just watch the video and download the DNGs

https://froknowsphoto.com/sonya7r4dng/

thank you for the link to DNGs.

obsolenscence:

Shooting raw matters for making colour judgments.

So does having access to Photoshop CS/CC.

I managed to extract a single compressed raw sourced from PhotographyBlog with Imaging Edge 1.4. (Sony extraction software.) I'd have tried more files, but the compressed ones were say 5 of basically the same image, at nearly the same settings. The ISO 1000 example looked excellent as an 8 bit tiff. I couldn't extract the full sized raws from that website.

However, Imaging Edge 1.4 running on my Windows 7 system does NOT extract the compressed (lossy I assume) raws or the uncompressed raws that DPR has posted here.

"since the color distortion appears to be non uniform"

That can be a noise thing; it can also be bad heat dispersion from an otherwise good sensor, and some times it's reflected colour--say from a shiny table top--not in the frame. Having raws, which one can extract even with not great software, helps rule out some of these possibilities.

obso:

Saturation settings have almost nothing to do with what I'm talking about.

Nothing to do with "unnaturalness" either.

Yes, the Viewer (library) for Imaging Edge is a mess in Windows 7 too.
I had to access Edit using right click on the file I wanted to try to extract.

I'm not aware of raw extraction software from TopazLabs.

ob:

"The color distortion that I see in many of the samples, evidently exists in the Raw files."

How have you confirmed this assertion?

"They can be "fixed" with careful processing, but that shouldn't be necessary. "

Colour adjustment with the raw, and good conversion software, is not especially hard.

"I will reserve final judgment until Sony releases workable Raw processing software."

Who cares, except in the short term about Sony's raw processing software? The questions are how do ACR, DXO, and C1 process these raws to tiff, and how well do those programs given good raws from this new camera/sensor allow for colour adjustment?

The question is NOT what are the default output settings that ACR, DXO, and C1 choose for this camera's raws.

Separately: I'm quite sure the A7 IV body allows for different jpeg output settings.

"The questions are how do ACR, DXO, and C1 process these raws to tiff, and how well do those programs given good raws from this new camera/sensor allow for colour adjustment?"

These questions neglect the obvious problem of color distortion taking place differently in different lighting and with different subjects (i.e. glaringly obvious with African Americans' skin tones). You also defer to a trio of top software companies the task of dealing with those distortions, rather than assigning responsibility to the camera maker Sony to produce the essential algorithm for Raw processing which others may use as a starting point (referred to as "color science").

Yes, it would be interesting to see what the color rendering would be using different JPEG output settings; one would assume the DPR staff used the default ones (which are faulty IMO). If those output settings produced such color distortion, one might assume other settings would merely reduce or amplify it rather than to eliminate it.

ob:

"These questions neglect the obvious problem of color distortion taking place differently in different lighting and with different subjects (glaringly obvious with African Americans)."

Are you referring to this set of DPR samples? Or are you speaking generally?

'You also defer to a handful of top software companies the task of dealing with those distortions, rather than assigning responsibility to the camera maker Sony to produce the essential algorithm for Raw processing which others may use as a starting point."

That's about a camera company's (Sony here) jpeg engine choices, and has next to nothing to do with shooting raw.

Now, assuming you are using an optically excellent lens, and you have full 14 bit (or greater) raws to work with: Many of the colour problems, raw colour problems you're hinting at not jpg silliness, can be readily addressed if you have access to PhotoshopCS/CC's Selective Color function.

Cue up: "but one can select colour with GIMP, PaintShop, etc".

"Are you referring to this set of DPR samples? Or are you speaking generally?"
Both. Samples show different lighting and subjects rendered with somewhat different color distortions.

"That's about a camera company's (Sony here) jpeg engine choices..."
Sony's choices are passed to A, P1, DxO, and others as a default color profile, influencing results depending how well they deal with inaccuracies. Correct?

"Many of the colour problems, raw colour problems you're hinting at not jpg silliness..."
JPEGs may be silly to you, but they're important to a lot of other photogs and serve as a reference when editing.

"...can be readily addressed"-- tweak each and every image to fix inherent problems? -- I hope not, it may not be as easy as you seem to think, and I wouldn't advocate reliance on anyone's monopoly. How well the other Raw converters can achieve color quality right off without tweaking remains to be seen, but I've noticed complaints about this problem from other Sony camera users.

obsolescence, You may be picking up on the CFA.

Sony sensor cameras usually have weak CFA.

Older Nikon and most Canon have a strong CFA which has a great effect on colour quality if you are sensitive to it.

Most people say colour is a non issue because of RAW. Most people either cant notice for some reason or are wrong.

The CFA is before the RAW. It is always affecting the photo.

Looking at dE charts and colour charts, the newer A series are very close to Canon, copying their colour 'science'. But they never look the same. Its the CFA and NR.

Turning NR to low or Off on a Sony sensor camera vastly improves skin texture and colour quality. Even at ISO100

@Steve -- Thanks for that info; I need to learn more, so where can I access those charts, please? One other thing comes to mind: to me, images made with the Kodak CCD sensor appear more 'lifelike' than those made with CMOS sensors -- comparing the Pentax 645D and Z, for example. Do the CFA and dE graphs give an indication of this? Example: with CMOS, blue skies tend toward cyan and green foliage tends toward yellow. Of course, they can be adjusted in Raw processing, but there may be a penalty in added artifacts such as banding or contamination of neighboring colors (depending on the bandwidth and feathering of the selection).

This place has been great for over 15 years, and I feel my results coincide with theirs.

https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/nikon-d7200/nikon-d7200A5.HTM

https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/canon-7d-mark-ii/canon-7d-mark-iiA5.HTM

https://www.imaging-resource.com/PRODS/sony-a7r-ii/sony-a7r-iiA5.HTM

Put those side by side and you can see the colour sciences. They purposely dont make them as accurate as possible.

The Canon 7Dm2 is the most accurate and noticeable real life.

If you put all the Sony 'a' cameras from old to new you can see them getting closer and closer to the Canon colour science. But also the blues of Nikon.

CCD as you say. Many Nikon users feel that the D700 was the very best quality for skin. Texture and colour. It was the last CCD from Nikon.

Canon choose a strong CFA for the excellent skin quality. Im not talking hues or saturation. It is like the colour is thicker or dense if you know what i mean.

Sony has chased noise and DR. They use a weaker CFA.

ob:

"Both. Samples show different lighting and subjects rendered with somewhat different color distortions."

But how are you extracting raws on July 23rd 2019?

"JPEGs may be silly to you, but they're important to a lot of other photogs and serve as a reference when editing."

And I never said anything close to "better jpeg engines aren't, and can't be, important".

"Most people say colour is a non issue because of RAW. Most people either cant notice for some reason or are wrong."

Raw shooting helps immensely with colour, but there are other factors that have little to do with shooting raw. Albeit, those factors are easier work with or around with raws, good extraction software and good editing software.

"Looking at dE charts and colour charts, the newer A series are very close to Canon, copying their colour 'science'. "

That's largely a jpeg thing.

"Turning NR to low or Off on a Sony sensor camera vastly improves skin texture and colour quality. Even at ISO100."

Mostly jpeg.

@HowaboutRAW -- "But how are you extracting raws on July 23rd 2019?"
Topaz Studio. Excellent software IMO. Problems arise with these samples when contrast is increased and saturation is reduced to render better tonality and better shadow skin tones, but then color in other tones or in other subjects/objects is weakened. I realize it could be the software isn't yet up to speed on this new camera, but there's no reference (Sony should provide that IMO).

"...largely a jpeg thing" ... "Mostly jpeg." How does that account for the differences I noted re CCD vs. CMOS sensors (and there are many more)? I'm not convinced that Raw data is "color neutral" as you seem to imply.

HowaboutRAW. ""Looking at dE charts and colour charts, the newer A series are very close to Canon, copying their colour 'science'. "

That's largely a jpeg thing.

"Turning NR to low or Off on a Sony sensor camera vastly improves skin texture and colour quality. Even at ISO100."

Mostly jpeg."

Mostly yes. CFA does affect quality that RAW can not fix though also. Sometimes its a tiny difference, other times a large difference.

I noticed using CC 2015 that Sony RAW were awful, using the Sony RAW software though was hugely better. Software makes all the difference for sure, other than CFA affected.

There is a lot more going on than just recording light values for sure, and its not easy to pinpoint what/why.

obsolescence, "I'm not convinced that Raw data is "color neutral" as you seem to imply."

Its not. As you noticed.

Go to the Nikon forum and see how hard it is to make a Nikon photo look like a Canon photo or vice versa. 1000s of posts on this.

It is not just hue sliders in photoshop. Depending on many technical things, the RAWs between brands and models are not the same.

Its also the editors themselves. Tricky subject.

obso:

"Topaz Studio. Excellent software IMO"

I'm not aware of raw extraction software by Topaz and even if Topaz has raw extraction software, it won't have been updated to extract raw from the A7 IV yet.

"How does that account for the differences I noted re CCD vs. CMOS sensors? I'm not convinced that Raw data is "color neutral" as you seem to imply."

The difference is largely a myth.

I wouldnt say its a myth, but i would agree that its extremely difficult to understand, notice and explain to masses that dont notice.

Many people dont notice the awful blur on LCD tech. It couldnt be more noticeable to me and simple to explain and measure. And yet most people cant see it?

Not a great simile but hopefully you know what i mean.

SteveA:

"CCD as you say. Many Nikon users feel that the D700 was the very best quality for skin. Texture and colour. It was the last CCD from Nikon."

That Nikon body, just like the D3, uses a CMOS sensor. In terms of the history of digital photography of the early 21st century, you have made a very big error.

If you have Photoshop CC, and access to say Zeiss Milvus lenses, mount the same Zeiss Milvus lens (same focal length) on a Nikon D750 and Canon 5DIV.

Shoot the same scene, at ISO 400 and lower, at the same exposures with both cameras. Then extract the uncompressed 14 bit raws with ACR with the intention of matching the colour. Next once you have those tiffs, work on them with Photoshop CC's "Selective Color" function. You should be able to get real close to a match.

You can use different extraction software if you like, but you must use Photoshop's "Selective Color".

Now the Nikon raws will have more DR than the 5D IV raws.

@HowaboutRAW -- What is the "historical error" you referred to? You have injected a new variable: DR -- another red herring because that's not what the discussion was about vis-a-vis sensor types. I have seen an attempt to emulate CCD color rendering from a CMOS sensor, which succeeded only to a limited degree in matching "real world colors" as opposed to a 48-reflective-color chart which was used in Lightroom Raw processing for the "calibration." Among other problems, sky colors when adjusted, can suffer from banding artifacts. You might do your suggested experiment and try to match skin tones -- good luck!

You won't take my word, so I suggest you download a trial version of Topaz Studio and find out for yourself that it can convert A7R-IV Raw files. (It appears to me, you make some confident assertions without really knowing.) Besides, I'm dubious about your adherence to one particular program (Photoshop) when there are so many other means to implement color adjustments.

I did make an error. It was the D200.

@SteveAnderson -- I was surprised by the I-R Sat & Hue Accuracy test (your link) that showed A7R-II cyans rendered toward blue. In a Pentax Forum article the author tried to match a CMOS-sensor camera to a similar CCD one: https://www.pentaxforums.com/forums/61-post-processing-articles/350673-get-ccd-look-k-3-k-3ii-lightroom.html/ resulting in a distinct shift from cyan to blue (note the colored pencils). I also notice in comparison photos that both blue tones and skin tones from the CCD sensor appear more natural (default Raw processing in LR). That suggests the opposite shift by the CMOS sensor (Blues toward Cyan) that I 've noticed. Subjectivity plays a role, but for the sake of "history" let me say I've spent a good part of five decades looking at photographs in print/transparency form and for 28 years working on calibrated screens. While the DR of modern sensors is amazing, I think the tech still has a ways to go in the color rendering aspect.

obsolescence. Your link goes to an error sorry i couldnt see it.

It really is a tricky subject. Some of us see something, and trying to discover what it is, is difficult. I am quite positive the CFA is the difference that i can see once you take all the other (many) factors out.

Chasing DR and noise with todays tech = weaker CFA. They are sacrificing something for the noise.

HowaboutRaw, I said D700 because it does have a special look. D200 was their last CCD. D700 did have a very strong CFA. Many Nikon members spent a lot of time researching why it had a distinct look that was lost afterwards. It is most likely the CFA.
It doesnt just affect jpg, RAW also.

Colour pickers dont see this effect. Weak skin quality. Honestly ive spent too many hours trying to match a D7200 and D750 to a 5Dm2 and 7Dm2. It doesnt work. Weak CFA is weak.

ob:

LR is not raw processing software. To compare a CCD to a CMOS sensor for colour you absolutely have to use the same very good to excellent lens. The sensors need to be both APSC or FF, and be close to the same pixel count.

A good comparison would be the 50mm APO M on the Leica M9 and the Leica M10. Shot very low ISO.

Besides doing that test, and I don't imagine you have read access to all that gear, you can try what I have suggested multiple times in a slightly different context: Use Photoshop CS/CC's "Selective Color".

SteveA:

Your Pentax forum link is a 404 error.

"Colour pickers dont see this effect. Weak skin quality. Honestly ive spent too many hours trying to match a D7200 and D750 to a 5Dm2"

Nowhere above have I said anything about colour pickers. NOWHERE.

In fact, I already warned screen-name obsolescence to NOT go on about "selecting colour" with GIMP, PaintShop, CaptureOne etc.

I specified a feature of Photoshop CC (and CS) that has NOTHING to do with colour picking.

I can not help that you are not familiar with it, and don't appear to be interested in trying it. But until you work with it. I can't take your comments on colour from digital (or digitized) photos seriously. NO PART of this point is a in jest.

I've not tried the D200. I have shot the D700. But I never owned it.

I know of no software other than Photoshop CC that currently has Selective Color, though I first encountered the same process in Minolta film scanner software back in 2003 or 4.

HowaboutRAW, I wasnt accusing you of anything. I was saying that colour grading doesnt fix the weak skin quality.

Did i not just say i have spent too many hours learning and attempting this? I have, whether you choose to believe me or not.

Did you shoot with a D700 along side a D7200 alongside a Canon made before 2015?

If so, you would have the possibility to see what i see. A chance, if your eyes and mind can see it.

I dont know how much you know about something, you dont know how much i know about something. So when its something this tricky, all we can do is try to learn. And teach. Cautiously.

SteveA:

"HowaboutRAW, I wasnt accusing you of anything. I was saying that colour grading doesnt fix the weak skin quality"

Please try Photoshop CC's Selective Color.

"Did i not just say i have spent too many hours learning and attempting this? I have, whether you choose to believe me or not."

You did. But until you confirm after real testing that Selective Color doesn't do what you need, I can't take the seriousness of your attempts as verified.

Explicitly: Photoshop CC/CS' Selective Color works with colour under staggeringly different principles than any other mainstream photo editing software as of the middle of July 2019. You've already mistaken the feature for colour picking, so I'm pretty sure you've not tried it. (Unless you use some really obscure photo editing program that has it.)

"Did you shoot with a D700 along side a D7200 alongside a Canon made before 2015?"

No.

"you dont know how much i know about something." I be 98.5% certain you've not tried Selective Color.

So i only had to wait until 2019 to maybe, possibly, massage a weak CFA photo into looking a bit more like a strong CFA photo?

Do you not believe in CFA's and that they function differently affecting the RAW data?

Get a human model(lots of skin), an a7 or 6 series, any Canon from 7Dm2 and older, and any Nikon with a Sony sensor in it and test.

If you can get a weak CFA photo to look identical to the strong CFA photo, many people would love to know the work around.

I will try to test this new feature in CC. See you then.

SteveA:

"Do you not believe in CFA's and that they function differently affecting the RAW data?"

Not especially, but I could be convinced by the Zeiss Milvus test I proposed.

Selective Color has been feature of Photoshop CS for years; it is NOT new to CC.

If there is camera shake, detail will be better than with fewer pixels that might hide the result of such small camera shake anyway. Even if you see more lens abberations and camera shake, there will also be more fine detail visible than with less dense sensors. So you don't lose anything, you just see more detail, even if some flaws are revealed too.

Viggo:

For what it's work, Sony Imaging Edge 1.4 does NOT work with these DPR compressed raws--at least on a Windows 7 64 computer.

It did extract a lossy A7R IV from a different source last week.

Vadims, I also only ever said it is around the pixel pitch that becomes quite difficult to hand hold in many situations.

Anything else implied or assumed is from others assumptions.

24mp Canon APSC can take great photos of course. But it is a lot harder to hand hold than an 18mp Canon. Because of how we see, and our inherent jitteriness(some more shaky than others) I think that 61mp FF is at the border of usefulness for hand-holding.

To get a higher shutter speed means more noise. Since this has similar noise and similar IBIS handling, it may not be worth the extra noise for the same photo on a 42mp.

6mp to 18mp is the same physics but its still easy enough for the avg person to hand hold that pixel pitch, so, get the 18mp all other things equal right? 27mp people need to be aware their shaky limit.

SteveAnderson: This us not true. If you compare images, at the same size, you will find that:

1) Noise depends on sensor area, not pixel pitch
2) Camera shake is not more visible on a pixel dense camera

So a more pixel dense camera will always win, since it resolve more fine detail. Camera shake is not more visible, unless you pixel peep. The reason shake is visible is that the picture is enlarged more.

You don't need a higher shutter speed to gain the same amount or more detail with a higher Mp sensor, and peceived sharpness will not be higher with lower pixel pitch. You will have less fine detail. That's where you are wrong.

You will always get more detail than what is possible with a lower Mp sensor, except when the lower Mp picture also is blurred.

Not true, since higher pixel count will always resolve finer detail.

1) Smaller pixels do NOT generate more noise at a given image size. The criteria for sensor noise is total surface area, not pixel size.
2) Higher pixel count will always reveale more detail. The reason that a lower Mp sensor do "hide" camera blur is lack of resolution. The higher Mp sensor will show more detail.

@Magnar W

> The criteria for sensor noise is total surface area

That's certainly true. Small... not even correction, rather clarification: "total surface area occupied by pixels".

The old mantra of "more pixels == more noise" is now definitely obsolete. With micro-lenses and BSI technology, combined "inter-pixel" area of modern sensors is so small that it hardly contributes anything meaningful to the S/N ratio.

Instead of debating this ad nauseam, one can simply go to DPR's comparison scene, select, say, A7SII and A7RII, and check their high-ISO performance. 42Mp R trumps 12Mp S so resoundingly that any debates should stop right there.

Yes, there's an issue of small pixels being more sensitive to shakes. A friend of mine once said that getting 5Ds was a mistake: he simply "did not see" that resolution. Well, with IBIS, no mirror flaps, and electronic shutter Sony cameras provide ample opportunities to "extract" their resolution. We'll see.

When did i say more pixels = more noise. FFS please learn to read.

Its more noise because you have to use a higher shutter speed.

I really dont know how much more simply i can write this over and over again.

vadims, DPR have already stated that they underestimated how much shutter compensation they needed with this camera.
I also made the same argument as your 42mp vs 12mp.

I have never said it wont be a great camera. Only that it will be quite difficult to hand hold many situations because the pixel pitch is right on the border.

Return to top, endless loop...

The claim that you need to use faster shutter speed with more pixel dense sensors is not true.

If you have a 12 Mp sensor and a 60 Mp sensor, and take pictures with both at the same shutter speed and aperture, with the same amount of camera shake, the 24 Mp might show no or little blur, and the 60 Mp file shows a bit more blur AT PIXEL LEVEL. But the 60 Mp sensor will still show more detail, even if the pixels look more blurred when peeping.

Or is a 60 Mp file less sharp than the 12 Mp file? No, the 60 Mp file will contain more detail, even if you can notice slight blur at pixel level! You will also see more lens aberrations, because the sensor show more detail - not because there is no aberrations with the 12 Mp sensor. The fact is that the lower Mp sensor lack resolving power to show such detail (and other very fine detail). The same is true for slight blur.

There is NO WAY the 60 Mp file can be less sharp when the pictures are compared side by side - same size and same exposure.

So.... @HowaboutRAW and @SteveAnderson

Solution everyone would be happy with. Sony should really FINALLY implement the option for the shooter to choose the file size/resolution saved. I thought it was ridiculous to produce 40+MB images all the time. For that reason I never really considered the R line (I might need (more like want) a high MP images maybe 5 percent of the time).

A 61 MP image down sampled in camera, like canon used to offer MRaw and SRaw, would essentially mitigate the pixel density hand hold ability "issue".

In good lighting (so a lot of the time) there is by an large no issue to discuss since , you can easily just follow the rule 1/(1.5*FL) to 1/(2*FL) to compensate for the higher pixel density. At other times you can choose a lower MP format, or use a tripod.

Having 61 MP, or even 100 MP is not necessarily bad, but one needs to options/tools to select a lower MP format in camera for many practical issues, saves the hassle of doing it yourself.

lawny13:

And in this thread, I've not commented on the noise-pixel density issue.

That's a SteveAnderson and Magnar W argument.

Why isn't it?

What impresses you more?

These are OOC jpegs. RAWs will look much better.

Photo or video?

@Janssen76
Photo!

That is pretty amazing stuff! thank you for all the responses!

One word not being mentioned. Olympics. The same AF as the A9 with a new sensor. Sony did say they were releasing a new camera to support the 2 new lenses. What comes next Full Frame wise only Sony knows.

Again...the A7Riv is only $200. more U.S. than the A7Riii at time of release.

sports = A9.
No way 60+mp can be of use for action

@CaPi....watch this.

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

@Leitz: unfortunately that article is over 3 yrs old and didn't hold up well.

Here's more current data:
https://www.statista.com/chart/5782/digital-camera-shipments/

Unfortunately the stand alone camera market is declining fast. As to the market reverting to the what it was before digital, well...first off, that's hardly a consolation, since the population was smaller, and less people could afford cameras. But here's the rub: back then if one wanted to take a photo one had to buy a camera. With smartphones that is no longer true. That's a huge difference.

So I certainly wish something would help rescue the camera market...it has to hit a bottom at some point. But for now it just keeps getting smaller and smaller. Ironically, photography is more popular than ever before.

AZ: I did. Still say it doesn’t make sense

@wcan
+1

@Endgame Trigger
Believe it or not, but fanboyism or fanaticism in general is a type of human stupidity, regardless of the camera brand. You don't make your preferred camera system better by bashing other brands. You can make it better by criticizing it objectively and honestly, so that manufacturers could learn from the actual user feedback and fix the mistakes they've made before.
It seems like you have no clue how to get the right colors from a camera. Why don't you learn that before making a fool of yourself.

Well Ecka84,

as you have to admit, Canon has been more of a religion than a brand for so many years now, here and everywhere else, more than Sony and Nikon or Fuji!

Remember the last article of the DPreview Guys with the 1.2/85 R lens, when they pointed out that the behemoth of a lens is pointless without a reasonable body with at least a contemporary sensor/resolution/processor/iso- and shutter speed/price tag.

Hell, went the butthurt Canon fanbabies mad with this statement and the same here! The last competitive and innovative Canon body has been the 5 Douche Mk II and since then our Canon cult threw the more dust against others, the more they got frustrated, trapped in EF lenses like rats.

That is the beginning of truth and it hurts, I know. But there is no colour science with digital imaging. Calibrate your three channels well and live with it. They do not tend to recognise skin. Meanwhile some brand can even recognise eyes, but not colourwise.

The only thing I and the DRpreview stuff did was to show, how some people are substituting personality, free will, reason, sence and orientation with brand devotion and loyalitiy! How childish is that? The psychologial projection either, that there might be some Sony fans out there, which might behave unsportsmanlike...and this after ten years of throwing dust against all other brands except of Canon itself.

A ridiculous religious cult, but no reason or mature behaviour with this brand in all the places. The same with apple! 'Oh yeah! Am the better and more orientated and well informed person, cause I can afford a computer/cellphone, which costs more than twice at half the performance!" Dudes, that is such a Hipster bullcrap. Don't change meaning in life with brand loyality. Tesla Uranium and lignite cars with a single digit efficiency factor, exactly the same Murican born brand hype b*****t as with Apple and Canon.

There cannot be a socalled Colour Science, that is Hipster ****!

@Endgame Trigger - "Canon ... a religion"
No. Canon is a company. Canon "fanb0y club" is a religion. Canon isn't responsible for the actions and fantasies of some fanatics.

"... more than Sony and Nikon or Fuji!"
- There's nothing bigger than Fuji and m4/3 fanb0yism around here.

"behemoth of a lens is pointless without a reasonable body"
- Which is a fact. Regardless of what "Canon fanbabies" think. All cameras have both good and bad sides and I'm criticizing the bad ones, including Canon's. But you are just attacking opinions different than your own, regardless if they are true or false. In other words, you act like a fanb0y yourself. There's nothing terribly wrong with Canon color. The default color profiles can be questionable in some areas, but they are perfectly manageable.

@Endgame Trigger
Apple? Apple is like Fuji or Olympus maybe - hipster/fanb0y brands. And Canon is like Dell or Lenovo - never on top, rather conservative, but solid.
How can you associate Apple with Canon? How does that make any sense to you? Only because both have fanb0ys? Guess what, Sony have those crazies too. You seem to be one of them to be honest :)

There have been so many double and tripple blind tastings of different default jpgs of different cameras of different brands with different lenses on different output media as calibrated or non calibrated screens, paper, etc. on the internet, on Youtube, in papers and publications in the recent years...

...and all of these tests showed the world one simple thing, that there is no Colour Science or favorite brand. All these tests prove the Canon sect and their voodoo myth to be total bu**s*it. I remember Canon even to come last against the most recent FF competitors (the most recent Canon FF cams have 2012 and 2007 sensor tech, so they must still be in the highline of the voodoo Skintone age). But there are only three discrete colours. If you calibrate them to your needs, lenses, output media or Canon Skintone ™ style in your converter, then you're completely on the safe 'taste of the masses/Canon fanbabies' side.

I mean look at them... how poor and bu**h*rt

@ET - I looked at one for portraits and overwhelmingly preferred Nikon colors when compared to Sony and Canon (90% of my selections were Nikon). I mean, it's patently ridiculous to think that all cameras produce the same colors when the manufacturers don't share the same JPG and Raw engines in their cameras. However, Nikon, for example, would have fairly consistent colors across their cameras, and that my friend is Nikon color science.

It's apparent you use cameras from a brand which isn't known for their color science which is why you have a vested interested in refuting color science.

Endgame you are wrong.

Go get a Nikon, Canon, and Sony and test them with the same mostly bare human model at the same time. Do it yourself, not watching some YT video.

Those blind tests you speak of, I win every time. Even they try to trick us, which most(all) do. Nikon is especially easy to spot.

You can easily see for yourself. Its not just WB. Colour filter array is important also. They are not the same between brands or models even. Canon chooses a strong CFA, Sony sensor camera use a weak CFA for lower noise. CFA affects colours to the RAW. Not just jpg.

I also dare you to make a Nikon photo look like a Canon photo. Yes even in RAW. There are no profiles that actually work. See you in many many hours.

There is so much going on, I dont feel like explaining it all right now. Suffice to say you are quite upset and wrong at the same time.

@SteveAnderson source of your cfa arrays please

We'll give that a try when we get a camera again (we had to hand these back after the event).

Though, of course, we won't be able to just re-process them in-camera to see whether a different NR or WB setting is more to our taste.

1/FL is a rule for camera shake, not for subject motion. If your model moves 1/100 or 1/200 might not cut it, if you don't have flash to freeze it. Of course if you shoot many shots some of them will catch the model when he/she is not moving.

In fairness, LadizlavCZ, these are easy conclusions to draw in retrospect, once you can assess the images at pixel level. That wasn't the situation I was in.

If I'd shot everything at a higher shutter speed than necessary (with the noise cost that comes from it), then I'm sure I'd have plenty of comments saying I was trying to undermine the camera or brand, and that they'd expect a better approach from...

True Richard,

Another thread is going that i mentioned people will need to be real careful with shutter speeds because of the either blur or noise with that pixel pitch.

Its hard to have a real logic based or civil conversation here.

Uh.....sarcasm? Joking? Humor?

looking at the newly added pictures I must admit: the 135mm is the real winner here! also I found a website selling a "canon color profile" for sony mirrorless camera. I tested it on mine and it's 50% better but still not canon-like.

What website?

google sony canon profile, there are 2-3 websites that sell u the "configurations"

there is no mention of a new raw format, or is there one?

I'm a Nikon shooter these days, Randy. I owned and shot (and mostly loathed) Sony cameras for three years (only mirrorless game in town). Running most Sony camera RAW images through C1 with its default Sony profiles is usually enough to obtain "pleasing" colours, which look more like Canon and less like Sony's horrid misbalanced magentas and greens.

No matter what tweaking of camera settings, Sony's jpegs remained hopeless until the A7III.

What fast shutter speed? Their shutter speed is way too low.
If you look at photos taken by other people (not dpreview), you see a huge difference in quality.

1/250 for 135mm stabilized, should be more than enough to get a sharp picture