alundeb wrote:
Where can I find the Imaging Resource color fidelity measurements?
In every full review under Exposure they show the Hue&Saturation plots... It's interesting that these plots confirm that Nikon is always the worst of the lot - probably because of the white balance prescaling they apply to the RAW files which means that they lose tonal resolution at the RAW level to the tune of 1/12 to 1/8th of all possible values in two of the channels (red and blue) - which reduces the cameras ability to reproduce colors accurately...
charlyw wrote:
In every full review under Exposure they show the Hue&Saturation plots... It's interesting that these plots confirm that Nikon is always the worst of the lot - probably because of the white balance prescaling they apply to the RAW files which means that they lose tonal resolution at the RAW level to the tune of 1/12 to 1/8th of all possible values in two of the channels (red and blue) - which reduces the cameras ability to reproduce colors accurately...
Thanks.
The color accuracy at I-R refers to sRGB jpg images, so they don't mean anything to me as I shoot RAW and develop in CaptureOne.
alundeb wrote:
The color accuracy at I-R refers to sRGB jpg images, so they don't mean anything to me as I shoot RAW and develop in CaptureOne.
They still matter - about as much (for me even more) as those abstract DxO measurements - because they show how well the manufacturer who had the most knowledge about the camera and the bayer filter managed to transfer the color information to a real image. All other RAW conversions in my experience will be at best equal, they are more likely worse though...
Seems like the OP has lots of experience shooting Canon and is just now dabbling with Sony. Looking at his photostream, he didn't really shoot much action, despite using a 1Diii and some crop bodies. That, and the high dynamic range of many of his shots suggests he should get the A7ii with an adapter to use his Canon lenses.
Just to put a perspective on all of this, virtually everything in photography is a compromise, at least when it comes to equipment. There is no perfect equipment. No camera can focus with utterly perfect accuracy in all circumstances. No camera can perfectly render color. No camera will always have enough DR for a single exposure capture of the most challenging scene. No lens has perfect resolution. And on and on...
While it is interesting and somewhat useful to understand technical stuff about cameras and photography (I'm certainly interested in these things), getting wrapped up in debates about which thing is better due to 1fps faster burst mode, a stop of extra DR, a somewhat higher percentage score on some test of color fidelity, a bit less noise at some ISO...
... quickly can lead one to diversions that really aren't productive and that really accomplish little in terms of the quality of one's photographs, whether measured technically or aesthetically.
took the a7r along my 5d3 to a landscape trip with mbIV. loved the a7r. great images. but it was also the extra resolution and lack of aa filter.
as for a7II, are you going native lenses or using adapted lenses. If going native, are you okk with a few primes? there are no good mid range zoom lenses for sony unless you are willing to to dish out money for ther very heavy and very expensive 24-70 2.8II lens. if you are going canon, I dont think using adapted lenses and substandard af is worth the extra 1.5 stops of DR. exception is if you are primarily shooting landscape, in which case look for the a7r
