Brother, I don't think you can make a video saying "this thing isn't a problem, because you can change it" without giving some tips on how to solve the problem. The kind of people who don't know how to color correct aren't going to be helped much by hearing "you can tweak a couple of sliders in Lightroom." I think at minimum, they'd want to see a couple of step-by-step examples of the thing you're hinting at.
It is important. Here’s why I think it is : post prod will never reproduce the same natural result as a great colour science does. It can be similar, but there is always something unnatural to it.
Color science surely IS important if you want accurate, pleasing color! Some of us prefer to actually be taking pictures, rather than slaving away with Photoshop trying to make images look at least presentable. Moreover, Fuji creates quite great JPG quality, which is not so true of other manufacturers.
Never underestimate the ability of "Straight out of Camera". Getting it right out of camera saves time especially if you're shooting video. Time is money.
You’re absolutely right! I forgot to mention that you can use custom color profiles to match the “canon look” so you don’t even have to edit. Cause we should always try to get it right out of camera
Came here with same answer but as mostly as photographer. Time editing and selling thousands of photos with different ambient light context, straight out of camera RAW of Nikon Z9 makes me earn time between Sony and Canon mirrorless files. I use the 3 systems, but Z as the one that I own up to date. Also "Standard" profile on video instead of N-Log with Z9/Z8 gives out same result as photos. The only time I can´t manipulate colors is when vintage analog lenses are mounted.
it matters so much...if u have so many projects and need a quick delivery, it will give trust and satisfaction to the clients...so yeah quicker workflow, better satisfaction unless you dont have much projects and jobs then please by all means take your time to edit thousands of photos from an event hahaha
Sony always feel a little more clinical, accurate, and sterile, whereas Canon feels more warm, stylised, and friendly to me. Both are good options. If I wanted reality I'd choose Sony if I wanted a nice look baked-in I'd choose Canon. In your example the Sony just wanted to be too magenta. The Leica M11 is doing this to currently, I think it's maybe and over correction from all the warm green images we're used to seeing. ✌️
100% In fact I think sony has great image quality especially in video over canon! And honestly it really does boil down to preferences and even our personal perception differences when it comes to color. Thanks for sharing
ehhh, this was the argument since the a7s2 days for video. "You can color correct and make it look like anything". This was definitely not the case then. However though we have 10 bit, RAW video, more log formats, and finally improved color science on sony with cams like the a7s3/fx3, it's still quite not the same and requires still a decent amount of grading. Photos especially in RAW tends to be different since there is a massive amount of data to push around with still images.
Yeah back in the 8bit days it definitely was harder. I do think Canon’s color science is much more pleasing straight out of camera. So it will be my preferred still, but my sony friends get some amazing images and colors, especially now with 10 bit and so on. Thanks for sharing, cheers!
Excellent video! Thanks for the insight. Ive shot Nikon, Sony and currently Canon over the years professionally and my personal choice is Canon for a lot of reasons. With regard to color science and maybe its just me, but I have 100% confidence in Canon's colors, especially skin tones being the best looking of the bunch. I can honestly say that 99% of the images I shoot with my Canon cameras get the colors exactly how I want them. Nikon is good and again, maybe just me, but Sony skin tones just dont look good to me even after extensive tinkering in LR and PS. Just my opinion and thanks for your channel!! Take care, Rick
Hey Rick, I appreciate the input. Honestly I don’t have as much experience with all the other Camera brands so I always appreciate hearing from those who have. I definitely agree tho. Canon’s colors are just perfect straight out of camera (imo). And I just love their rf lenses, even if it’s expensive. Cheers!
This is not true. With sony if you set white balance to yellows will be a very ugly orange. Not the same than canon. Sony has orange cast. But more important are the lenses. Someone has to compare brands with same lens adapted. Because L canons are not same color than Gm sony’s.
telling people, you can solve a problem easily, means theres a problem and therefore it matters. for photos i mostly do raw but for videos im sticking to straight out of camera and i want good looking video. as others have stated, for video you cant easily match two camera colors as you may think, especially if its a long video with different scenes. if i provide you a 5 minute vlog video, adjusting with luts cant fix the whole video, it would fix one part and can look weird in other sections, now you would have to use keyframes to reduce intensity of the lut throughout the video, and extra color adjustments. extra work.
It’s definitely a bigger beast for video than it is photos. Maybe I did underestimate the effort to fix the colors but it hasn’t been an issue for my sony friends so I thought it was simple.
You hit the nail on the head. If you're shooting RAW or Log, it doesn't matter. If you know how to colour correct and colour grade, it's not an issue. I shoot on an A7IV and once I'm done editing, people think I shoot on a Canon.
When it comes to video I think it's even easier as in DaVinci Resolve there is a Color Space Transform which allows you to automatically achieve the desired colors or match footage from different cameras :)
Why, if you shoot in Raw, it doesn't matter? Yet during the editing raws from Fuji, Sony, Canon will be different? I meant not the jpegs preview, but the entire raw workflow and colours will have a difference
It's hilarious how some people get their feathers ruffled when you dig at Sony for something or Canon for something. LOL. Chill people. Bruno, nice video. Keep it up.
Thank you Ken! Yeah I know it is a hot button issue in the community. I love both cameras for different reasons, it’s not like there is a right or wrong answer with the camera systems (imo)
I know exactly three canon cameras that for me have "Canon Colors" that have outstanding(!) skin tones. Canon Colors: 5D classic, 5D Mark II, 6D Mark I Outstanding Skin tones 5D classic, 6D Mark I and 5D Mark II. Everything that came after that has not reached that level of beauty. Canon didn't produce any outstanding sensors after those.
Your correct I’m 61 years old and back in the 80’s and 90’s Canon software made the difference Today You can 95 % to 99 % of the time just add a in camera simulator or a basic filters to get the Canon look Buy the camera that’s feels good and your hands and enjoy creating something that’s pleasing to you and turn off the hype that you have to get the newest camera and makes it better then yours Enjoy your videos Blessings Greg
Some say grab a Sony for af and built in log but canon SOOC seems more pleasing most of the time. I’m lost. I don’t want to grade but I want a pleasing image. In a package that makes me want to use it while traveling.
I have never had problems with Canon autofocus. As for socc, I do think Canon is your preferred option. You easily won’t need to grade as often (or at all)
@@BrunoPozo4Realyeah if u shoot raw and shoot only less than 20 photos , u have time to tweak the raw files (which canon also can) but if u shoot thousands of pics u dont have to edit all raw files , so in other words if u have beautiful jpegs u dont need to go through troublesome to edit thousands of raws
@@mbismbismb that’s a very fair and reasonable point and honestly that makes total sense. Even when I shoot a thousand photos tho I end up editing the RAWs (after making the selects of course) so It’s honestly always a part of my workflow which is where my bias comes in for sure.
@@BrunoPozo4Real sometimes clients need the files fast... it's better to deliver already great jpegs with little correction rather than edit all from scratch... satisfying for them, less works for us photographers and editors
Oh it matters and it matters a lot as no one wants to edit every day clips just to find out none of them match with consistency. For 2 years I shot raw and edited my own just to find out 98% of the time JPG photos were way better then mines unless you want to do something specific for an artistic look then yeah. On video the colors are just out of their world. 😁
I literally just left canon for Sony and I’m sorry but your opinion is simply just that an opinion. My New Sony has way better colors than the canon I had.
Funny, when Tony tested preference for 'color science' of Sony, Nikon, Fuji and Canon cameras in blind test, shots made on Canon were rated the worst (closely behind Nikon) and Sony was the best by far. By the value of empirical experiment people love Sony colors and dislikes Canon. Canon just seems to have most fanatical fanboys that will call anything 'the best colors' until its labeled as shot by Canon. Its really quite simmilar to Pepsi vs Coca Cola, in every blind test I am aware of most people prefer Pepsi, but when they know brands, they pick Coca Cola :D Also, 'color science' is mostly irrelevant, because chosen lens alter the colors and contrast way more than chosen brand of camera. So until you use same fully manual lens with no electronic contacts (so there cant be any color or deformation profile for in body corrections), those 'tests' and 'comparisons' are irrelevant anyway. Maybe those color casts and lack of contrast are because you are using Canon lens. Canon body might have some internal color correction profiles for their own lenses that wont apply when adapted on Sony. I never had any unwanted color cast on skin tones on A7II when i didnt want them. And if I want color cast, I pick a lens that gives me warmer/colder/desaturated/... look. But that look is consistent, whether I use that lens on Sony, Nikon, fullframe, APS-C. Because its the lens doing it, not camera.
It really can be brand affiliation over anything. I remember that Northrup video, it really was surprising to see those subtle differences and how often Sony was chosen for most pleasing colors. Interesting I wasnt aware of the lens playing a role but that makes a lot of sense.
Its extremely easy to notice on vintage lenses, even between 2 units of a same lense from same manufacturer could render different tonality or saturation. In modern lenses you could look at some direct comparisons between corresponding Sigma Art and Sony GM, you could often tell which is which just by colors (often only by colors as sharpness and contrast is virtually same and there are no flares produced in the images) - GMaster being neutral, naturalistic and Sigma rendering a bit warmer colors
Not sure I understand but my friend shoots Nikon and their photos are good to my eyes. Not too familiar with the raws besides a few youtube comparison videos
This only matters to photographers, never had a client in 10 years ever ask me about color science.. this topic only makes for great click bait for photgraphers 😂😂
Apparently man. I only see subtle differences between camera brands and if you do any editing of your photos or videos then it shouldnt be an issue (imo) Thanks for sharing
Hi btw noticed your lens setup u went with RF28-70 F2 instead of the RF24-70 F2.8 is there any reason? Still on the Adapted EF lineup as RF is still way too expensive!
That lower F2 gives me an extra stop of light (double the amount of light) which does 2 things: 1. I can get cleaner shots in low light situations because I can let more light onto the sensor at f2 than f2.8 2. The out of focus background effect (bokeh) is stronger at the lower f2. Which helps my shots stand out from all the 2.8 zoom lenses. There are a few other reasons which I detail in my review of that lens but those were the main 2 for me.
@@BrunoPozo4Realoh errm comparing 24mm and 28mm. As usually when using gimbal would use a wider focal length to capture group clips such as waving shots
28mm isn't that much different than 24mm, it's pretty subtle. But I do miss having 24mm for some interior shots. But that wasn't a deal breaker for me personally. @@AKSKMY
This “Fixit in post” trend segregates masters from amateurs. All I’ll say is that sensor coating is physical and leaving all to post is a big mistake. In the other hand if your work doesn’t require quality, this advice is excellent for you.
Well I’m not recommending not trying to get everything done right in camera first. But if these color shifts exist I am sure you can fix it in camera on Sony or whatever brand, or am I mistaken?
@@BrunoPozo4Real It’s not a matter of “if”, they do exist. Sony knows. Sure you can fix it in post (as almost everything) but image will degrade. If there were other problems while recording everything will became worse. Great DPs get the shot perfect (or not, depending on the narrative but always in control) from origin and that should be the goal all of this kind of videos that want to help people. A community that seeks perfection and gives the best advice. Maybe this was intended to be a video of how to correct, but the tittle of the video doesn’t help, because color science matters. A lot. Who thinks otherwise is not really that deep into the craft… Being fast and shallow is OK too, in the end it’s where all the bucks are.
Sony Venice's color science is much better than anything Canon has. Fortunately, Sony has been giving other cameras Venice-like color science, from The Burano down to the FX series. S-Cinetone looks great. Otherwise just shoot in S-Log3 and you'll get great results in Resolve.
@@BrunoPozo4Real - Sony cameras are expensive tinker toys. Sony does not even manufacture their own lenses, and the companies they choose are very expensive. Moreover, one model flash unit, as an example, will not be compatible with future Sony cameras, and Sony has quite a small market share for this reason, among many other reasons. Of course, you'll see sponsored videos which disagree with this, and they disagree very specifically because they are financially sponsored, like paid commercials for Sony - Color science also matters, which most manufacturers more or less ignore, except for Canon, Nikon, and most of all Fuji. Fuji now outsells all others in the formats which they manufacture, which does not include full frame cameras, but does indeed include large format (and DX) cameras.
@@scotthullinger4684 I have found Sony cameras are cheaper than Canon (in specs, specifically video since thats my focus). But I only have limited experience with Sony, I’ve always been a Canon guy and loved their products.
@@BrunoPozo4Real - Canon is #2 in my book, and Fuji is #1 - If you want full frame, then you MUST choose something besides Fuji, simply because Fuji makes NO Full Frame, just large format and DX format.
