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?
RoamingScott
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.2 #1A7R5 / A7IV difference -- color science differences?
KarmaKramer wrote:
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.
I've seen plenty of A7R4 RAWs that had so much magenta in the skin tones that fixing them was like wrestling an alligator. If you aren't savvy enough to see color differences in RAW files between models and brands, you're not the level of photographer that it would bother.
p.2 #2A7R5 / A7IV difference -- color science differences?
RoamingScott wrote:
I've seen plenty of A7R4 RAWs that had so much magenta in the skin tones that fixing them was like wrestling an alligator. If you aren't savvy enough to see color differences in RAW files between models and brands, you're not the level of photographer that it would bother.
p.2 #3A7R5 / A7IV difference -- color science differences?
RoamingScott wrote:
I've seen plenty of A7R4 RAWs that had so much magenta in the skin tones that fixing them was like wrestling an alligator. If you aren't savvy enough to see color differences in RAW files between models and brands, you're not the level of photographer that it would bother.
You do understand that such a thing would be due to a poorly matching color profile being used, the WB being effed up or the ambient actually being magenta? And not due to the camera, whichever current brand or model that happens to be?
Mar 12, 2025 at 09:04 AM
RoamingScott
Offline
Activity
[X]
Details
p.2 #4A7R5 / A7IV difference -- color science differences?
You are absolutely correct that it’s a white balance issue, but take that up with Sony and their piss poor auto white balance implementation prior to the latest generation.
Where you are wrong is your implication that different brand RAW files won't render differently in the same 3rd party post processing tool for various reasons.
Daran wrote: RoamingScott wroteI've seen plenty of A7R4 RAWs that had so much magenta in the skin tones that fixing them was like wrestling an alligator. If you aren't savvy enough to see color differences in RAW files between models and brands, you're not the level of photographer that it would bother.You do understand that such a thing would be due to a poorly matching color profile being used, the WB being effed up or the ambient actually being magenta? And not due to the camera, whichever current brand or model that happens to be?
p.2 #5A7R5 / A7IV difference -- color science differences?
RoamingScott wrote: KarmaKramer wroteMost 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.I've seen plenty of A7R4 RAWs that had so much magenta in the skin tones that fixing them was like wrestling an alligator. If you aren't savvy enough to see color differences in RAW files between models and brands, you're not the level of photographer that it would bother.
100% agree with this...I had the same experience with the R4, but I tried the R5 and it was very very different, much more like the Nikons. Why do people argue this "RAW is irrelevant" nonsense? Professional color graders have their preference..Some images take much more (MUCH) work
Btw, Scott, I know you and I have riffed about cameras a lot...I think I read you tried the latest-gen Sonys...So seems like it was your experience too. Ergos, etc, aside, the cameras are great. I experimented with the E-Z adapters, but not my path. So dipping in with Sony for a while for their glass...just more interesting for "people" photos. But am curious of your experiences there..And maybe it's some ASMR, but, damn, I really really prefer the sound of a mechanical shutter! So maybe it'll take me a couple of years to try a Z8/9
p.2 #6A7R5 / A7IV difference -- color science differences?
RoamingScott wrote:
Where you are wrong is your implication that different brand RAW files won't render differently in the same 3rd party post processing tool for various reasons.
Of course they differ. Same as the same RAW differs among different RAW processing tools. Which is because the color profiles provided by them do not fully match the sensor/lens/coating combination you are shooting with.
p.2 #7A7R5 / A7IV difference -- color science differences?
The a7rIV also gets a megenta cast from UV light, which is noticeable in outdoor photos. I ended up adding a Zeiss UV filter to most of my E mount lenses after getting the suggestion from this forum, which fixed the issue. As the color cast was worse in the corners, a simple white balance adjustment was not enough to fix it.
The a7rV phoots do look better from what I have seen online, and the product listing at B&H does call out white balance improvements, but I don't have one to directly compare.
p.2 #8A7R5 / 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 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...Show more →
I think the general consensus is that the A7RV has better colors than the A7IV (in RAW). Why that is the case, who knows, but it seems to be true.
p.2 #9A7R5 / A7IV difference -- color science differences?
KarmaKramer wrote:
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.
Sony RAW images are effected by the gamma in whichever picture profile you're using at the time. The gamma curve is applied during analog to digital conversion inside the camera. This happens before recording the file and alters the raw data.
p.2 #10A7R5 / A7IV difference -- color science differences?
jeffbuzz wrote: KarmaKramer wroteMost 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.Sony RAW images are effected by the gamma in whichever picture profile you're using at the time. The gamma curve is applied during analog to digital conversion inside the camera. This happens before recording the file and alters the raw data.
No idea what effects you could apply using picture profiles, or why you'd wana do that when shooting RAW. I keep them set to "off" and hence have no gamma curve applied. Similarly I disable any lens corrections that affect RAW. Much better to do that in post, where it isn't destructive.
p.2 #11A7R5 / A7IV difference -- color science differences?
Kenneth Lee wrote:
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.
p.2 #12A7R5 / A7IV difference -- color science differences?
+1 about A7iv having poor color rendition. For such a popular camera, I was surprised to see such few people talking this. I felt that the skin tones were dull and too magenta compared to my A1 - sure it was fixable in post but it was extra steps and with high volume work it was a nuisance.
p.2 #13A7R5 / A7IV difference -- color science differences?
NickJL wrote:
+1 about A7iv having poor color rendition. For such a popular camera, I was surprised to see such few people talking this. I felt that the skin tones were dull and too magenta compared to my A1 - sure it was fixable in post but it was extra steps and with high volume work it was a nuisance.
Maybe that is not talked about because other people do not see dull skin tones coming from their cameras. It does not sound like something that would be caused by the camera. Can you provide a direct comparison showing this?
p.2 #14A7R5 / A7IV difference -- color science differences?
Daran wrote: jeffbuzz wroteKarmaKramer wroteMost 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.Sony RAW images are effected by the gamma in whichever picture profile you're using at the time. The gamma curve is applied during analog to digital conversion inside the camera. This happens before recording the file and alters the raw data.No idea what effects you could apply using picture profiles, or why you'd wana do that when shooting RAW. I keep them set to "off" and hence have no gamma curve applied. Similarly I disable any lens corrections that affect RAW. Much better to do that in post, where it isn't destructive.
One obvious example is matching still color to video. Whether or not you want or need to do it is up to you. The point is that not all raw images from a Sony camera are equal. Not everything can be replicated in post. If you're concerned with destructive edits, then there may be times when capturing RAW using a gamma other than the default "still" may get you closer to your desired final image.
You can set the "picture profile" option to "off". But a gamma curve is always being applied prior to the RAW file being saved to the card. The default gamma for stills is "Still". Even when picture profiles are "off", you're using that gamma curve. The a7M4 for example has 14 other gammas to choose from which each yield a different raw image.
p.2 #15A7R5 / A7IV difference -- color science differences?
jeffbuzz wrote: Daran wroteNo idea what effects you could apply using picture profiles, or why you'd wana do that when shooting RAW. I keep them set to "off" and hence have no gamma curve applied. Similarly I disable any lens corrections that affect RAW. Much better to do that in post, where it isn't destructive.One obvious example is matching still color to video. Whether or not you want or need to do it is up to you.
Fair enough. That isn't really about RAW though, but about replicating what video does.
You can set the "picture profile" option to "off". But a gamma curve is always being applied prior to the RAW file being saved to the card. The default gamma for stills is "Still". Even when picture profiles are "off", you're using that gamma curve. The a7M4 for example has 14 other gammas to choose from which each yield a different raw image.
I don't think that is correct. Since gamma is nonlinear it must be applied to color channels while or after WB is corrected, not before. Otherwise e.g. a grey subject would start to have different color tints depending on its brightness. As WB is applied in post by the RAW processor it follows that gamma must be as well.
p.2 #16A7R5 / A7IV difference -- color science differences?
Daran wrote: jeffbuzz wroteDaran wroteNo idea what effects you could apply using picture profiles, or why you'd wana do that when shooting RAW. I keep them set to "off" and hence have no gamma curve applied. Similarly I disable any lens corrections that affect RAW. Much better to do that in post, where it isn't destructive.One obvious example is matching still color to video. Whether or not you want or need to do it is up to you.Fair enough. That isn't really about RAW though, but about replicating what video does.
Earlier quoteYou can set the "picture profile" option to "off". But a gamma curve is always being applied prior to the RAW file being saved to the card. The default gamma for stills is "Still". Even when picture profiles are "off", you're using that gamma curve. The a7M4 for example has 14 other gammas to choose from which each yield a different raw image.I don't think that is correct. Since gamma is nonlinear it must be applied to color channels while or after WB is corrected, not before. Otherwise e.g. a grey subject would start to have different color tints depending on its brightness. As WB is applied in post by the RAW processor it follows that gamma must be as well.
The example of matching video is directly related to raw and color precisely because video by default uses a different gamma. If you shoot stills and video in the same gamma, you can apply the same color grading to both.
Sony cameras apply gamma curves before the ADC. Not all cameras work this way, but Sony cameras do. You can easily see this effect yourself by shooting the same scene with varying gammas. The raw output histograms in Lightroom (of any other raw processor) are different.
p.2 #17A7R5 / A7IV difference -- color science differences?
jeffbuzz wrote: Daran wrotejeffbuzz wroteDaran wroteNo idea what effects you could apply using picture profiles, or why you'd wana do that when shooting RAW. I keep them set to "off" and hence have no gamma curve applied. Similarly I disable any lens corrections that affect RAW. Much better to do that in post, where it isn't destructive.One obvious example is matching still color to video. Whether or not you want or need to do it is up to you.Fair enough. That isn't really about RAW though, but about replicating what video does.
Earlier quoteYou can set the "picture profile" option to "off". But a gamma curve is always being applied prior to the RAW file being saved to the card. The default gamma for stills is "Still". Even when picture profiles are "off", you're using that gamma curve. The a7M4 for example has 14 other gammas to choose from which each yield a different raw image.I don't think that is correct. Since gamma is nonlinear it must be applied to color channels while or after WB is corrected, not before. Otherwise e.g. a grey subject would start to have different color tints depending on its brightness. As WB is applied in post by the RAW processor it follows that gamma must be as well.The example of matching video is directly related to raw and color precisely because video by default uses a different gamma. If you shoot stills and video in the same gamma, you can apply the same color grading to both.
Sure. But at some point when chasing in camera processing to match video, it stops being a RAW workflow. Which is what I thought the discussion here was about.
Sony cameras apply gamma curves before the ADC. Not all cameras work this way, but Sony cameras do. You can easily see this effect yourself by shooting the same scene with varying gammas. The raw output histograms in Lightroom (of any other raw processor) are different.
This makes no sense to me. Do you happen to have a reference? BTW: output histograms in Lightroom are meaningless for this question as LR will apply a gamma either way.
p.2 #18A7R5 / A7IV difference -- color science differences?
jeffbuzz wrote:
[...]
Sony cameras apply gamma curves before the ADC. Not all cameras work this way, but Sony cameras do. You can easily see this effect yourself by shooting the same scene with varying gammas. The raw output histograms in Lightroom (of any other raw processor) are different.
Like Daran I doubted this. Today I got a chance to try this IRL.
I placed a Calibrite Digital SG card on a white table pretty close to a window (to lazy to fix with light for this). Then I took an image for every possible Gamma setting available using an A1 fw 3.0. Like 16 images i think. To avoid any possible mistake i put a note below the SG card with the current Gamma setting written on it.
A quick move to ACR.
I applied my usual custom profile to all images and everything else to off. I applied the same White balance using the value from the Gamma setting Still to all the images.
After that I measured the patches usually found in the bottom row of the standard 24-patch CC card.
After having equalized all images they all looked the same and the grey-scale row of patches all measured the same. My conclusion is that the "gamma" in the raw files aren't affected by the picture profile setting. I don't thnk I'm missing anything but if I am please enlighten me.
@jeffbuzz: Daran already asked for info supporting the idea that gamma is set before the sensor data stream hits the ADC. Do you have anything? Maybe only some models are affected? (But, it doesn't make sense that either.)
p.2 #19A7R5 / A7IV difference -- color science differences?
This thread has me confused. Multiple people have posted that the A7RV sensor has too much resolution and they would prefer less resolution. Do you mean that you believe that lower resolution cameras are more responsive and have better low light capability? If so, the use of the word ‘resolution’ is misleading. Do you mean that you have an old computer and limited drive space? If so, then I would suggest that spending money on an expensive camera might be putting the proverbial horse before the cart. If you are really talking resolution, then I think that you are not thinking things through. I rarely need the resolution of my high resolution cameras, but when I do require the full resolution, lower resolution files will never do. My move to 60-100Mpix cameras has changed how I process images. I always try to compose in the viewfinder, but here is an image where I didn’t have time to compose, move, or in anyway do anything but press the shutter. The look was standard older daughter, how dare you photograph me…. It was taken in the relative low light of the hotel room. The image is now a 24”x48” (after pretty severe cropping) hung on my wall and my oldest daughter loves it. That was only one image where I need that kind of crop and asked for that size of print, but I now do more cropping in post than ever before.
p.2 #20A7R5 / A7IV difference -- color science differences?
bwcolor wrote:
This thread has me confused. Multiple people have posted that the A7RV sensor has too much resolution and they would prefer less resolution. Do you mean that you believe that lower resolution cameras are more responsive and have better low light capability? If so, the use of the word ‘resolution’ is misleading. Do you mean that you have an old computer and limited drive space? If so, then I would suggest that spending money on an expensive camera might be putting the proverbial horse before the cart. If you are really talking resolution, then I think that you are not thinking things through. I rarely need the resolution of my high resolution cameras, but when I do require the full resolution, lower resolution files will never do. My move to 60-100Mpix cameras has changed how I process images. I always try to compose in the viewfinder, but here is an image where I didn’t have time to compose, move, or in anyway do anything but press the shutter. The look was standard older daughter, how dare you photograph me…. It was taken in the relative low light of the hotel room. The image is now a 24”x48” (after pretty severe cropping) hung on my wall and my oldest daughter loves it. That was only one image where I need that kind of crop and asked for that size of print, but I now do more cropping in post than ever before. ...Show more →
As somebody who has owned an A7RIV and has stated it has too much resolution for my uses, it's a few things.
1. I find the ~40-50MP bodies to be the sweet spot for resolution, DR and noise performance.
2. I find the file sizes for those bodies to again be a sweet spot for buffer and write performance in-camera with current cards
3. I do prefer the 61MP bodies for flexibility in crop, but find the 40-50MP bodies to be acceptably close
I currently shoot a 33MP body (A7iv) and a 45MP body (Z7). I don't think I'd go back to 20-24MP bodies at this point, but for all-round performance I think that the 33-36MP range is my current minimum and ~45MP is the sweet spot for all-round performance, balancing file quality and body performance.
I'd really like to see Sony introduce a new camera in that sweet spot below the A1 pricepoint.