I'm getting about 600 a7RV 60MP files converted to DNG per minute, so not much of a challenge for processing, and that was without multi-threading enabled.
However, the DNGs a7RVI or V are not processing well in DXO with NR. They are crude and lacking in detail. Maybe it's my DXO being version 8, though it is up to date.
EB-1 wrote:
I'm getting about 600 a7RV 60MP files converted to DNG per minute, so not much of a challenge for processing, and that was without multi-threading enabled.
However, the DNGs a7RVI or V are not processing well in DXO with NR. They are crude and lacking in detail. Maybe it's my DXO being version 8, though it is up to date.
EBH
I use LRC and have always converted to DNG for consistency when I was also capturing Leica Raw files. I have continued ever since, simply to have my library all in the one raw format. Been wondering whether to keep up the habit with my new A7R6. So far there is no obvious problem. Raws taken in compressed HQ seem to convert and process quite well, but I would be interested if people have contrary experiences.
Lightroom seems to be working fine with the first few test shots I've taken with mine.
The only somewhat annoying thing is the lack of camera matching profiles. The A7V has been out for 9(?) months and still no Sony profiles for that one.
n8rv wrote:
Lightroom seems to be working fine with the first few test shots I've taken with mine.
The only somewhat annoying thing is the lack of camera matching profiles. The A7V has been out for 9(?) months and still no Sony profiles for that one.
That's no loss - the only Sony camera profile I ever liked was the Camera Landscape profile, which went away with the A7R IV. The current Sony profiles are terrible, so now I pretty much stick to using the Adobe Landscape profile as the starting point for everything.
n8rv wrote:
Lightroom seems to be working fine with the first few test shots I've taken with mine.
The only somewhat annoying thing is the lack of camera matching profiles. The A7V has been out for 9(?) months and still no Sony profiles for that one.
I went straight to the Cobalt profiles for the A7R6. Looks very consistent with the Cobalt profiles for the A7CR and the A7R4 which I used previously. And not expensive if you can live without Spectre. I looked long and hard at Spectre but decided I could live without it although it is no doubt very good judging from their examples. I think I generally get a better starting point from Cobalt, esp. for skin tones on Sony, which I was never happy with when I first made the switch 5 years ago.
Cliff L. wrote:
That's no loss - the only Sony camera profile I ever liked was the Camera Landscape profile, which went away with the A7R IV. The current Sony profiles are terrible, so now I pretty much stick to using the Adobe Landscape profile as the starting point for everything.
Eh, maybe just habit but I liked some of the Sony profiles as starting points with my A7RV. As I said though, I've only found it somewhat annoying. It's not really a dealbreaker to me.
-----------------
rob_ww wrote:
I went straight to the Cobalt profiles for the A7R6. Looks very consistent with the Cobalt profiles for the A7CR and the A7R4 which I used previously. And not expensive if you can live without Spectre. I looked long and hard at Spectre but decided I could live without it although it is no doubt very good judging from their examples. I think I generally get a better starting point from Cobalt, esp. for skin tones on Sony, which I was never happy with when I first made the switch 5 years ago.
Cliff L. wrote:
That's no loss - the only Sony camera profile I ever liked was the Camera Landscape profile, which went away with the A7R IV. The current Sony profiles are terrible
Cliff and @n8rv when you say Sony profile what do you mean? There are Sony profiles built into their own RAW converter (Sony Edit), and then there're Adobe-made "camera-matching profiles" that ship with Lighroom/ACR. They are not the same.
They're supposed to deliver the same result, but the Adobe versions deviate from Sony's and the delta varies between profiles and also between bodies, which is super annoying. For example, Adobe's camera-matching profiles for A7RV are meh, the "portrait" one is borderline ridiculous, but for A1 II they're better and fairly close to Sony's.
Colors are very subjective but I actually like the Adobe Sony camera profiles in Lightroom for the A1 II. If you don't need the various camera or film profiles Cobalt offers I very much like the profiles from Color Fidelity, I'm using these for my A1 II. It looks like they have ones now for the A7R VI.
old-gregg wrote:
Cliff and @n8rv@ when you say Sony profile what do you mean? There are Sony profiles built into their own RAW converter (Sony Edit), and then there're Adobe-made "camera-matching profiles" that ship with Lighroom/ACR. They are not the same.
LightRoom.
I've purchased some Cobalt profiles (for other cameras) and found them to be just a waste of money as they were so close to the standard Adobe profiles it was difficult to see any differences.
rob_ww wrote:
I use LRC and have always converted to DNG for consistency when I was also capturing Leica Raw files. I have continued ever since, simply to have my library all in the one raw format. Been wondering whether to keep up the habit with my new A7R6. So far there is no obvious problem. Raws taken in compressed HQ seem to convert and process quite well, but I would be interested if people have contrary experiences.
Are you using the lossy compressed a7rVI ARWs in DXO 8? The results are quite obviously bad in any AI NR mode. DXO 7/8/9 were all updated to include the a7RVI so I don't understand why they don't like the DNGs created with the latest Adobe converter.
I've purchased some Cobalt profiles (for other cameras) and found them to be just a waste of money as they were so close to the standard Adobe profiles it was difficult to see any differences.
Yeah, as I said, Adobe's "camera matching" profiles are a hit and miss, although I found their Nikon camera matching profiles to be better, at least for the Zf.
Speaking of Cobalt, my undersatnding is that their foundational profiles shouldn't be used alone. Their purpose isn't nicer colors, but to simply eliminate difference across cameras to prepare the environment for the 2nd layer profiles, like their film simulations. DCP profiles can be stacked. I think they're damaging their reputation by letting people buy standalone foundational profiles. Without the second layer, there's no value, just like you said.
old-gregg wrote:
Speaking of Cobalt, my undersatnding is that their foundational profiles shouldn't be used alone. Their purpose isn't nicer colors, but to simply eliminate difference across cameras to prepare the environment for the 2nd layer profiles, like their film simulations. DCP profiles can be stacked. I think they're damaging their reputation by letting people buy standalone foundational profiles. Without the second layer, there's no value, just like you said.
The purpose of the foundational Cobalt profiles is to reproduce colors as accurately as possible. If this is what you are after, and you believe they do a good job at that, that is their value. Implied in this is that colors from different cameras come out the same, and you can apply the same color grading to both. This can be useful if you are shooting two systems simultaneously. No need for film simulations at all. With most photos the differences between the Cobalt and Adobe profiles are small, but with very saturated colors they can be quite obvious.
mranger211 wrote:
The purpose of the foundational Cobalt profiles is to reproduce colors as accurately as possible. If this is what you are after, and you believe they do a good job at that, that is their value.
Yeah I get that, but my point is that nobody [1] wants accurate colors because they're awful. Have you heard of the suicide-by-bride method? It involves delivering a wedding album with accurate colors. :-)
I almost sold my A7RVI but decided to keep it. Two quick observations:
1) prices on these have already dipped way more than the usual curve of used prices on gear suggesting that the higher price point isn't holding up for buyers.
2) I kept it for one main reason, it's really the best EVF/camera for manual focusing on mirrorless that I've used. The EVF is bright, crisp, and you can use it to pop into focus really really fast without any manual focus aides. This is kind of a sleeper use for this camera. The camera is small and compact and you can adapt just about any manual lens you'd want to. I've been using it with M and F lenses and it really makes those lenses usable in situations they weren't before because it's so easy to focus on the fly.
I recently returned from a workshop that I was leading in Newfoundland where I wound up using the A7r6 more than my 2, A1ii's. We photographed a lot of puffins in direct flight and banking puffins as well. In addition I photographed lots of Gannets in flight, Guillemots landed and in flight, Common Murres landing plus all of these species perched front and backlit. In all but one of those situations, the auto focus of the A7r6 was equal to or perhaps even better than the A1ii. I only found one time where the auto focus of the A7r6 struggled and that was when photographing Atlantic Puffins in flight backlit at sunset. The A1ii did noticeably better at locking on and staying locked on it that situation. In all other situations the A7r6 did remarkably well. And the files are so pretty. I also did not notice any rolling shutter. It actually has me thinking of selling one of my A1ii's and picking up another A7r6. Anyway I hope that helps anyone who may be on the fence about this camera. Sorry I have not processed any of the photos but after reviewing them I am extremely happy with them. If I take into account my experience with the camera in Nome photographing 2 species of jaeger quickly flying right in front of me at extremely close range, ptarmigans, loons and a few other species I see very little reason to not buy one of these cameras. I will say it again as I did in my last post here. Cameras are tools. Not every camera is the best at everything but this camera is really really good.
old-gregg wrote:
Yeah I get that, but my point is that nobody [1] wants accurate colors because they're awful.
That makes me wonder what you're shooting... but for landscape and natural history images, being able to reproduce the scene as you saw it is a valuable starting point. I guess I'm just old school - I don't care for the enshitification "film recipes" that are the current vogue.
old-gregg wrote:
Yeah I get that, but my point is that nobody [1] wants accurate colors because they're awful. Have you heard of the suicide-by-bride method? It involves delivering a wedding album with accurate colors. :-)
[1] Except product/repro work.
Is this comment mainly concerned with the production of pleasing skin tones? Regarding skin tones, the X2D was the first camera (raw) that I have used that produces pleasing skin tones with reasonable lighting. Sony colors, for years, were awful. The A7Rvi has mostly remedied this. These comments are with regards to using Phocus with the Hasselblad and LRC with Sony. In film, Portra remains a daylight favorite for skin tones.
