bwcolor wrote:
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.
Hasselblad, Sony, Nikon, Canon - it doesn't matter. Cameras have nothing to do with color. In digital photography, color is a 100% software domain. Similarly, color negative film does not automatically define the colors you get. It wasn't 100% true even in a fully analog pipeline, and it's nearly irrelevant now if you are scanning.
Cliff L. wrote:
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.
I am describing the user requirements, not my preferences. You're right, all manufacturers are pedaling various intentional deviations from accuracy (usually in a form of exagerating two complimentary colors + boosting saturation and contrast) but they market it as "accurate colors" or "film-like colors" to people who don't understand color, which is, apparently, everybody. The Nikon's standard profile, for example, looks subjectively extremely pleasing and attractive. But it's in a distant galaxy far away from accurate. Sony, poor naive souls, used to be pretty close to accurate, and earned themselves a reputation for "shitty Sony colors" among the uninformed.
It is understandable though. Very few people are lucky to have an attractive skin. But every bride wants it. Here comes the portrait profile! And don't even get me started on landscape photographers and their retina-burning sunsets and "dramatic" skies. I've seen sunsets. I've seen the sky. On this planet, sorry, they never look like that.
I shot the moon tonight on a A7R5, with the 300 and a 2x TC. Image quality is pretty incredible for 600mm, but I cant help but wonder what kind of improvements I could see from the A7R6... I'm sure they're small, but I bet you could see them... At least in the MP improvement.
Otherwise I'll have to start looking at a TSA-120 telescope or something lol.
aboutthelight wrote:
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. ...Show more →
Thank you for this valuable testimonial. I personally have been trying hard to find examples of situations and images where there is noticeable rolling shutter for wildlife but it seems to be working really well. In essence Sony seems to have brought out something remarkably close to its A1 series only 1.5 years after the release of its current model. Either we are heading for a quicker than usual refresh of A1 or A1 is going to become a niche product like Canon R1.
Did you by any chance photograph any small songbirds in fast flight like a pre-capture takeoff situation? That is about the toughest rolling shutter test I can imagine for wildlife without getting into panning.
I've experienced some funky wings with birds like siskins or warblers bathing or taking off. At 30FPS there are normally plenty of good frames though if birdly I would be more apt to use a faster ES camera or simply use MS.
EB-1 wrote:
I've experienced some funky wings with birds like siskins or warblers bathing or taking off. At 30FPS there are normally plenty of good frames though if birdly I would be more apt to use a faster ES camera or simply use MS.
EBH
Thank you very much for your input! Do you by any chance have any frames with the funky wings you mentioned or do you delete them all? I think it would be of interest to many who are interested in this camera.
I don't post online and they are not particularly interesting. I feel they are similar to the Canon R5 (a 2020 unstacked camera) in subject movement but not having that blocky look. I would not be using this camera for small flying BIFs every day if that were the main purpose.
Unfortunately I am still waiting for the DXO to support the compressible ARW files. Hopefully it will be before my Adobe ends in November.
umut_h_toprak wrote:
Thank you for this valuable testimonial. I personally have been trying hard to find examples of situations and images where there is noticeable rolling shutter for wildlife but it seems to be working really well. In essence Sony seems to have brought out something remarkably close to its A1 series only 1.5 years after the release of its current model. Either we are heading for a quicker than usual refresh of A1 or A1 is going to become a niche product like Canon R1.
Did you by any chance photograph any small songbirds in fast flight like a pre-capture takeoff situation? That is about the toughest rolling shutter test I can imagine for wildlife without getting into panning....Show more →
I haven't shot any song birds with the A7RVI. I personally have seen very visible rolling shutter effect in some of my hummingbird shots but there are plenty of good ones to choose from too. I have seen pretty bad leaning trees/buildings while panning in some of my pictures too. Plenty of images of egg shape baseballs, curvy baseball bats and golf clubs, elongated birds wings (most people probably don't notice slightly longer wings or planes) can be easily found. Let's not kid ourselves, you can't beat physics. This is not to say the A7RVI can't shoot fast stuff, in fact, it's great under most circumstances.
One just needs to be aware of the limitations of the A7RVI's electronic shutters in certain situations, under which mechanical shutter can be your best friend if you are OK with 10 FPS. There is a reason why Sony priced the A7RVI at $4500, not $7500.
Tarekith wrote:
This thread is making it really hard for me to hold out for the A7CRII like I had orginally planned on.
I moved from the A7Rv to the A7CR, sold my large lenses and purchased small lenses from 17mm-90mm. That was a major mistake. Every time that I used the camera I was acutely aware of the 10 year old EVF. I let my wife use the camera for travel photos and then sold it. The A7Rvi’s EVF is even better than the A7Rv’s very good EVF. The camera is also amazingly responsive. My only complaint is that the LCD should be improved. The X2Dii LCD screen has really spoiled me.
Will the A7CRii’s EVF be an improvement over the previous generation? Undoubtedly, it will be an improvement, but it won’t be the EVF that is currently in the A7Rvi.
So, for me, the interest in a small size FF has given way to a more practical camera system. Practically speaking, the A7Rvi is small/light compared to many other FF bodies.
When traveling together, my wife will use this camera with the 24-50mm f/2.8G lens. This small zoom balances better on the A7Rvi than on my old A7Cr. I’ll be selling my small Sony and Sigma lenses. I’ll use it when I travel solo.
bwcolor wrote:
I moved from the A7Rv to the A7CR, sold my large lenses and purchased small lenses from 17mm-90mm. That was a major mistake. Every time that I used the camera I was acutely aware of the 10 year old EVF. I let my wife use the camera for travel photos and then sold it. The A7Rvi’s EVF is even better than the A7Rv’s very good EVF. The camera is also amazingly responsive. My only complaint is that the LCD should be improved. The X2Dii LCD screen has really spoiled me.
Will the A7CRii’s EVF be an improvement over the previous generation? Undoubtedly, it will be an improvement, but it won’t be the EVF that is currently in the A7Rvi.
So, for me, the interest in a small size FF has given way to a more practical camera system. Practically speaking, the A7Rvi is small/light compared to many other FF bodies.
When traveling together, my wife will use this camera with the 24-50mm f/2.8G lens. This small zoom balances better on the A7Rvi than on my old A7Cr. I’ll be selling my small Sony and Sigma lenses. I’ll use it when I travel solo....Show more →
I agree. I bought an A7CII for my daughter and had an A7CR myself for about two months before I sold it. I never gelled with it. I am speaking for myself, if I removed the L bracket from the A7RIV, A7RV, A7RVI, they aren't really that much bigger than the C series, except for the EVF hump. The design compromise of the C series to achieve the relatively smaller footprint is not worth it, TO ME. I know plenty of people are happy to take that tradeoff. It's crazy the used A7RV can now be had for less $$ than the used A7CR. I remember when the A7RV and the A7RC were launched, the RV was $700(?) more expensive than RC.
The a7RVI has a very nice EVF with 9.43 M-dots or 3.14 MP (probably 2048x1536 pixels).
The a7CR has only 2.36 M-dots or 0.79 MP (probably 1024x768 pixels). That's like looking at a 1990s computer display. I have a Canon R7 which is the same and don't like the EVF at that resolution.
I also have an R5 II which has 5.76 M-dots, most likely 1600x1200. That's the lowest I would want to see fine details, but even a 1280x960 (3.69 M-dot like Z9, Z8?) would be an improvement over the old 1024x768.
EB-1 wrote:
The a7RVI has a very nice EVF with 9.43 M-dots or 3.14 MP (probably 2048x1536 pixels).
The a7CR has only 2.36 M-dots or 0.79 MP (probably 1024x768 pixels). That's like looking at a 1990s computer display. I have a Canon R7 which is the same and don't like the EVF at that resolution.
I also have an R5 II which has 5.76 M-dots, most likely 1600x1200. That's the lowest I would want to see fine details, but even a 1280x960 (3.69 M-dot like Z9, Z8?) would be an improvement over the old 1024x768.
EBH
Help my pea brain out with the MP conversion. I have always assumed 9.43 million dots essentially equaled a 9.43 MP “view”
I love my A7c R for travel. The rangefinder-like look makes it sleeker and yes, mine is in silver. A few times, people did ask me whether it was a Leica . Nah, just Leica-wannabe, was my answer. A few times, I got away with facilities allowing me to take pictures, because it looks "amateurish" rather than a real professional camera. Yes, the A7r X is not that much bigger but the hump makes it look like a DSLR. But to each his/her own though.
The viewfinder aspect of that camera doesn't bother me much as I use the rear screen significantly more so for rapid composition as typically, I don't have much time in capturing images. While traveling, in more than just a few occasions, speed is more important than careful composition. At least, that's my take.
Plus, I take a fair amount of people's picture while traveling. Since I am holding the camera away from my body, and I tuck in my left elbow on my tummy, the position of the camera is LOWER than my face, and roughly at my tummy. By so doing, the people's rendition is more natural and pleasing.
AGeoJO wrote:
I love my A7c R for travel. The rangefinder-like look makes it sleeker and yes, mine is in silver. A few times, people did ask me whether it was a Leica . Nah, just Leica-wannabe, was my answer. A few times, I got away with facilities allowing me to take pictures, because it looks "amateurish" rather than a real professional camera. Yes, the A7r X is not that much bigger but the hump makes it look like a DSLR. But to each his/her own though.
The viewfinder aspect of that camera doesn't bother me much as I use the rear screen significantly more so for rapid composition as typically, I don't have much time in capturing images. While traveling, in more than just a few occasions, speed is more important than careful composition. At least, that's my take. ...Show more →
I think this is an excellent point and I have had similar response with my A7Cii. It's why it, the small 20-70/4 zoom and a few small primes are my goto travel camera kit now. Plus that little 33mp sensor is absolutely outstanding at higher ISO's for night/street travel shooting.
Anyway, I will be getting the A7R6 and a few of the bigger zooms soon, before the upcoming fall landscape shooting season. I struggle between it and an A1ii for winter birds. Ideally I'd add both bodies, but decided to wait and see how well the A7R6 can do at it and if I can live with the rolling shutter effects. End of day I don't do any serious work anymore, this is now just an enjoyable hobby, so perfection in everything is less of a concern to me nowadays.
umut_h_toprak wrote:
Thank you for this valuable testimonial. I personally have been trying hard to find examples of situations and images where there is noticeable rolling shutter for wildlife but it seems to be working really well. In essence Sony seems to have brought out something remarkably close to its A1 series only 1.5 years after the release of its current model. Either we are heading for a quicker than usual refresh of A1 or A1 is going to become a niche product like Canon R1.
Did you by any chance photograph any small songbirds in fast flight like a pre-capture takeoff situation? That is about the toughest rolling shutter test I can imagine for wildlife without getting into panning....Show more →
I have not used it for any songbirds in flight yet. I did use it to photograph Yellow Warbler feeding in a spruce tree but as the light was overcast and close to sunset there was no way to get enough shutter speed to capture a sharp flight image so I did not even try. I got the A7r6 and left for Nome and never once shot with it until I was in Alaska. I did not realize how good it would be for action so I used my A1ii most of the time that I was after flight shots of songbirds. But also songbirds were not really the goal of my trip up there except for a few of the mostly Asian nesters like Yellow Wagtail. I will try it one day and try and report back. But this camera is really amazing considering it is not an A1ii. As I mentioned a few times it will not be good in all situations and there will be times when you see rolling shutter. But for general use to lots of action it is a fantastic camera for most situations.
old-gregg wrote:
Hasselblad, Sony, Nikon, Canon - it doesn't matter. Cameras have nothing to do with color. In digital photography, color is a 100% software domain. Similarly, color negative film does not automatically define the colors you get. It wasn't 100% true even in a fully analog pipeline, and it's nearly irrelevant now if you are scanning.
I think that you missed my question. I never stated that Sony, or Hasselblad produced particular colors. I stated that these cameras in conjunction with my workflow produced skin tones poorly, or with better results. This was meant to reference to the appearance of the image directly after conversion from RAW and not after they were fully processed. I should have more clearly stated my meaning.
My question involved your statement, 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.“
Why did you say that, “nobody wants accurate colors because they’re awful”? I was suggesting that perhaps you were saying that they prefer pleasing skin tones vs. accurate skin tones… but I really don’t know what was behind your statement.
Jack Flesher wrote:
Help my pea brain out with the MP conversion. I have always assumed 9.43 million dots essentially equaled a 9.43 MP “view”
Dots in a camera (front or rear) display is MILC-era marketing nonsense that treats every color pixel of a display separately, so you have to divide by three to get what we usually call pixels. So the a7RVI has 9,437,184 dots. 2048x1536x3=9,437,184 is not liekly a coincidence.
bwcolor wrote:
Why did you say that, “nobody wants accurate colors because they’re awful”? I was suggesting that perhaps you were saying that they prefer pleasing skin tones vs. accurate skin tones… but I really don’t know what was behind your statement.
Ahhr, sorry for me misreading your comment! I fully agree with your suggestion.
. Nah, just Leica-wannabe, was my answer. A few times, I got away with facilities allowing me to take pictures, because it looks "amateurish" rather than a real professional camera. Yes, the A7r X is not that much bigger but the hump makes it look like a DSLR. But to each his/her own though.