Sony a6600 sample gallery

Entry level bodies sell more in volume than expensive higher end bodies? Wow, shocking.

Ha ha ha ha. Before I even looked at the comments I wondered how it would be until someone said it was soft. Which images are soft?

LMAO

MediArt: And the color?

@Magnar W, are you a teacher? Loool really?!!
Mr teacher do you understand what is photography? Loool

Ignore him Magnar. Just some ignorant know it all.

@ MamiyaMax: I don't have any problem with comments like the one from MediArt on web forums. They just wipe themselves out from my universe themselves. I don't even bother with blocking them. :-)

Canon has looked the same as their older cameras for a long time too! :-)
I'm sure that's not what you meant though, LOL.

Imager of:

This sample set includes several images shot with completely new Sony E mount lenses.

So "looks like samples from an A6400" is highly doubtful.

I suggest you download some of the raws shot with the new FE lenses and extract those raws.

Now, if you'd said somethings about ISO performance of DR, you'd sort of have a point.

Au contraire, the samples look very different from A6500 or even A6400. These samples look very un-Sony like.

Sorry, I thought I'd updated all the images correctly. I'll check as soon as I get near some Wi-Fi.

Which image is it, out of interest?

Much happier with a brace of Z6 than I ever was with an A6500 and an A6300.

I've never seen a Canon RP in the wild either, or a R for that matter, wonder how many they've sold!

telawrence, My post was not brand fanatically based.

I have not seen an RP in the wild yet either, but it hasnt been out for 3 years yet either.

Like i said, maybe because its so small. It doesnt seem to be around a lot of peoples necks.

I've seen tons of a6500's used for different types of videography and mixed digital media creation. Now when the a6600 came out there suddenly is quite a lot of a6500 and a6300 cameras on the local Craigslist, which indicates that there are quite a few out there - at least in this corner of the world.

I have to say that I'm also a bit perplexed why anyone would pick this over the Fuji X-T3 or the A7 III for that matter. Sorry, but Canon is just for diehard fanboys anymore and Nikon is spiralling down quite rapidly.

I must be in the 1%. 35-150 is much better for me.

Not sure what God has to do with anything. Just count the number of 24-105s vs 35-150s from all manufacturers.

Nothing really but you seems to know a lot about what I need/want...

Think man, are the manufacturers always right, and we the consumers who want different are always wrong? Wouldn't be much of progress if we consumers didn't ask for anything, or?

I never said anything about what you wanted. I said what the general public wants. The general public prefers 24-105 over a 35-150. The market clearly reflects that. Manufacturers arent about making art, theyre about making money. Why would they waste money and lose profits with creating an unpopular niche lens?

Lets end this now, you and I will never come along so to say :-)

What? Facts dont lie.

Great, "wish" is what i wrote in my first post... never say never... :-)

Pic-2 looks the way it is could be mostly due to the harsh light under which it was shot. His purple shirt also reflected a lot of light to mess up the skin tone.

Still amazed that Fuji cameras with no grip, tiny battery, no ibis are considered "better". And when comparing e-mount lenses available the comparison is not even fair anymore....

I always look at DXO for reviews of color accuracy They use computers, or lasers, or seeing-eye dogs or something, but they are always more accurate than people in the “comments” section of DPReview.

@Low Budget Dave.. interesting deflect. Can U honestly look at images 1, 10, 11 and several others and not see the yellow/orange? DXO has not been a reliable source for quite a while now...

Lens Rentals is very consistent:
https://www.lensrentals.com

I share the observations of the OP and Entoman...
The orange tint of picture 10 face is the most obvious, however...
But he may be ill without knowing. Kind of jaundice ?
The photographer, or a doctor, could clarify this... ;-)

According to the computers, Sony does the exact same thing that Canon used to do. The oversaturate (a bit), oversharpen (a bit), and boost the red and orange skin tones (a bit).

I have no idea if the models were slightly yellow or not. I have never met these people. But I am guessing that the yellow areas looked unnatural because the adjacent areas had been boosted. Sony used to present colors as close to the original as they could get, and people complained that it was too green.

This created as “arms race” of increasing saturation in jpg, to the point where now, everyone prefers their cell phone pictures, because the saturation starts at 120% and goes up from there.

I get it. People hate yellow and green skin tones. But if the computer (or the guide dog, or whatever) says it isn’t the camera, then it isn’t the camera.

https://www.shutterbug.com/content/sony-a6500-lab-review-how-does-flagship-mirrorless-camera-sony-stack

(Also: I know dogs are mostly colorblind. I was going to use the mantis shrimp as a metaphor, but I figured that was too obscure.).

The answer is in the RAW file...
The skin color in picture 10 is way more natural... to my eyes.
The JPEG engine is the culprit...
Maybe the settings can be tweaked to taste...

"Though the guy in pic 10 might have a failing liver"
As I wrote, the answer is in the RAW file : no... ;-)

I do these portrait tests head to head often.

It is a very Sony look and is just 'off'. Sometimes great, but too often not.

Not trying to do a brand war thing here but in all(100%) my head to head skin tests, the Canons are most accurate and pleasing. Not a single model has ever chosen the Sony photo as either most accurate to her looking in a mirror nor pleasing.

I am a small sample of course but I know from way too many photos myself that its true.

I want to own a a7R3, the tech and AF accuracy is amazing, but every time I test one(any Sony), same thing happens. Something is 'off' in the skin.

@Steve
Canon is traditionally very yellow. But people still credit them for amazing skin. And it does look pretty good. It's just not accurate if that's what you're after

3pgrey, I know there is a lot going on when it comes to colour and dont know everything, but, I have made a point of knowing as much as possible because im obviously very sensitive to it.

Starting with no camera is accurate, I have found between Sony, Nikon and Canon especially that Canon is by far the most accurate. Not just subjectively pleasing.

Nikon with the Sony sensors seem to have some permanent filter on when it sees Asian skin tones.
Sony is just odd. Sometimes darn close to Canon, other times it misses badly and its not a pleasing nor accurate portrait.

100% of my models, wife and myself choose the Canon photo as the most accurate and or pleasing. We do h2h tests and view the photos on a calibrated 27" IPS 10ft from the shot taken. 100% of the time.

I admit these photos are most often not greatly accurate, as you say, tending towards a color bias in certain hues. But there is absolutely something to color magic that especially skin will cause people to be pleased or not.

Uncoy - My 5DS, 5DMkiv perfectly match the colour from my (now sold) 6D and 7DMkii. I often shoot with my 5DS and 5DMkiv in tandem (I'm a playsafe guy so I dupe shots as much as possible), and unless they are at ISO 3200 or higher, I can't tell them apart.

entoman, do you mean the colours match in your RAW program?

My 5Dm2 and 7Dm2 are quite different in jpg and I thought because of CFA they would be different in RAW as well. Also looking at Imagine Resource hue mapping they are different in the way i notice as well.

I thought RAW programs are pretty dependent on profiles ie its not actual raw data.

How do you know IBIS is the biggest plus when pretty much all images were taken for still subjects in good light? I mean it wasn't even put to test!

Bad cameras. Try the Fuji xt100. Hard to believe a camera with AF so bad was released only last year.

It is most likely shutter shock, switch to EFCS.

I went over all portrait shots and was impressed with focus consistency on the subject's eyes. Even when the eyes where (visible) behind glasses or not in the center of the frame they still where reasonably sharp. This is incredible.

Jup, that's sony Eye AF. Even with the A7iii (not as good as the new ones) - it feals like cheating. Just press the button, eye is in focus.

duchamp, IamJF: The best EyeAF doesn't help when the camera shutter introduces visible softness that IMO results in quite less than reasonably sharp images. I wouldn't have posted my comment if I thought the images all were sharp. There are already enough comments in this gallery praising Sony's intergalactic AF and how these images just proofe that Sony is the best.

@Magnar W.. my monitor is calibrated. Image 1 & 11 of the attractive blonde woman... she has yellow skin around mouth and eyes. The M.U. artist certainly did not use a yellow foundation. I took both images into Photoshop... in "Selective Colour" removed most of the yellow...and then added warmth overall. Looks much more natural. Did much the same with the yellow/orange black man in 10.

@forpetessake.. the 3 images I mentioned... I, 10 & 11 are in natural light.

I can see the same "flaws" on my monitor...

@HowaboutRAW.. I was a fashion/advertising photographer for a good 20 years. No the M.U. artist did not apply yellow make up. More than likely she/he used a bronze, gold or "sparkly" foundation/powder to add a bit of sheen ("glow") and the Sony "misread" it, turning it into a kind of mustard yellow. In the case of the black man in image 10 the yellow/orange is also prevalent though.

"Bad" skin colour representation is where individual brands show their colour science flaws the most.

No reason to upgrade if your camera works fine. Spend your money on something else. New releases are for new customers...
And if you are happy with your smartphone photos (90% people are) then there's no reason to spend on cameras at all... Take a trip somewhere nice or make a donation if you have too much cash, make the world a better place :)

@Hellraiser
What are you telling to him ? he should not buy the latest iteration of the camera model he owns ? But how on earth this man gonna live ? how will he be able to stand in front of his friends, colleagues, family and strangers ?

Do you realize the amount of shame he'll have to cope with using a previous revision of its own camera
All your suggestion is an indecent proposition. And in the meantime, it put shareholders earnings down, and this is an even bigger nonsense !!!

Really hope that guy will spend more money on a better camera, or even better : buy again the same camera he owns as he is not satisfied by the new revision.

/sarcasm

If you are happy with your cel and ... photos with your car camera, you definitely don't need this camera at all, and you save yourself a lot of money. Smart move. Also, maybe not need to come to DPR often.

as they say, ignorance is bliss.

To Hellraiser, great minds think alike: instead of upgrading my cameras I opted to take motorcycle driving lessons. At this moments just for the fun of it but maybe sometime abroad I'll be able to rent one to get to some wonderful places and take pictures otherwise unreachable. :)

....and here's another good idea!

Instead of upgrading your camera, upgrade your monitor and calibrate it - it'll probably make a far more significant difference, if you view your photos primarily on you computer.

.. and if you make prints, upgrade your printer, and make sure you calibrate that too.

Generally speaking, if you want better images, the *last* thing you should upgrade is your camera.

... and if you really truly want better photographs, just look very carefully at photographs taken by other people, analyse why some succeed and some fail, and then go out and practice practice practice.

Now honesty is shocking!

This camera is sexist. It discriminates between men and women, without even asking them about their preferred identity. There must be a law requiring every photographer to put vaseline on the lens when shooting people.

If a camera records soft pictures, people are unhappy.
If it records sharp images, people are unhappy too...
What a world !

Forgetting to remove the lenscap

It did?

Simple: Sony is finally addressing their color science problem. Shame you can only get it by buying a new model.

XeroJay is right. Canon has lost it and it's sad to see

Yet the cheapo M100 gallery was better than the latest and the greatest Sony one...

This is true. And it’s great. Canon colors are great

Frankly, #10 shows awful skin tones.

No, check out Pentax, Panasonic S1, Fujifilm. They all render more pleasing than Sony or Canon. They have kept that good old punch in primary colors

A Owens: Don't. Canon colors are not at all what they used to be. They used to have pleasing hues and vivid colors but now they have gone for a flat style with orange skin and a cyan bias instead of the older warm/magenta look with punchy colors. This is partly a profile thing but also how they designed the CFA. It's not as easy as one might think to post process colors to a certain look. At least not with just the HSL sliders in LR/ACR.

It's interesting - when I see Canons new default "look" these days, it almost looks like a modern color graded movie.

Forpetessake - were you at the photoshoot enabling you to judge that man's skin tones?

Thanks @henrikbengtsson for the update. I must admit that my most recent Canon body is a 1dsMk2! It is a shame they have changed their colour signature as it was a real strength. I currently like the skin tones coming out of the Nikon Z series. Similar to the older Canons.

You can only compare the colour of the CAMERAS whe been shot in same conditions 1:1.

And in the few blind selection comparisons out there ... Canon is not on the top spot ;-)

Sure, it is subjective. However when for the last 15 years there's a general consensus that Canon has the best colors, and Canon colors no longer resemble what they used to, yet other brands look more similar to that, it's not as subjective.

There is a general consensus?

Mortal Lion: It's not a fan thing. I've been shooting with Canon for 12 years and went through all 5D models, 1Ds3, 1D4, 1DX, some 7D's and a 60D and 70D. I used to love the color output. Even though these models were slightly different, they all shared the same Canon color DNA - with the exception of 5D4. Starting with the 80D/5D4 it was beginning to fade quite dramatically. So, as a Canon shooter, I would say that there's no such thing as "Canon Colors" anymore.

softening skin in post is easy, and i have to disagree with another member saying a lens can be too sharp. the final image may be, but not the lens...i ll take too sharp over soft everytime.

but i still dont know why the sigma is being used in these samples.

I think that the skin colors are good. This is what Sony does best. The foliage however is radioactive, signature Sony.

Necip - Haha thanks, that was amusing, and of course absolutely true. People do tend to think that the brand they own produces the best colour, and that the brand they like least produces the worst colour. And it's probably well known that despite their amazing performance, I don't like Sony cameras (or to be precise, Sony ergonomics).

But get this - yesterday I was complaining here about the colour from the Canon 90D. Well surprise surprise, I use Canon cameras, so that rather disproves any theory that I'm consciously or subconsciously slagging Sony colour out of brand loyalty.

As I pointed out above, all I can do is comment on what I see, and I disliked the occ JPEG colours of the latest cameras from *both* brands. Actually had my eyes tested a couple of days ago, and nothing wrong with my eyes :-) Nothing wrong with my monitor either, I'm seeing good colour with some cameras, and what to me is poor colour from others. Any theories?

The relevant analogy is - can you tell good from bad wine?

Well it is for you. But for most people the colors are okay now so no need for another editing is better. Don't say that everybody's color perception is different and then you set the bar the same in terms of the need of editing.

The "science of color" is irrelevant, in none of my cameras I have left the JPG profiles without retouching to my liking, although I usually shoot in raw, in raw the colors differ according to the lens used, each one has its own character, I love it . By the way, I work in a graphic arts company and I understand the color in depth.

when they talk about "science" of color they refer to JPG OCC, but you have 4 or 5 parameters in each color profile to modify, it takes only 10 minutes to find a balance between saturation, contrast, noise reduction and you can significantly increase the dynamic range .... As for raw except my little Panny LX100 that has a horrible magenta tendency when it comes to raising the shadows (even slightly), I have not noticed any problem, nor with the Sony (even with the sensor sensors 1 ") or with the Fuji (despite their X-Trans).

Not all people talk about OOC JPG when they talk about "color science". It is more about the info in the RAW files and how they react to tweaking the parameters.

The lens is not stabilized, you wouldn't want it on A6100.