DWOfPaul wrote:improved on some of the weak spots Sony has traditionally had in their cameras, such as color accuracy and in body stabilization.
Nitpick: nobody wants "color accuracy". Every single digital camera deviates from accurate color in very significant ways on purpose because accurate color is unattractive to viewers. On the very basic level, saturation and contrast are almost always boosted. On top of that, they boost some colors and suppress others to achieve what buyers see as attractive.
This causes major headaches for people who use digital cameras for reproductive, archival or product work where true color accuracy is needed. Out of the box, all cameras fail. To achieve accurate color a custom profile optimized for the light source is made, or purchased from independent profile makers.
Some cameras have a "faithful" or "neutral" color profile which is closer to accurate (look how dull it is, by the way). But even then there are shenanigans.
And by the way, this practice of intentionally distorting colors for viewer's pleasure goes all the way back to the film era. This is why I always chuckle when influencers/marketers use "life-like" and "film colors" in the same sentence. Life-like colors are dull and boring, everyone wants a punchy palette where two complimentary colors are boosted and others are slightly muted. These intentional distortions have always been marketed as "life-like" or "accurate" anyway, because buyers like the sound of it. Essentially everything is tailored to human behavior: marketing says what their ears want to hear, and the engineering delivers what their eyes want to see.
TLDR: all digital cameras (their JPEG engines) are intentionally color-inaccurate.
DWOfPaul wrote:improved on some of the weak spots Sony has traditionally had in their cameras, such as color accuracy and in body stabilization.
Nitpick: nobody wants "color accuracy". Every single digital camera deviates from accurate color in very significant ways on purpose because accurate color is unattractive to viewers. On the very basic level, saturation and contrast are almost always boosted. On top of that, they boost some colors and suppress others to achieve what humans see as attractive.
This causes major headaches for people who use digital cameras for reproductive, archival or product work where true color accuracy is needed. Out of the box, all cameras fail. To achieve accurate color a custom profile optimized for the light source is made, or purchased from independent profile makers.
Some cameras have a "faithful" or "neutral" color profile which is closer to accurate (look how dull it is, by the way). But even then there are shenanigans.
And by the way, this practice of intentionally distorting colors for viewer's pleasure goes all the way back to the film era. This is why I always chuckle when influencers/marketers use "life-like" and "film colors" in the same sentence. Life-like colors are dull and boring, everyone wants a punchy palette where two complimentary colors are boosted and others are slightly muted. These intentional distortions have always been marketed as "life-like" or "accurate" anyway, because buyers like the sound of it. Essentially everything is tailored to human behavior: marketing says what their ears want to hear, and the engineering delivers what their eyes want to see.
TLDR: all digital cameras (their JPEG engines) are intentionally color-inaccurate.
Dec 15, 2025 at 01:06 PM
Previous versions of old-gregg's message #16949057 « Any Nikon and Sony shooter? »
