Haven’t really seen this discussed much, so was wondering what folks thought about its utility in practice. Now that hoops season is over, redoing my kit and moving away from Canon due to their closed lens ecosystem (and the fact I can adapt E mount lenses to my Nikon Zf in a pinch if there’s a camera failure on job).
Thing is, still very fond of how Canon handles WB/skin tones SOOC compared to what I’ve seen from Sony. That said, heard they’ve improved a lot in the last generation or so, and the A7Vs AI WB seems particularly interesting. Like a lot of folks, I’m stuck between a used A1 and A7V. So, for anyone that has used both/either, is there a huge difference in performance/handling here? Would also be interested to hear how the A1 II stacks up.
Use case is mostly indoor sports JPEG and indoor events RAW. Any insights would be greatly appreciated!
FeralTames wrote:
Would also be interested to hear how the A1 II stacks up.
I can only speak to this part. I have the A1 II and A7R V and they're quite similar, which suggests that the current BIONZ generation works similarly across all cameras.
Anyway, their auto WB is passable. In simpler light, of the typical sunny-cloudy-shade variety, it's actually quite good for me. Gets slightly worse under artificial light [1], but still passable. But when you have a mixed lighting situation, or a bright-colored reflective surface nearby, it will require corrections in a RAW editor nearly every time. Under mixed lighting skintones land somewhere on the spectrum between waxy-yellow and magenta.
Compared to my Nikon Zf and Fuji X100VI, I would put the A1 II in the 3rd place. Since you also own the Zf, my prediction is that you'll be disappointed.
[1] I feel like all camera manufacturers, but especially Sony, are still struggling with the modern interor LEDs.
That’s a bummer… A1 would be a full generation behind the A1 II correct? I.e. totally lacking the AI chip, though not entirely sure how much effect that has on the WB issue. Been beyond pleased with the Zf’s image quality, WB/DR/etc, and have actually used it for sports gigs here and there, but the auto-focus is a bit lackluster compared to the R5s I usually use for those gigs.
Z8 has also been on my radar, but believe the AF is basically the same as the Zf, and the total lack of a mechanical shutter is kind of troubling for someone who often shoots under questionable indoor lighting. Also wanting to move towards lighter lenses, and the 2.8 Nikon zooms are humongous (can obviously adapt E mount glass, but no in camera corrections for SOOC stuff).
The A7V seems to be its own thing in a lot of ways. Only one with the AI WB, new AI incorporated chip, and the sensor itself seems to be a totally new design. Just not a whole lot of information out there about these particular questions quite yet.
old-gregg wrote: FeralTames wroteWould also be interested to hear how the A1 II stacks up.I can only speak to this part. I have the A1 II and A7R V and they're quite similar, which suggests that the current BIONZ generation works similarly across all cameras.
Anyway, their auto WB is passable. In simpler light, of the typical sunny-cloudy-shade variety, it's actually quite good for me. Gets slightly worse under artificial light [1], but still passable. But when you have a mixed lighting situation, or a bright-colored reflective surface nearby, it will require corrections in a RAW editor nearly every time. Under mixed lighting skintones land somewhere on the spectrum between waxy-yellow and magenta.
Compared to my Nikon Zf and Fuji X100VI, I would put the A1 II in the 3rd place. Since you also own the Zf, my prediction is that you'll be disappointed.
[1] I feel like all camera manufacturers, but especially Sony, are still struggling with the modern interor LEDs....Show more →
id take the information from this guy any day of the week
FeralTames wrote:
Haven’t really seen this discussed much, so was wondering what folks thought about its utility in practice. Now that hoops season is over, redoing my kit and moving away from Canon due to their closed lens ecosystem (and the fact I can adapt E mount lenses to my Nikon Zf in a pinch if there’s a camera failure on job).
Thing is, still very fond of how Canon handles WB/skin tones SOOC compared to what I’ve seen from Sony. That said, heard they’ve improved a lot in the last generation or so, and the A7Vs AI WB seems particularly interesting. Like a lot of folks, I’m stuck between a used A1 and A7V. So, for anyone that has used both/either, is there a huge difference in performance/handling here? Would also be interested to hear how the A1 II stacks up.
Use case is mostly indoor sports JPEG and indoor events RAW. Any insights would be greatly appreciated!...Show more →
I am a dual-system Sony and Canon user. I have the A7V/A6700 and R6MKII/5Ds. I shoot both with the Portrait creative profile and shoot RAW. Comparing the skin tones from the newer cameras (A7V and R6MKII) I don't see any differences. In the past Sony used to have a greenish tint and a tad warmer skin tones SOOC but not anymore with the A7V.
As to the overall colours using AWB, Sony said they improved the system with the deep learning-based light source estimation (see link)
A74me wrote:
id take the information from this guy any day of the week
I like him too. In this video he opens with the elephant in the room: "color accuracy" is not necessarily better. I would even add that you shouldn't want accurate color in your images unless you're doing archival/scanning type of work. Scientifically accurate colors are dull and always lose to perceptually optimized color in blind tests. Adobe used to blog about it, I wonder if it's still googlable.
Another factor, not mentioned in the OP's question, is OOC tonal curves. Perceptually, skin color is highly succeptable to midtone contrast. Sony's JPEG engine is too flat in that section compared to Nikon, for example, which is more S-shaped. This means that while green/magenta and blue/yellow balance may be identical, Nikon's skin rendering will look better.
Was my initial thought as well, far as “accurate” not necessarily being “good.” Have been looking into the Sony Creative Looks and it seems like that could be a solution for JPEGs. Still interested to hear some thoughts/comparisons between the A7V and A1 RAW output.