June 25, 2018, 04:04:46 PM

Author Topic: Canon 5d mkIV vs Sony A7R III vs Nikon D850  (Read 8595 times)

Aglet

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1624
Re: 5d mkIV vs Sony AR7III vs Nikon D850
« Reply #15 on: February 10, 2018, 03:48:26 AM »
...
Also, at 6:46 check the pictures side by side.  The Nikon looked like poo to me.  The colors just looked flat...



and my tastes are quite the opposite.
to me the Nikon looks more realistic, not overly saturated, no magenta skin tones like the Canon and a much more satisfying tonal contrast curve compared to the Canon and Sony.
Nikon, Sony, Canon way last IMO for OOC with whatever settings they used.
All tweakable so pointless.
But that seems to be the type of over-contrasty images typical Canon users fancy.
« Last Edit: February 10, 2018, 03:52:38 AM by Aglet »

canon rumors FORUM

Re: 5d mkIV vs Sony AR7III vs Nikon D850
« Reply #15 on: February 10, 2018, 03:48:26 AM »

Talys

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1666
  • Canon 6DII
Re: 5d mkIV vs Sony AR7III vs Nikon D850
« Reply #16 on: February 10, 2018, 01:58:44 PM »
and my tastes are quite the opposite.
to me the Nikon looks more realistic, not overly saturated, no magenta skin tones like the Canon and a much more satisfying tonal contrast curve compared to the Canon and Sony.
Nikon, Sony, Canon way last IMO for OOC with whatever settings they used.
All tweakable so pointless.
But that seems to be the type of over-contrasty images typical Canon users fancy.

Fair preference; the reviewer loved the Sony, because it pulled green on skintones, which is not what I like.  I am one of those that prefers a magenta pull on skintones.  It would have been better if they had the 3 cameras set up right beside each other and taken pictures at the same time, because it really doesn't look like the light is falling on her the same way in each (for example, the shadows causing raccoon eyes in the Sony is not because of the camera).

To me, the Nikon looks desaturated, and I would definitely increase the color saturation in post.  And yes, I'm oneof those that likes contrast, as long as it looks realistic.

However, the color science is more than that, and the main reason I went from Nikon to Canon was that the OOC colors on Canon were more pleasing to me.  In my opinion, it can be very hard to consistently do those corrections in post, because it isn't just white balance and tint; also, the less work you have to do in post the better, in my opinion.


Aglet

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1624
Re: 5d mkIV vs Sony AR7III vs Nikon D850
« Reply #17 on: April 21, 2018, 01:59:51 AM »
and my tastes are quite the opposite.
to me the Nikon looks more realistic, not overly saturated, no magenta skin tones like the Canon and a much more satisfying tonal contrast curve compared to the Canon and Sony.
Nikon, Sony, Canon way last IMO for OOC with whatever settings they used.
All tweakable so pointless.
But that seems to be the type of over-contrasty images typical Canon users fancy.

Fair preference; the reviewer loved the Sony, because it pulled green on skintones, which is not what I like.  I am one of those that prefers a magenta pull on skintones.  It would have been better if they had the 3 cameras set up right beside each other and taken pictures at the same time, because it really doesn't look like the light is falling on her the same way in each (for example, the shadows causing raccoon eyes in the Sony is not because of the camera).

To me, the Nikon looks desaturated, and I would definitely increase the color saturation in post.  And yes, I'm oneof those that likes contrast, as long as it looks realistic.

However, the color science is more than that, and the main reason I went from Nikon to Canon was that the OOC colors on Canon were more pleasing to me.  In my opinion, it can be very hard to consistently do those corrections in post, because it isn't just white balance and tint; also, the less work you have to do in post the better, in my opinion.

i mostly agree.  Canon, in general, had overall pleasing colors and good white balance, especially once they went to the more advanced color-sensitive metering sensors.  Ligher skin tones were often rendered quite nicely.
But I'd caveat that with "good light."  under backlit conditions like the example, and some other situations, I prefer some other mfr's interpretation.
Also, having an exceptionally clean raw file, which was previously not Canon's strong point, allowed more correction in post, if desired.

bhf3737

  • EOS M5
  • ****
  • Posts: 155
  • ---
Re: Canon 5d mkIV vs Sony A7R III vs Nikon D850
« Reply #18 on: April 21, 2018, 08:39:38 AM »
The video features I use all the time on the A7R3 (I upgraded from the R2):

a) Focus Peaking/Zebra
b) HLG/SLOG w/ Built-In Gamma Assist
c) 5 Axis IBIS for all lenses
d) 4K (FF or S35) and 1080 @ 120
e) 2 Channel XLR Adapter XLR-K2M via Hot-Shoe (Audio straight into camera w/o 3.5 cables, etc.)
f) Dual video record on 2 cards simultaneously even @ 4K
g) Tilting screen LCD
h) An actual EVF
i) 2 hours of battery life in video recording mode w/ new battery FZ series
I appreciate the requirement for your video use-case posted here. Actually the features mentioned here as necessary for video are mostly cosmetics from a professional perspective. At the end of the day, what differentiates a video-oriented camera from a toy video camera is the codec itself and nothing else. What makes ARRI different from GH5 or A7RIII is the codec (and the technology around it to capture best quality motion picture). That is what you pay 30-40K for it. If you capture and save garbage at 400mbps 4:2:2 it is still garbage and does not magically turn to gold. Same argument for the audio, too.
I remember once in you own post you also mentioned that Sony's codec is much weaker for grading and that is true.
It is nice to have some toy video features in a still camera and shoot a few clips here and there for fun, but I do not expect to get production worthy quality from it. Many of those youtubers who cry for video features either don't know what the video and the real video making tools are or suffer from the Dunning–Kruger effect!! ::)
Let's be honest with the tools we have for the needs we have and enjoy using them.

AlanF

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3569
Re: Canon 5d mkIV vs Sony A7R III vs Nikon D850
« Reply #19 on: April 21, 2018, 09:04:35 AM »
Returned this morning from New Zealand. Our guide in one of the reserves had a D850 and a Nikkor 400mm/2.8. He had great difficulty focussing on small birds in darkish foliage close by whereas my wife with a 100-400mm II on a 5DSR at f/5.6 and I with a 400mm DO II on a 5DIV at f/4 had no difficulties. This is just a one-off report, but it goes to show that there is more to AF than nominal sensitivity in ev at the centre or the ability to track.
5D IV, 5DS R, 400mm DO II, 1.4xTC III, 2xTC III, EF 1.8 STM,  EF 24-105, 100-400 II, EF-S 15-85, Sigma 150-600mm C, EOS-M5 15-45, f/2 22, 11-22, Samyang 8mm f/2.8 fisheye: sold 7D II, EOS-M, Powershot G3 X,  Sigma 10-20, EF 300/2.8 II, 70-200/4 IS.

tron

  • Canon EF 400mm f/2.8L IS II
  • *********
  • Posts: 3426
Re: Canon 5d mkIV vs Sony A7R III vs Nikon D850
« Reply #20 on: April 21, 2018, 10:28:05 AM »
Interesting! Just 20 days ago I encountered some cases where I could not focus at small birds with my 5DsR and 400 DOII. Also I has encountered a case 13 months ago with 5DsR and 500mm f/4. In the latter case the bird was in the shadows and I was shooting almost against the sun. But not in the first case. Annoyed this year I changed AF servo settings to balance shutter release with af and turned the af ring manually! In fact I used kind of focus stacking since being short sighted I could not be 100% sure about my manual focusing. True these were rare cases but still annoying. 

Talys

  • EOS-1D X Mark II
  • *******
  • Posts: 1666
  • Canon 6DII
Re: Canon 5d mkIV vs Sony A7R III vs Nikon D850
« Reply #21 on: April 21, 2018, 12:57:17 PM »
Returned this morning from New Zealand. Our guide in one of the reserves had a D850 and a Nikkor 400mm/2.8. He had great difficulty focussing on small birds in darkish foliage close by whereas my wife with a 100-400mm II on a 5DSR at f/5.6 and I with a 400mm DO II on a 5DIV at f/4 had no difficulties. This is just a one-off report, but it goes to show that there is more to AF than nominal sensitivity in ev at the centre or the ability to track.

Interesting insights.  Thanks sharing!

canon rumors FORUM

Re: Canon 5d mkIV vs Sony A7R III vs Nikon D850
« Reply #21 on: April 21, 2018, 12:57:17 PM »