except having a Fuji, I am also open to Canon or Sony, since they all seem to have great products and I'm not limiting myself against a potential brand switch (or addition if budget allows).

My question was an open question, I did not state that the Canon is better than Sony, or vice-versa, I'm questioning the results of a test, that for me has an odd result.

That's the problem with "seekers" in any arena. You/they continue to seek the "best". The problem is - there is no best. I have found over decades that the "best" are the people who take the time, effort, expense, sweat.... to learn how to use what they have. Every quality camera, guitar, pistol, hammer, router (tool), car.... outperforms its owner. It's the owner's onus to learn to operate the tool as well as they can. Not expect the tool to be "best". If I lost all battery capability today, I could go out and buy a 40+ year-old Canon, Nikon, Petri, Yashica, Hasselblad...... and satisfy almost any client's needs. It's not the camera it's the person behind the shutter-release button. My advice to all who seek - become the best photographer and stop looking for the best camera.

Why not both? This seems like a false dichotomy to me. If a tool is available that allows you to achieve your goals more easily, why not take advantage of it?

 spider-mario's gear list:spider-mario's gear list
Canon G1 X III Olympus TG-6 Olympus E-M1 II Olympus E-M1 III Canon EOS R6 +14 more
Handsome90 Contributing Member • Posts: 640
Re: Camera Comparison - something odd with Sony A7R IV test shots
1

Andy873 wrote:

Mlrapa wrote:

fferreres wrote:

Mlrapa wrote:

I've been trying to measure how much better the Canon R5 is (or is not) when compared to Sony A7R IV.

I'm confused by the test shots in the studio scene comparing the image quality from its peers. It seems the A7R IV has a horrible color cast and less detail in skin at base ISO at RAW which seems odd.

This might have been discussed extensively since A7R IV was launched last year (if that is true, sorry for my mistake) but when comparing to decide a possible brand switch, the studio comparison left me scratching my head.

Below a quick sample I extracted. Look the difference between the A7R IV and the Canon R5, it is night and day (look at the color cast and the detail below the eyes). It is worse even when compared to A7R III.

I know noise performance is worse on R IV because of the higher pixel density, but does it explain the worse quality at base ISO? My suspicion it is something odd with this test.

But it's not a person, is a photo of a person, printed, then illuminated and demosaiced again. Not saying it as a justification. I have my issues with skin tone and Sony sensors, there's a yellowish tinting in some shots that's not to my liking.

Obviously you are correct and I agree with you. However, the point of these test shoots is to normalize conditions as much as possible between peers, even if printed and illuminated.

You need to understand that a particular color on a screen or printed material is not actually the same as the original object, they look the same to us because our vision is limited to three primary colors. A camera is also limited to 3 primary colors, but not exactly the same 3 so it will see things slightly differently. When you combine these two factors, artificially reproduced colors cannot in any way represent how a camera reproduces actual colors.

Yes the A7R IV has a native color cast due to the sensor,

No it doesn't

like all Sony's, but this seems overblown. I find it odd that both R5 and A7R IV have the same praise but at the test, the A7R IV seems more less detailed and unflaterring, even when compared to the older model.

No it doesn't, It is effectively more zoomed in because of the higher megapixel, you need to first put them on equal zoom.

You talked about yellow tinting, I have heard that Sony has a reddish cast instead (like the A7R III for example).

No it doesn't, and even if it did you can easily calibrate it out in custom WB shift

Also they keep tweaking the color so there's no such thing as a particular tint for an entire brand of camera.

But coming back to your point, in real world tests the results might be different, but it renders this test innefective.

This test is meant to show detail retention and noise patterns, not color science.

From personal experience, the R4 has improved color science from previous generations. But that's going to be extremely difficult to tell from any single test photo.

Also do they make new prints for every camera tests? The print could have faded after a year (I have no idea when the test chart was printed). Do you think this could have been a factor?

OP Mlrapa New Member • Posts: 17
Re: Camera Comparison - something odd with Sony A7R IV test shots
3

spider-mario wrote:

DenverSteve wrote:

Mlrapa wrote:

DenverSteve wrote:

Mlrapa wrote:

I've been trying to measure how much better the Canon R5 is (or is not) when compared to Sony A7R IV.

Why? That's rhetorical so no need to answer. If you're (universal "you" not the OP) a Canon shooter (like I was for 30+ years), then work within the Canon lane and buy what you like. If you're a Sony or Nikon shooter............. do the same. It is completely pointless to compare cameras across platforms unless you are planning a total change. Otherwise stay in your lane, focus on your photography instead of technical specs. Every one of the cameras from every manufacturer will do an excellent job.

Sorry, but can't agree with you. A camera is a tool, I'm not wrong in trying to find the best of them since we all (I'm assuming you as well) have limited budgets (well, except Elon Musk) and can't acquire every of them, so research is key. Also think brand loyalty may limit you to other better choices, so except having a Fuji, I am also open to Canon or Sony, since they all seem to have great products and I'm not limiting myself against a potential brand switch (or addition if budget allows).

My question was an open question, I did not state that the Canon is better than Sony, or vice-versa, I'm questioning the results of a test, that for me has an odd result.

That's the problem with "seekers" in any arena. You/they continue to seek the "best". The problem is - there is no best. I have found over decades that the "best" are the people who take the time, effort, expense, sweat.... to learn how to use what they have. Every quality camera, guitar, pistol, hammer, router (tool), car.... outperforms its owner. It's the owner's onus to learn to operate the tool as well as they can. Not expect the tool to be "best". If I lost all battery capability today, I could go out and buy a 40+ year-old Canon, Nikon, Petri, Yashica, Hasselblad...... and satisfy almost any client's needs. It's not the camera it's the person behind the shutter-release button. My advice to all who seek - become the best photographer and stop looking for the best camera.

Why not both? This seems like a false dichotomy to me. If a tool is available that allows you to achieve your goals more easily, why not take advantage of it?

Seems to me, based on his response, my skills as a photographer are lacking. I should stop browsing this forum and stop looking for reviews, because I need to focus on my skills first. Every time I hear the terms "pro photographer" or "get good first" seems to me he is the one that lacks the technical knowledge to actually explain the issue addressed by this post (but I would be assuming things about others and branding them, like he just did and I don't think it is correct).

About your point, yes, I agree with you. A tool has specs, it can either be enough for the work you do, or you might find a better tool that can enable you to do your work better and faster. Why not go after that? Lets try shooting sports with a GFX or Hassy. I can't try every one of them out there because it is impossible to buy (or rent) cameras in Brazil. So why not reach out to fellow photographers out there about their expertise in using them.

OP Mlrapa New Member • Posts: 17
Re: Camera Comparison - something odd with Sony A7R IV test shots

fferreres wrote:

onlyfreeman wrote:

Mlrapa wrote:

I've been trying to measure how much better the Canon R5 is (or is not) when compared to Sony A7R IV.

Better in what way?

I'm confused by the test shots in the studio scene comparing the image quality from its peers. It seems the A7R IV has a horrible color cast and less detail in skin at base ISO at RAW which seems odd.

The colour difference is most likely down to the raw processor, in this case Adobe, but also there were some issues with the studio scene colours fading (as far as I remember). It's possible the studio scene was updated in that time. Check the studio scene comparison of the a7C and look at the updated colours.

As far as detail is concerned, I opened both raws in Affinity Photo at default settings, but resized the a7r IV to match the R5 and it looked more detailed to me.

This might have been discussed extensively since A7R IV was launched last year (if that is true, sorry for my mistake) but when comparing to decide a possible brand switch, the studio comparison left me scratching my head.

Below a quick sample I extracted. Look the difference between the A7R IV and the Canon R5, it is night and day (look at the color cast and the detail below the eyes). It is worse even when compared to A7R III.

I know noise performance is worse on R IV because of the higher pixel density, but does it explain the worse quality at base ISO? My suspicion it is something odd with this test.

What has been discussed a lot is that people had trouble matching Canon colours from Sony raw files, or that Sony JPEG colours were not pleasing. Sony have updated the JPEG colours a lot in the latest cameras, see a7C.

I would say the difference in image quality due to the camera is negligible. The lens used is going to matter much more for detail, and colours can be manipulated to whatever you want, even JPEGs to a certain extent (use in camera profiles, including custom settings).

Yes, and I didn't know to what extent, but colors are affected by the lens type of glass and coatings. Although some lenses are well balanced, most have color character as well.

The colors of the prints used on the studio scene fading could be a reason, thanks for that heads up, I just think it should need to have a quick footnote about it unless it may sway opinion of not so technical potential buyers out there, like me.

But good points, thanks.

OP Mlrapa New Member • Posts: 17
Re: interesting talk by professional photos, looking at the pros/cons of Sony skin tones

foot wrote:

Mlrapa wrote:

DenverSteve wrote:

Mlrapa wrote:

DenverSteve wrote:

Mlrapa wrote:

I've been trying to measure how much better the Canon R5 is (or is not) when compared to Sony A7R IV.

Why? That's rhetorical so no need to answer. If you're (universal "you" not the OP) a Canon shooter (like I was for 30+ years), then work within the Canon lane and buy what you like. If you're a Sony or Nikon shooter............. do the same. It is completely pointless to compare cameras across platforms unless you are planning a total change. Otherwise stay in your lane, focus on your photography instead of technical specs. Every one of the cameras from every manufacturer will do an excellent job.

Sorry, but can't agree with you. A camera is a tool, I'm not wrong in trying to find the best of them since we all (I'm assuming you as well) have limited budgets (well, except Elon Musk) and can't acquire every of them, so research is key. Also think brand loyalty may limit you to other better choices, so except having a Fuji, I am also open to Canon or Sony, since they all seem to have great products and I'm not limiting myself against a potential brand switch (or addition if budget allows).

My question was an open question, I did not state that the Canon is better than Sony, or vice-versa, I'm questioning the results of a test, that for me has an odd result.

That's the problem with "seekers" in any arena. You/they continue to seek the "best". The problem is - there is no best. I have found over decades that the "best" are the people who take the time, effort, expense, sweat.... to learn how to use what they have. Every quality camera, guitar, pistol, hammer, router (tool), car.... outperforms its owner. It's the owner's onus to learn to operate the tool as well as they can. Not expect the tool to be "best". If I lost all battery capability today, I could go out and buy a 40+ year-old Canon, Nikon, Petri, Yashica, Hasselblad...... and satisfy almost any client's needs. It's not the camera it's the person behind the shutter-release button. My advice to all who seek - become the best photographer and stop looking for the best camera.

Ok. So I come here asking politely for advice on a test result because I can't interpret it, and I get a response that can be summarized as "stop asking questions and get good". Seriously?

This is a camera comparison site, god forbid if I ask about a test that was done that seemed odd for me.

I did a quick google search and these popped up.

google: "sony skin tones"

Both an interesting talk by professional photos, looking at the pros/cons of Sony color.

"Skin Tones in Portraits: Canon vs Sony and How to Correct" - Sean Tucker

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=yMjb7sMiAsg

"Canon vs Sony skin tones- I was WRONG! - Manny Ortiz"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WDtEALddw94

btw, many people really like Sony colors for landscape, but I think for portraits they all do alot of pp to fix the skin colors...lol

And yes, the dpreview test scene for portraits is a bad test. Many of us have noticed the same issue, and there is some technical reason why taking a photo of an image printed out and pasted on a board is a bad test. I'm glad they keep the tests available, since it would be impossible to go and re-run the tests across all the cameras, iso, jpg vs raw...

I think it would help people seeing the tests for the first time to have a brief explanation and a link to a more detailed, in-depth explanation.

Here's a cropped image from the Sony test...do any of these look good??

That was precisely my point. The problem is not the unnatural look of the skin color, the problem is the difference between peers (or even versions if we take the A7R III into consideration). However, someone mentioned at the time of the test there was a talk of color of the prints fading, which could in part explain why the skin part was most affected.

DenverSteve Contributing Member • Posts: 793
Re: You cant be serious
1

Donald B wrote:

Its a pathetic test scene. I just sold 600 portraits over the last few weeks shot with my a7r2 and i can tell you there is nothing wrong with skin tones of sony sensors.

Don

Yes. Comparing any printed or posted color tests is completely pointless. All of them have been "handled" by people an unknown number of times. No matter the camera, as has been stated from the beginning of this thread, the lens is the most notable contributor to the color of the captured image.  Additionally, just like from the first days of color photography, it is the most easily adjusted aspect of printing or post production. Cameras have adjustments that allow you to set your preference for color balance prior to shooting and the person making the image has the ability after capture to change it to whatever they want.  I'll repeat what I said early in this thread, find the "system" you want to work with and learn its characteristics and make photographs. Comparing "color" of two completely different systems is going to get you nowhere.  If it's too warm for you, cool it down.  If it's too cool, warm it up. Set up your color preference in your camera and take photographs that please you.

-- hide signature --

It's just my educated opinion. Don't get bent out of shape.
Steve

 DenverSteve's gear list:DenverSteve's gear list
Sony RX10 IV Sony a7R IV Sony a7C Sony FE 28-70mm F3.5-5.6 OSS Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS +6 more
OP Mlrapa New Member • Posts: 17
Re: You cant be serious
1

Donald B wrote:

Its a pathetic test scene. I just sold 600 portraits over the last few weeks shot with my a7r2 and i can tell you there is nothing wrong with skin tones of sony sensors.

Don

Look I get it. Its pathetic and doesn't mean anything (to you), but here it is being treated as a reliable point of comparison between several brands and models of cameras. Remember this site is universal, catered to amateurs, prosumers and pros, and all levels are welcome here. There is a clear difference being presented in the test, am I so wrong about raising questions on these differences? Color is subjective on the matter of taste, not on the rendition. What I suspect is that the Sony A7R IV has no issues at all and there is something wrong on the test hindering its color (based on the comparison with the others similar models and previous versions) so why not point that out. If there is an issue or different variable on the test why not point that out so people like me can interpret it the best way.

Also, IMHO, the test is not pathetic and can be a powerful tool for people looking for buying cameras and comparing different cameras in same conditions. It has its merits.

onlyfreeman
onlyfreeman Senior Member • Posts: 2,498
Tests / scores
2

I'm all for tests and scores, but every test and scoring system has weaknesses / strengths, which need to be taken into account when looking at the results.

The studio scene is a good way to judge sensor performance, which is probably it's strongest aspect in my opinion.

Sharpness (detail) is a bit more difficult to judge because there might be tiny focusing errors (as have been seen before), or issues with the lens used, as not all cameras use the same lens. I believe the sensor's impact on detail is easy enough to predict based on specs alone, i.e. more pixels = more detail, no AA = more apparent sharpness.

Colour is a strange one because the studio scene will fade over time, and at the end of the day it's not a typical subject where pleasing colour can easily be recognised. I prefer the sample galleries for judging colour instead.

 onlyfreeman's gear list:onlyfreeman's gear list
FastStone Photo Resizer Paint.net
(unknown member) Forum Pro • Posts: 19,317
Re: Tests / scores
1

onlyfreeman wrote:

I'm all for tests and scores, but every test and scoring system has weaknesses / strengths, which need to be taken into account when looking at the results.

The studio scene is a good way to judge sensor performance, which is probably it's strongest aspect in my opinion.

Sharpness (detail) is a bit more difficult to judge because there might be tiny focusing errors (as have been seen before), or issues with the lens used, as not all cameras use the same lens. I believe the sensor's impact on detail is easy enough to predict based on specs alone, i.e. more pixels = more detail, no AA = more apparent sharpness.

Colour is a strange one because the studio scene will fade over time, and at the end of the day it's not a typical subject where pleasing colour can easily be recognised. I prefer the sample galleries for judging colour instead.

Agree, snapping an image of a piece of paper is completely different to translucent skin tones. and believe me if you get the lighting wrong there no going back in post. You can clearly see the poor quality of the head shots just by looking at the hot spots.

Don

-- hide signature --

Olympus EM1mk2, Sony A7r2
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9412035244
past toys. k100d, k10d,k7,fz5,fz150,500uz,canon G9, Olympus xz1 em5mk1 em5mk2

OP Mlrapa New Member • Posts: 17
Re: Tests / scores
2

onlyfreeman wrote:

I'm all for tests and scores, but every test and scoring system has weaknesses / strengths, which need to be taken into account when looking at the results.

The studio scene is a good way to judge sensor performance, which is probably it's strongest aspect in my opinion.

Sharpness (detail) is a bit more difficult to judge because there might be tiny focusing errors (as have been seen before), or issues with the lens used, as not all cameras use the same lens. I believe the sensor's impact on detail is easy enough to predict based on specs alone, i.e. more pixels = more detail, no AA = more apparent sharpness.

Colour is a strange one because the studio scene will fade over time, and at the end of the day it's not a typical subject where pleasing colour can easily be recognised. I prefer the sample galleries for judging colour instead.

Good observation. I will try to focus more on the sample images rather than the test. Is that the studio test is easier to quickly compare cameras side by side at different ISOs, but understand the weaknesses part.

foot Veteran Member • Posts: 4,585
curious

Donald B wrote:

Its a pathetic test scene. I just sold 600 portraits over the last few weeks shot with my a7r2 and i can tell you there is nothing wrong with skin tones of sony sensors.

Don

just curious...how much pp do you do, and do you use any specific profiles?

thanks

 foot's gear list:foot's gear list
Sigma dp2 Quattro
(unknown member) Forum Pro • Posts: 19,317
Re: curious

foot wrote:

Donald B wrote:

Its a pathetic test scene. I just sold 600 portraits over the last few weeks shot with my a7r2 and i can tell you there is nothing wrong with skin tones of sony sensors.

Don

just curious...how much pp do you do, and do you use any specific profiles?

thanks

I do very little PP just wb and a few simple adjustments. the most important thing shooting skin tones is make sure you get the exposure right or very close in camera. Im using acr and adobe colour,

don

-- hide signature --

Olympus EM1mk2, Sony A7r2
http://www.dpreview.com/galleries/9412035244
past toys. k100d, k10d,k7,fz5,fz150,500uz,canon G9, Olympus xz1 em5mk1 em5mk2

foot Veteran Member • Posts: 4,585
thanks

Donald B wrote:

foot wrote:

Donald B wrote:

Its a pathetic test scene. I just sold 600 portraits over the last few weeks shot with my a7r2 and i can tell you there is nothing wrong with skin tones of sony sensors.

Don

just curious...how much pp do you do, and do you use any specific profiles?

thanks

I do very little PP just wb and a few simple adjustments. the most important thing shooting skin tones is make sure you get the exposure right or very close in camera. Im using acr and adobe colour,

don

thanks

I tried the first Sony cameras, I was coming from Minolta, and didn't like them. Plus the A100 camera was pretty bad at higher iso (higher ISO back then was pretty low, ISO 1600 if I remember right) lol

So it's good to see their color has improved.

 foot's gear list:foot's gear list
Sigma dp2 Quattro
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads