This topic is in the 2025 archive. You can read it and like its posts here. It is read only.
Archive 2025A7R5 / A7IV difference -- color science differences?
p.1 #1A7R5 / A7IV difference -- color science differences?
I recently got the A7RV and love it. I am blown away by the differences in color science (yes, RAW). I struggled for years with the older gens -- specifically skin highlights, rolloff, in funky lighting -- and yes I know you can get *mostly* anywhere in RAW, but sometimes it's nice to get there quickly 🙂
That said, I think the resolution is more than I need and I'd be happy to downsize, but this is a core feature I wouldn't want to give up. These came out around the same time, so I'm thinking they'd be similar. I had the A7C for a time and disliked that, so if they're similar, then that answers it.
I'm also a little partial to the video in the A74. Thanks
That said, I think the resolution is more than I need and I'd be happy to downsize, but this is a core feature I wouldn't want to give up. These came out around the same time, so I'm thinking they'd be similar. I had the A7C for a time and disliked that, so if they're similar, then that answers it.
I'm also a little partial to the video in the A74. Thanks
Feb 28, 2025 at 07:10 AM
p.1 #2A7R5 / A7IV difference -- color science differences?
I’m not a color science expert but have owned the A7IV and currently have two A7R5’s. Both cameras take excellent pictures. However IMO comparing the A7IV to the A7R5 is like comparing a Ford to a Ferrari. You don’t think you need the resolution until you do (and you will) and the overall user experience, screen, AF, etc is so much more refined in the A7R5. Unless you went to a larger format sensor I think the A7R5 is currently at the pinnacle of overall image quality, it is just phenomenal.
I also have an FX3 which I use primarily for video mainly for the much improved low light performance of being able to get super clean footage at ISO 12800 and shooting at 120fps. But don’t discount the A7R5 for video, it’s actually quite good and while rolling shutter is present, how often do you really shoot video where you are panning fast that actually results in rolling shutter?? An issue for some but not for most IMO. As much as I love my FX3 for video, one thing I notice when shooting video on the A7R5 compared to shooting on the FX3 is how much better the AF is on the A7R5 for video compared to the FX3, particularly when it comes to tracking and how much quicker the A7R5 locks on compared to the FX3. And again when you compare the AF on the A7R5 to the A7IV the A7R5 is the clear winner. There as some aspects to video that bodies like the A7IV and A7R5 can't overcome compared to a body like the FX3 but if you really want to see a massive improvement in your video focus less on the body and more on upping your skills in Davinci Resolve. That'll take your video to a whole nother level quicker than any piece of gear will.
Any yes I realize an A7IV upgrade is on the horizon but there is something about shooting the “pro” Sony bodies like the A7RV over what I guess you would call “prosumer” bodies like the A7IV. Everyone has their own opinion but I would never never ever
swap an A7RV for an A7IV, most certainly for photography and even for video. Shot Nikon, Canon and Sony over the years, owned LOTS of camera bodies and the A7RV is the best overall camera for photography I’ve ever owned. The only exception would be if you shot birds in flight or lots of sports where a faster camera (A9III, A1) would benefit. Otherwise the A7R5 is fast enough for everything else and in the hands of a competent photographer does a pretty good job for the fast stuff too.
Edited on Feb 28, 2025 at 09:36 AM · View previous versions
I also have an FX3 which I use primarily for video mainly for the much improved low light performance of being able to get super clean footage at ISO 12800 and shooting at 120fps. But don’t discount the A7R5 for video, it’s actually quite good and while rolling shutter is present, how often do you really shoot video where you are panning fast that actually results in rolling shutter?? An issue for some but not for most IMO. As much as I love my FX3 for video, one thing I notice when shooting video on the A7R5 compared to shooting on the FX3 is how much better the AF is on the A7R5 for video compared to the FX3, particularly when it comes to tracking and how much quicker the A7R5 locks on compared to the FX3. And again when you compare the AF on the A7R5 to the A7IV the A7R5 is the clear winner. There as some aspects to video that bodies like the A7IV and A7R5 can't overcome compared to a body like the FX3 but if you really want to see a massive improvement in your video focus less on the body and more on upping your skills in Davinci Resolve. That'll take your video to a whole nother level quicker than any piece of gear will.
Any yes I realize an A7IV upgrade is on the horizon but there is something about shooting the “pro” Sony bodies like the A7RV over what I guess you would call “prosumer” bodies like the A7IV. Everyone has their own opinion but I would never never ever
swap an A7RV for an A7IV, most certainly for photography and even for video. Shot Nikon, Canon and Sony over the years, owned LOTS of camera bodies and the A7RV is the best overall camera for photography I’ve ever owned. The only exception would be if you shot birds in flight or lots of sports where a faster camera (A9III, A1) would benefit. Otherwise the A7R5 is fast enough for everything else and in the hands of a competent photographer does a pretty good job for the fast stuff too. Edited on Feb 28, 2025 at 09:36 AM · View previous versions
Feb 28, 2025 at 09:02 AM
p.1 #3A7R5 / A7IV difference -- color science differences?
Tom RC wrote:
I’m not a color science expert but have owned the A7IV and currently have two A7R5’s. Both cameras take excellent pictures. However IMO comparing the A7IV to the A7R5 is like comparing a Ford to a Ferrari. You don’t think you need the resolution until you do (and you will) and the overall user experience, screen, AF, etc is so much more refined in the A7R5. Unless you went to a larger format sensor I think the A7R5 is currently at the pinnacle of overall image quality, it is just phenomenal.
I also have an FX3 which I use primarily...Show more →
Thank you for such a thorough answer! Haha. I will be keeping my R5 Good points, all around...Interesting about the FX3. This is why I read about a few people swapping to the "lowly" ZV-E1, because I think it includes the AI-based AF of the A7R5. Would that matter with bigtime cinema people who use like PL adapters and what not? Probably not, but people who use video af will definitely appreciate this
I’m not a color science expert but have owned the A7IV and currently have two A7R5’s. Both cameras take excellent pictures. However IMO comparing the A7IV to the A7R5 is like comparing a Ford to a Ferrari. You don’t think you need the resolution until you do (and you will) and the overall user experience, screen, AF, etc is so much more refined in the A7R5. Unless you went to a larger format sensor I think the A7R5 is currently at the pinnacle of overall image quality, it is just phenomenal.
I also have an FX3 which I use primarily...Show more →
Thank you for such a thorough answer! Haha. I will be keeping my R5
Good points, all around...Interesting about the FX3. This is why I read about a few people swapping to the "lowly" ZV-E1, because I think it includes the AI-based AF of the A7R5. Would that matter with bigtime cinema people who use like PL adapters and what not? Probably not, but people who use video af will definitely appreciate thisFeb 28, 2025 at 09:26 AM
p.1 #4A7R5 / A7IV difference -- color science differences?
I had the a7IV until I got the a7RV. Same boat. While I love the high res VF and the super-flippy screen, 60MP is too much for my needs (I think 40-45 would be ideal for me) and the sensor is so slow-reading.
I ended up going to an a7CII because my needs have changed drastically, but I wouldn't go back to an a7IV at this point, but rather wait for the a7V. I'm sure it will like $1,000 more than a minty a7IV at release time, but I hope it will have a faster sensor and all the erg-benefits of the newer gen cameras.
And yes, the color science has improved a lot in Sonys over the years, so a7RV is better/more to my liking than the a7IV, and I'm confident that the a7V will be as good or better than the a7RV.
I ended up going to an a7CII because my needs have changed drastically, but I wouldn't go back to an a7IV at this point, but rather wait for the a7V. I'm sure it will like $1,000 more than a minty a7IV at release time, but I hope it will have a faster sensor and all the erg-benefits of the newer gen cameras.
And yes, the color science has improved a lot in Sonys over the years, so a7RV is better/more to my liking than the a7IV, and I'm confident that the a7V will be as good or better than the a7RV.
Feb 28, 2025 at 09:47 AM
p.1 #5A7R5 / A7IV difference -- color science differences?
No offense, I am still not sure what "color science" means. And that after I had the original A7r and every iteration thereafter all the way to A7r V, in addition to A1 and A1 II, plus A7c R. In addition to landscape and wildlife, I do a fair amount of portraits, too, where it plays more a role. What am I missing as a 100% RAW shooter? Or should I consider myself lucky then? I did notice the AF improvement in Sony bodies over the years though...
Feb 28, 2025 at 10:13 AM
p.1 #6A7R5 / A7IV difference -- color science differences?
I also find it challenging to understand the differences in color science. OP, do you have a side-by-side comparison of RAW images from both cameras with the same default out-of-the-box processing applied?
Feb 28, 2025 at 11:07 AM
p.1 #7A7R5 / A7IV difference -- color science differences?
no images posted to prove anything, just talk from reps. dont see any wedding photogs switching to the r5
Mar 01, 2025 at 01:07 AM
p.1 #8A7R5 / A7IV difference -- color science differences?
Sorry I don't understand the question. You have A7RV, the very best Sony camera body for general photography, portraits, landscape. You have excellent jpeg output, medium sized raw, full sized raw when need resolution, best EVF, best LCD scrren with foldable-tilting screen, latest AI eye tracking AF. You want saving money downgrading to A7IV? Because it has not other advantage, not a single one.
Mar 01, 2025 at 01:36 AM
p.1 #9A7R5 / A7IV difference -- color science differences?
I would hardly call a7RV's EVF the best. It is beautiful and powerful at a glance, but the resolution drops significantly when tracking in continuous AF. Borderline infuriating.
Mar 02, 2025 at 04:27 AM
p.1 #10A7R5 / A7IV difference -- color science differences?
lukeiam wrote:
I recently got the A7RV and love it. I am blown away by the differences in color science (yes, RAW). I struggled for years with the older gens -- specifically skin highlights, rolloff, in funky lighting -- and yes I know you can get *mostly* anywhere in RAW, but sometimes it's nice to get there quickly 🙂
That said, I think the resolution is more than I need and I'd be happy to downsize, but this is a core feature I wouldn't want to give up. These came out around the same time, so I'm thinking they'd be similar. I...Show more →
Color science... just an Internet expression I think. Is it really an idea or a concept in English? To me it is just a word or two for people wanting to express a layman's opinion.
Anyway, we can look at this at least two different ways.
(1) One is what we see coming straight from the camera, perhaps having fiddled a little with the JPG settings. The OP way who talks about color science and RAW images is a twist of the first case. The difference is that here the in camera processing is replaced by the work a raw converter does using a computer or phone.
(2)Another is to have an understanding of what is going on and process the images. The processing will in many cases include a profile helping to make the image look the way the photographer want.
Some people will just prefer what happens in camera A to what happens in camera B. This really shouldn't be called anything including color science. A sentence like "I usually prefer the images I get from camera A to the images I get from camera B" (replace camera A and camera B with the name of the raw processor) would be much better. Talking about "color science" sounds of course flashy.
Whenever somebody says "Color science" in a photo forum I suspect the poster is a case (1) person. That's fine. Just get the camera or find the raw processor you (perhaps accidently) like.
If you like a camera a lot but not the colors you get you'll have to learn about how to process the images properly.
I recently got the A7RV and love it. I am blown away by the differences in color science (yes, RAW). I struggled for years with the older gens -- specifically skin highlights, rolloff, in funky lighting -- and yes I know you can get *mostly* anywhere in RAW, but sometimes it's nice to get there quickly 🙂
That said, I think the resolution is more than I need and I'd be happy to downsize, but this is a core feature I wouldn't want to give up. These came out around the same time, so I'm thinking they'd be similar. I...Show more →
Color science... just an Internet expression I think. Is it really an idea or a concept in English? To me it is just a word or two for people wanting to express a layman's opinion.
Anyway, we can look at this at least two different ways.
(1) One is what we see coming straight from the camera, perhaps having fiddled a little with the JPG settings. The OP way who talks about color science and RAW images is a twist of the first case. The difference is that here the in camera processing is replaced by the work a raw converter does using a computer or phone.
(2)Another is to have an understanding of what is going on and process the images. The processing will in many cases include a profile helping to make the image look the way the photographer want.
Some people will just prefer what happens in camera A to what happens in camera B. This really shouldn't be called anything including color science. A sentence like "I usually prefer the images I get from camera A to the images I get from camera B" (replace camera A and camera B with the name of the raw processor) would be much better. Talking about "color science" sounds of course flashy.
Whenever somebody says "Color science" in a photo forum I suspect the poster is a case (1) person. That's fine. Just get the camera or find the raw processor you (perhaps accidently) like.
If you like a camera a lot but not the colors you get you'll have to learn about how to process the images properly.
Mar 02, 2025 at 05:57 AM
p.1 #11A7R5 / A7IV difference -- color science differences?
Lukacs wrote:
Sorry I don't understand the question. You have A7RV, the very best Sony camera body for general photography, portraits, landscape. You have excellent jpeg output, medium sized raw, full sized raw when need resolution, best EVF, best LCD scrren with foldable-tilting screen, latest AI eye tracking AF. You want saving money downgrading to A7IV? Because it has not other advantage, not a single one.
Point taken, and you are almost completely right in your comparison. But I’ve actually held off upgrading my A7iv to the A7rv because of the ponderous readout speed of the latter’s sensor. I would love the IQ, AF, and screen of the rv, but I shoot with silent shutter a lot in certain situations and do have to deal with the resulting distortion. I don’t want to make the situation any worse by going to a slower sensor. It’s a niche use in the broader scheme of things, but for me it’s significant. For OPs case, you’re probably right though.
Mar 03, 2025 at 08:03 PM
p.1 #12A7R5 / A7IV difference -- color science differences?
Jonas B wrote:
Color science... just an Internet expression I think. Is it really an idea or a concept in English? To me it is just a word or two for people wanting to express a layman's opinion.
Not quite. Color science historically has been used in computer engineering, i.e. a set of techniques to capture and digitally manipulate various light frequencies. Here's a good introduction:
https://agraphicsguynotes.com/posts/basic_color_science_for_graphcis_engineer/
But it's mostly linear algebra and some basic physics. What DOES NOT make any freaking sense is when people say "Canon color science" or "Sony color science". Those are just myths. The color response differences between cameras are about the differences in color filters and camera profiles. And Adobe bugs, of course.
Color science... just an Internet expression I think. Is it really an idea or a concept in English? To me it is just a word or two for people wanting to express a layman's opinion.
Not quite. Color science historically has been used in computer engineering, i.e. a set of techniques to capture and digitally manipulate various light frequencies. Here's a good introduction:
https://agraphicsguynotes.com/posts/basic_color_science_for_graphcis_engineer/
But it's mostly linear algebra and some basic physics. What DOES NOT make any freaking sense is when people say "Canon color science" or "Sony color science". Those are just myths. The color response differences between cameras are about the differences in color filters and camera profiles. And Adobe bugs, of course.
Mar 03, 2025 at 10:49 PM
p.1 #13A7R5 / A7IV difference -- color science differences?
Most probably what lukeiam means with "color science" is just the auto white balance.
Yes, the auto white balance on the A7RV is better and more reliable than in earlier camera models. I also was really impressed when I got the camera and now work with AWB by default, it's usually a very good starting point for editing.
But doesn't have to do anything with "color science", of course.
Yes, the auto white balance on the A7RV is better and more reliable than in earlier camera models. I also was really impressed when I got the camera and now work with AWB by default, it's usually a very good starting point for editing.
But doesn't have to do anything with "color science", of course.
Mar 03, 2025 at 11:11 PM
p.1 #14A7R5 / A7IV difference -- color science differences?
old-gregg wrote:
Not quite. Color science historically has been used in computer engineering, i.e. a set of techniques to capture and digitally manipulate various light frequencies. Here's a good introduction:
https://agraphicsguynotes.com/posts/basic_color_science_for_graphcis_engineer/
But it's mostly linear algebra and some basic physics. What DOES NOT make any freaking sense is when people say "Canon color science" or "Sony color science". Those are just myths. The color response differences between cameras are about the differences in color filters and camera profiles. And Adobe bugs, of course.
Adobe has bugs? Surely you jest
Jonas B wrote
Color science... just an Internet expression I think. Is it really an idea or a concept in English? To me it is just a word or two for people wanting to express a layman's opinion.https://agraphicsguynotes.com/posts/basic_color_science_for_graphcis_engineer/
But it's mostly linear algebra and some basic physics. What DOES NOT make any freaking sense is when people say "Canon color science" or "Sony color science". Those are just myths. The color response differences between cameras are about the differences in color filters and camera profiles. And Adobe bugs, of course.
Adobe has bugs? Surely you jest
Mar 03, 2025 at 11:17 PM
p.1 #15A7R5 / A7IV difference -- color science differences?
"Color science" means a lot of things.
At first, you have a sensor which is only sensitive to light. On top of that, you have a CFA array. In the early ages of photography, these filters could be very, very different. It's not the case anymore.
To translate the information coming to the sensor into an usable image, you need a color profile, which includes a tone curve to turn the flat, linear response of the sensor to something closer to the human vision. With this curve, and because contrast and colors are linked in our vision, you need a Tone Reproduction Operator, which also affects the colors.
Anders Torger is the man behind DCamProf and the GUI version of this software, the commercialy available Lumariver. He knows a few things about color science. According to his documentation, "90% of the color sits in the camera profile, and 10% in the hardware" :
https://www.lumariver.com/lrpd-manual/
If you rely on some automation from your camera, the auto white balance and the auto exposure also have a big impact on how we like the final result.
So color science is a huge topic, and we should know what we're alking about :
- jpeg rendering from the manufacturer (yes, there is a profile and a curve behind that), in full manual including WB ? with some automatic exposure and WB ?
- the "neutral" rendering from LR ?
- the different renderings from LR supposed to mimic the manufacturer profile ?
- the default ICC profile from C1 ?
- from DXO, On1, darktable ?
If you can try a few different softwares from the list above, you can clearly see the huge differences in the color rendering and contrast for the same, "unaltered" picture when you just open the software. It will be far more important than the few percentages of difference coming from the CFA of the camera itself compared to another.
You can create or buy a reasonably neutral profile and apply it to a shot with an improper white balance and exposure, post the picture, and you can be sure that someone will pop on the thread to make a claim about the "bad color science" of whatever camera you used.
At first, you have a sensor which is only sensitive to light. On top of that, you have a CFA array. In the early ages of photography, these filters could be very, very different. It's not the case anymore.
To translate the information coming to the sensor into an usable image, you need a color profile, which includes a tone curve to turn the flat, linear response of the sensor to something closer to the human vision. With this curve, and because contrast and colors are linked in our vision, you need a Tone Reproduction Operator, which also affects the colors.
Anders Torger is the man behind DCamProf and the GUI version of this software, the commercialy available Lumariver. He knows a few things about color science. According to his documentation, "90% of the color sits in the camera profile, and 10% in the hardware" :
https://www.lumariver.com/lrpd-manual/
If you rely on some automation from your camera, the auto white balance and the auto exposure also have a big impact on how we like the final result.
So color science is a huge topic, and we should know what we're alking about :
- jpeg rendering from the manufacturer (yes, there is a profile and a curve behind that), in full manual including WB ? with some automatic exposure and WB ?
- the "neutral" rendering from LR ?
- the different renderings from LR supposed to mimic the manufacturer profile ?
- the default ICC profile from C1 ?
- from DXO, On1, darktable ?
If you can try a few different softwares from the list above, you can clearly see the huge differences in the color rendering and contrast for the same, "unaltered" picture when you just open the software. It will be far more important than the few percentages of difference coming from the CFA of the camera itself compared to another.
You can create or buy a reasonably neutral profile and apply it to a shot with an improper white balance and exposure, post the picture, and you can be sure that someone will pop on the thread to make a claim about the "bad color science" of whatever camera you used.
Mar 04, 2025 at 06:42 AM
p.1 #16A7R5 / A7IV difference -- color science differences?
Here is a DP Review studio shot comparison of the Sony A7IV and A7RV.
Using an embedded link doesn't seem to work here, but you can copy and paste this link to your browser and further explore the similarities and differences in color rendition.
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=sony_a7iv&attr13_1=sony_a7rv&attr13_2=apple_iphonex&attr13_3=apple_iphonex&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=32&attr16_3=32&attr126_1=1&attr199_1=1&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.3970355923939541&y=-0.7692393948645333
Using an embedded link doesn't seem to work here, but you can copy and paste this link to your browser and further explore the similarities and differences in color rendition.
https://www.dpreview.com/reviews/image-comparison?attr18=daylight&attr13_0=sony_a7iv&attr13_1=sony_a7rv&attr13_2=apple_iphonex&attr13_3=apple_iphonex&attr15_0=raw&attr15_1=raw&attr15_2=jpeg&attr15_3=jpeg&attr16_0=100&attr16_1=100&attr16_2=32&attr16_3=32&attr126_1=1&attr199_1=1&normalization=full&widget=1&x=-0.3970355923939541&y=-0.7692393948645333
 |
||
| https://www.kennethleegallery.com/images/forum/fredmiranda/SonyColorScience.png | ||
|
Mar 04, 2025 at 07:57 AM
p.1 #17A7R5 / A7IV difference -- color science differences?
Jonas B wrote:
That said, I think the resolution is more than I need and I'd be happy to downsize, but this is a core feature I wouldn't want to give up. These came out around the same time, so I'm thinking they'd be similar. I had the A7C for a time and disliked that, so if they're similar, then that answers it.
I'm also a little partial to the video in the A74. ThanksColor science... just an Internet expression I think. Is it really an idea or a concept in English? To me it is just a word or two for people wanting to express a layman's opinion.
Anyway, we can look at this at least two different ways.
(1) One is what we see coming straight from the camera, perhaps having fiddled a little with the JPG settings. The OP way who talks about color science and RAW images is a twist of the first case. The difference is that here the in camera processing is replaced by the work a raw...Show more →
Yeah, in this context it is color balance or color rendition… or really just “colors.” :-)
(If there is a thing called color science, that is about things like how accurate recording of color can be accomplished with three color channels, mapping colors from one device to another and/or to prints, and so forth.)
I’m not a Sony shooter (yet) but my experience with other brands is that color differences exist but a) are usually pretty subtle, b) are more a matter of preference than right and wrong, and c) can generally be minimized with basic post-processing. And, honestly, most of the time — at least if we’re doing sophisticated work — we don’t actually want to end up with the colors that come straight out of the camera.
YMMV.
lukeiam wrote
I recently got the A7RV and love it. I am blown away by the differences in color science (yes, RAW). I struggled for years with the older gens -- specifically skin highlights, rolloff, in funky lighting -- and yes I know you can get *mostly* anywhere in RAW, but sometimes it's nice to get there quickly 🙂That said, I think the resolution is more than I need and I'd be happy to downsize, but this is a core feature I wouldn't want to give up. These came out around the same time, so I'm thinking they'd be similar. I had the A7C for a time and disliked that, so if they're similar, then that answers it.
I'm also a little partial to the video in the A74. Thanks
Anyway, we can look at this at least two different ways.
(1) One is what we see coming straight from the camera, perhaps having fiddled a little with the JPG settings. The OP way who talks about color science and RAW images is a twist of the first case. The difference is that here the in camera processing is replaced by the work a raw...Show more →
Yeah, in this context it is color balance or color rendition… or really just “colors.” :-)
(If there is a thing called color science, that is about things like how accurate recording of color can be accomplished with three color channels, mapping colors from one device to another and/or to prints, and so forth.)
I’m not a Sony shooter (yet) but my experience with other brands is that color differences exist but a) are usually pretty subtle, b) are more a matter of preference than right and wrong, and c) can generally be minimized with basic post-processing. And, honestly, most of the time — at least if we’re doing sophisticated work — we don’t actually want to end up with the colors that come straight out of the camera.
YMMV.
Mar 04, 2025 at 08:51 AM
p.1 #18A7R5 / A7IV difference -- color science differences?
I have a question, can i make the menu font bigger on A7IV ?
i know there is a magnification, i just hoping there is a font size increase, since the screen is not too big .
i know there is a magnification, i just hoping there is a font size increase, since the screen is not too big .
Mar 09, 2025 at 11:51 AM
p.1 #19A7R5 / A7IV difference -- color science differences?
I came from Leica to A7R4 and was not at first very happy about some of the subtle colour differences, esp. skin tones. I could get there with p.p. but it took time. Eventually I purchased the Cobalt profiles which produce a better result as a base to start from.
Mar 10, 2025 at 04:15 AM
p.1 #20A7R5 / A7IV difference -- color science differences?
Most people shoot RAW and thus color science is irrelevant. Ever see a RAW photo? See any special color sauce in there? Nope.
So many use presets what difference does it make anyway. Yes the resolution is noticeable but, probably not by clients. I’ve had 4 different Sony full frame cameras and haven’t noticed a difference aside from AF.
So many use presets what difference does it make anyway. Yes the resolution is noticeable but, probably not by clients. I’ve had 4 different Sony full frame cameras and haven’t noticed a difference aside from AF.
Mar 12, 2025 at 06:54 AM