jfreak wrote:
As for the calibrated monitor, no I am only using macbook pro retina, later 2013.
This is issue number one! Don't pass go, don't collect $200-- you can't even start to look into this issue until you figure this out. Read up on calibration pucks and software, buy one of the cheaper models available that will work with your monitor/expected short term purchases, and do a basic calibration!
Why? Because it is quite possible that once you calibrate your system you find out that what you thought were your opinions about the colors produced by the M240 and A7rII are in fact reversed.
I don't agree that you need a special monitor covering 99% or more of one of the big color spaces. But you do need a monitor calibrated to get as close as possible to showing accurate colors-- at the right white points and brightness for your viewing situation. It doesn't need to be perfect, it just needs to be close. A desktop monitor wouldn't hurt either, to be honest, and you can pick up a cheap 27" 1440p IPS/VA monitor for a couple hundred bucks-- it doesn't have to be made by Eizo or Apple, and it doesn't need to be perfect. Leave the perfection to folks trying to get perfect matches on complex systems using profiling of papers, inks, cameras, multiple monitors, etc....
(As a side note, in very broad terms, the main color difference I notice between my former 5D2 and A7rII-- shooting them side-by-side with the same 35mm f/1.4L lens, and viewing on a calibrated system-- is that the 5D2 images tended to be a little warmer and have an inaccurate, but sometimes appealing, magenta push. The photo you posted above, on my calibrated system, looks fairly neutral, and attractive. The funny part, however, is that I haven't seen what your subject and setting looked like through my own eyes-- but you haven't seen what the image looks like on a calibrated system; neither of us can judge the accuracy of the color capture that way!)
Seriously, a $99 calibration puck and 15 minutes changes everything...