The color science anyone prefers now days is just a easy post processing fix no matter what camera it comes from. It's just personal preference on what you want... from camera to post processing software. Art is subjective and it's beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Its not easy. Hence why wedding photographers will have 2 sets of photos 1 with editing and grading and 1 documentary style. Thats where color science matters. These examples are controlled so it really doesnt matter but bulk editing sony files is a pain in the ass. But I like your quotes of "wokeness" rofl...
Could you do a video showing different skin tones of people of color? (Black, Asian, Indian tones) I think that would be a cool video to see the range from the two cameras! 💜✨
@@theyseemetrollintheycantwi1514 I would imagine she might have a hard time finding someone not caucasian in Sydney AU, to begin with. That's like going to the GAP looking for the FUBU hats...
fun little fact with the Sony bodies is you can tune white balance in camera to save on workflow time. For example, I have my auto white balance set to be much warmer than Sony would choose and I also increase the pink for stylistic purposes.
Not true. If you color balance your camera then the Raw photos come out pretty even. If you start with a camera profile then yes they are different but you just have a different path to get to your look. In the end Camera color makes no difference unless you are a person that prints JPGs out of camera or rely on camera profiles for your look. Then again, you can use any preset balanced for your camera to achieve the same result.
Very interesting. I've often felt that people just say Sony's colours are off cause they heard someone else say it and they follow the narrative. Either that or they used the v1 or v2 A7 models which weren't as good. I've always felt colour science is really only a problem if one shoots jpeg and doesn't edit their work.
Sony user here. The Sony skin tones were a lot greener before the the third generation came out. That's when Sony changed their 'color science'. Ironically, canons skin tones are a little green compared to the new Sony models. And this color science matters only if you shoot jpegs because when you process your photos, you're not gonna end up with the same colors SOOC. This bad Sony colors thing will still get brought up even in 5 years from now.
yeah man, I've noticed that too. Lenses make the biggest difference in terms of skin tones IMO. My favourite for skin tones is my Helios 44-2. That thing just makes skin look superb.
Jeah indeed. The color differences in lenses is quite noteable. Even on Lenses from the same family/line. We compared the Canon 24-70 2,8L II and the 70-200 2,8L II which should be pretty much the same. but the magenta was noteable different.
Awesome job matching the skin tones. I used to criticize Sony skintones like eveyone else. But these new Gen 3 cams (A7RIII/A7III) and even 4th gen (A6400/A7RIV) are much more pleasing straight out of cam (in Natural light)
A really important video that needed to be made, Julia. Personally, I found the Sony raw image looking more natural than the Canon. I was quite pleasantly surprised actually.
You are forgetting that the Sony skin tones and colors were absolute garbage before their current 3rd gen cameras. Go shoot with an a7 or a7ii and behold the awful skin tones and colors. Unless you like your models to look like they have jaundice
And still Canon & even Panasonic colors look much better than Sony's. I personally was aghast how dismal Sony looked when the 3 were cut in a sequence.
Sony made major adjustments to color science when the A7r3 came out, and further refinements with the A73. They've gotten a LOT better, but the perception about bad color persists because of how bad their early offerings were.
Hi please correct me if I'm wrong. You are not really comparing colors of Canon vs Sony but rather Adobe's interpretation of those RAW images. In LR you can assign color profiles of Sony or Canon to the RAW files to simulate the real brands colors or maybe even better you should compare jpges out of two brands or use native Sony and Canon RAW converters to really compare the colors. Other than that nice video that shows that with any camera we can achieve same results.
Thanks! I have the raw + jpg sooc, which look the same as the images I included in this video. I also made sure to look at them both on a bunch of different programs so that any software or profiles don't ruin the integrity of my personal observations!
Thank you! I'm so sick and tired of people talking about the "Canon skin tones". I used to be a Canon shooter and switched to Sony about a year ago. I shoot weddings and landscapes and I love the way that the Sony looks and edits in both genres, if that makes sense. I enjoy even more how easy it is to quickly get a good color grade in video from the A7 III, I use Cine4.
I'm a canon user but I think Sony wins this round, but a lil lightroom editing fixes that up right away. My fuji blows them both out of the water though =p
He is correct Fuji is so underrated. The colors from Fuji Straight out of Camera are better than Sony for sure. I have had Sony cameras and they are all the same. The skin tones are off. It takes a ton of work to try to fix skin tones.
Color tones are affected by the lens not the sensor. I find canon lenses have warmer (more orange) tones than for instance sigma lenses on the same canon camera
I adapted all my Canon glass to my Sony and the colors were way different. The colors on A7ii are way different than my A7iii with all the same glass as well so I would say this theory is a bust.
@@garthzutautas125 sensors and processors have been updated with every generation of Sony cameras (mainly because they were pretty terrible to start). It's a mix of all the parts of the camera that get you a RAW file to start with. Some are better than others and everyone has their preference.
stephen heraldo Okay cool I’m just letting original poster know that colours come from the sensor and not the lenses. The lenses can have a slight affect on colour but the colour science is related to the electronics and it the glass.
@@garthzutautas9063 I think mean to reply to the original poster as well. I think we're all in agreement that it's all parts of the camera/lenses that affect color, and each manufacturer has their preferred color formulas, just like back in the film days.
Just so everyone is clear on this, color straight out of the camera when shooting still photos is more important if you are just shooting JPG files. When shooting raw, you fine-tune the color with the raw convertor. Speaking of that, I shoot Sony and use Capture One for my raw processing. The Capture One people have worked extensively with Sony to get great processing results.
I think you totally miss the point. BTW I shoot in the past with Canon. Later with olympus and now with Sony.. 1. The changes in RAW are meaningless and profiles usually do nothing to raw. Only JPG. Many people shoot in JPG and there the color science of every brand makes a big difference. Many people just want to click and get a JPG. Your test should be with jpg with default changes instead. 2. For myself and other I asked on line I have a big problem with sony white balance when using FLASH as the main source of light (not just fill flash). The camera tend to produce in RAW and JPG very strange colors usually shifted dramatically towords the orange. I try some setup in the camera to prefer white as I was recommended to do but with no real success. The white balance in sony A7III is so bad that usually I play manually with the white balance in the sceen I plan to shot and adjust it to stay there as long I am using FLASH. I don't remember ever having such issues with the Olympus or Canon. This is the part where I hate my sony A7III not to mention the missing fully articulating LCD. However for portrait shot with the eye focus it is ggggrrrreeeeaaattttt!!!!!!!!!
Malenky I’m not sure about that. I think a lot more people are shooting JPEG then you think. I run a photo group on Meetup and you would be shocked at how many people don’t even have RAW converter software of any type. Not everyone is looking for pro results but they do want nice skin tones. With that in mind what comes directly out of the camera is important to those people.
Joe Alfano Photography i think many are actually shooting JPEG. I myself also tend to shoot 90% jpeg except for special shooting of one time moments, just to be save. But even then I never needed the RAW files. I try to get my shots right in the first place and usually never need to make so many corrections to it that a RAW file would be needed. In the end I often feel like I am wasting disk space. Don’t get me wrong I absolutely know of the benefits of RAW. But it’s just that all the time i used it (mostly shooting in Jpeg + RAW pairs) i was absolutely satisfied with the jpeg. Last time I was even pretty surprised how much information was left in the jpeg when I tried to bring back detail from highlights. There are occasions where I would still always use Raw, like landscape photography. But for most other things, after years of shooting in Raw, I started to omit that and use Jpeg most of the time
Alexander Winkler I agree. When digital cameras first came out RAW was more important. The processors in these first cameras were basic compared to today’s standards. You would get much better results processing the images off camera with software. With the advances in camera processors and their ability to produce outstanding JPEGs the need to use RAW converters has lessened dramatically. Sure RAW still has advantages but for most end use JPEGs are just fine.
So glad you made this video. There are those that go on and on about “color science” when it’s really more about “editing science”. Thanks for pointing that out. Even when importing Sony RAW files into LR you can make a custom import preset to make them look exactly like Canon files. I shot Canon for several years and to be honest I like Sony color a bit more.
Thank you! Even easier if you really like what Canon looks like you can just change the Sony tint in the camera :D I personally like what sony raws look like, so I just leave them as is!
This is odd, I use both cameras as well and my findings are the opposite- canon had more pink tint whereas the Sony is greener. The main issue is the luminance in combination with color of skin tones, the Sony looks more "plasticky", digital. I prefer the 5D MKIV color science.
@@kentaaruga4765 I am already a subscriber of his channel and already watched his video on similar topic. It is difficult to prove difference of Canon color science..many people claims that they can match colors in post processing..not entirely false...It is as difficult as proving Nikon or Sony users that there always be green tint in shadow area and yellow in skin tones. I think you should stay with whatever you like Sony, Nikon, Canon...Fuji...whatever it may be...
Must be a lot of Sony shooters here in the comments. It should be clear just from these examples that they aren’t the same and that a simple white balance tweak/tint isn’t enough. Look at the saturation and tonality differences in the skin tone transitions. It’s not as bad as the older Sonys, or the Panasonics, but it’s still visible.
I think it’s more than just a different color tone you can easily fix. Shooting Portraits side by side often reveals unwanted color tones especially in dark areas like shadows on the skin. Sony tends to produce green tones and others on the skin. You may not see it without comparing it to a canon image, but if you do the differences are often pretty obvious. The problem is you can’t just fix those afterwards without heavily manual work on each area. Something no one usually wants to do
Hmm, that's is the secret sauce that Canon has. All of us are trying to get this in the post, but why? There still seems to be a reason we all don't know why do we have to try a look at Canon colors. I am a Nikon shooter and have a Canon picture profile in my camera. It's just easy to get around the post to try and get this science if you have the Canon picture profile. It's only us photographers know this not the clients. But why do we still crave for it? Is still my question.
Not all of us.. Just you and I guess your friends. I shoot Nikon and love the look I get from it and have no need to make my Nikons look like the Canon. Or else I would just buy a Canon..
The other thing people have to consider is that their photos will be viewed on so many different devices with varying display types, so being too nit-picky about the colours seems a bit pointless when the goal is to share the photo via social media. So just get it looking how you want it to without spending half of your day making micro adjustments, get it uploaded, then start working on something new!
you are about to hit 500K. just waiting for it girl ❤️ more power to you.. you are so geniune and hardworking.. love your work.. and yes you are looking so pretty as well .. XOXO
Hello from Kyiv Ukraine. I am a Sony shooter. I always shoot a colour checker for the first shots of each group to be sure of exact colour match between cameras/lenses and to get the correct white balance. I not saying you should but this is what I do and it takes no time at all. You can balance the colours between camera brands using this.
Canon people are going crazy about this Canon color science thing, and I don't get it. I've always though the 'Canon colors' they talk about, are way too warm to start with, but of course that's just my opinion. Also, after the Sony edit, Canon colors just looked grey in comparison, and Sony way better, IMO.
your cat so cute - do not most pros shoot raw mostly - so there is always post work - yes I feel my a7 3 is always a bit cooler - but as I mod in post I does not bother me - Canon is sometimes to warm - but yes your comments are spot on -
It doesn't bother me either since I always do post work on my photos anyway, just wanted to answer some questions I noticed a lot of people having! Some people think that Sony sooc makes it harder to edit in post, but there's really such a minimal difference that you can change in the camera anyway so i wanted to show that :)
Thank you for this. Can you do this with someone with dark or brown skin? That's where I feel Sony has trouble. Even shooting in raw and trying to post-process, I can never get it to look natural or as pleasing as Canon. Would love to switch to Sony otherwise. Sony has been amazing with their releases.
Well - it is interesting.....I guess the answer to the never ending conundrum lies in this: if you are rushing out of the house which camera would you be inclined to pick up?
I think the Sony is better in all cases out of the camera. But the most beautiful is Julia herself and she has the most beautiful smile on the internet and a lovely voice to listen to.
I shoot both brands and found out Canon produce better skin tones(less edit) overall in many different type of lighting and different types of skin tones. Sony does a good job on some, but doesn’t stay as consistence as the Canon can do. Sure you can edit them to the liking, but Canon really makes you work less which is a big deal if you shoot a lot in a session. If most of the photos are gonna be graded stylistic, then the color out of camera is not that big of a deal.
Finally somebody do a video explain this. Any camera have wrong or right color is just preference. Thank you so much for doing this ❤️ video. I was almost to the point to do this video myself because I'm so tired of people talking about this.
When you get skin tone that are pink or red it sometimes means the sensor is letting in IR contamination. Its worth checking your blacks to see if one is more black or brown than the other to confirm if it really is IR contamination at play? In your test my prefernce is Canon image straight out of the camera.
Fun comparison. I think both had pros and cons. I shoot Canon and am very happy with it. I will say I think the thought of a universal "Canon color" is a bit off. I have noticed a bit of a difference in color between my Canon bodies. For example, the 5DIII was a bit warmer and had seemed to accentuate red tones. The 5DIV I have found favors blue/greens as you observe in your video. I enjoyed both, and found the 5DIV colors are typically better for skin tones, especially when using a flash.
Thank you! Also try to take portrait shots with warm incandescent lamps on the street and indoors on both cameras, then you will understand that SONY RAW cannot be processed ((. Skinton turns out to be strange. While Canon gets the colors right in one click.
1) The comparison of the girl against the wall - cameras were at different shutter speeds. Camera sensors will react differently to color sensitivity at different levels of exposure. Under/overexposing, technically, will cause a camera to represent color slightly different. One camera was at 1/480 of a second, the other was at 1/320. Hard to make a color comparison if your settings aren't the same across the board. 2) The photo before that - even though you said they look the same, they didn't. The left was clearly bluish. What was the white balance setting for any of these photos? Manually set or automatic? 3) What would have better displayed accurate skintone representation across cameras would have been a look at histograms and vectorscopes and using power windows/masks to isolate skin on their face.
I like Sony’s colour straight out of camera bcoz it looks more natural & True Tone & white looks white specially image shown in harsh sun light her tees white stripes are looks perfectly white & black stripes looks perfectly black. Thanks for comparison it’s so guided video.👍🏻🙏🏻
Quick tip :) you can create custom camera profiles with X-rite Color Passport and than the colors science will match perfectly between the Canon and Sony. You have to use one and the same lens and the same light source (I use a flash). Second thing - lenses can produce different colors and the difference in WB can be due to the different lenses. PS you should try the A7rII or rIII ;) it is so much better for shooting in good light. Not because the pixel count but because of the colors. There are more colors :). I think that you will like it, I almost never use all of the 42m pixels but I really like the colors that I get out of it. And the option for a heavy crop is awesome sometimes.
"Colour science" in RAW really isn't a thing. There's no actual "colour science" in these RAW files. It comes down to the RAW engine you're using to display or rather *interpret* these files. E. g. Sony files look drastically different between LR and C1, much better and realistic in C1 imho. That at least was the case until LR6, can't really comment on newer versions.
I have the raw + jpg files sooc, looked at them on multiple programs on my computer and everything I mentioned in this video still applies! I needed to use the raws to edit though :)
@@juliatrotti Of course it still applies. It's just kinda important to note that "colour science" does not exist as what people think it is, at least as long as they shoot RAW. The "colour science" is done by differently interpreting the "1s and 0s" in the RAW files with a program.
I definitely agree about the differences between raw converters. That’s left out of videos like these, and often means these videos are comparing less than ideal scenarios for one or both of the brands.
EnormousSmartass color science still involves the manufacturers decisions and various hardware as well. But that’s a moot point if the raw converters are programmed differently as well.
i dont know why, but when comparing a9 vs eos RP, although a9 is way more better in overall details, with same setting Canon RP looks better. to fix Canon set the WB to Amber and Magenta a bit.
First want to say love your videos! Great information! but don't hate me because Im going nitpick a little and curious on your thoughts : ) The second example used different shutter-speeds and like the 1st one, the 3rd comparison is allowing more light to hit the models face with the hair pulled back on the Sony image. Seems like the Sony a7 iii had more light in the three images than the canon. Could that be causing some of the minor differences being seen?
Thank you! Since I have the rest of the photos to look at as well, I picked photos to show the overall colour cast I could see in the rest of the photos shot in the same location. So while the lighting might be a little bit different I made sure to pick photos that I could see the same colour cast in throughout regardless of the lighting. So for example in the 3rd example, I had some photos where her hair was out of her face like the Sony shot (it was out of focus so I didn't include it) but it had the same colour cast as the one shown in the video with her hair causing more of a shadow. Hope that makes sense!
Awesome video!.. U totally busted the "Canon colors are better" myth. I really like Sony sharpness, color depth, dynamic range over Canon.. Lots of love 🙏🏼 🇮🇳
My Canon EOS 5 (A2/A2e) has the best skin tone...or is that cheating? This is incredibly subjective, just as film is. However, if I was a portrait/fashion/wedding photographer I would have moved over to Sony by now. Thank you, a great video as always.
Haha, not cheating at all! My favourite film stock is AGFA 200 which you'll rarely ever hear anyone say that. It ain't the sharpest or accurate with colours but the way it renders greens in landscape/travel shots and purples during sunsets is simply a look I love. It's why our personal family and travel albums are all filled with photos shot on agfa. Still always shot on a 35mm focal length, we can't shake that one no matter the camera. 😄
Dan Podbierezki I used to like the Fuji Pro 160ns, it had a strong pink/magenta tint, a pure portrait film but I loved it for 120 landscapes. Alas it’s been withdrawn, but considering Acros is coming back ns might make a return. AGFA 200 is the backbone of many a family album, it was wonderfully of the time. I’m convinced that when I remember the 70s and 80s my brain shot the memories with AGFA.
I'm a huge fan of your work and love your videos Julia. Having both an A7RIII and a 5D Mark IV (Thanksgiving special impulse buy got me), I hear it all the time about the skin tones. I don't think anyone could have explained it better than with this video. Great job, loved it!
m a Canon user and I feel that canon slightly underexposes each photo because of some calibration of its light meter or so. But I don't mind the greener tint (i got to know after seeing in this video side by side with sony). The pinkish tint of sony looks good but it will definitely be limited to just portraits since the CANON looks more true to life & that is what u need when shooting RAWs✌️
you will definitely , someday you wish to go back to Canon after the release of Canon R5 ,that will break Sony .. RF Series already has the best line up of lenses by far ..
You can cancel out the difference in brands by shooting a Colour Checker Passport!. I have to shoot one for colour critical work as I’m red green colour blind!.
The 2nd generation of Sony E mount cameras had more a greenish look in their pictures. Lots of people told me Canon is more pinkish/red. Seems like it's the other way around now...
Really nice comparison (it's hard to find these on youtube), thanks a lot, really sums up the whole thing between those two brands. At the end, the differences are slightly and easily adjustable in post, so thanks a lot for that!
I love this! Because I use a canon R6 (and 5div as backup) right now but id love to get the A7c as my backup for the autofocus but also because it would be a nice travel camera. I was worried about consistent editing but this made me feel so much better!
I like dslr’s picture profile... there’s like substance, character into the photos. Sony is more into modern digital photos, and Dslr’s are more into film like look.
I just edited a portrait shot on MI A1 cheap smartphone and everyone was like dude thats a Canon DSLR Shot . So yeah if you know how to do post processing then what you should really be consider during buying a Camera is the dynamic range. Rest of the stuff you can edit them .
Jay Nikam the Dynamic range in todays cameras of usually much better then anyone usually needs. Except if you got the shot completely wrong and try to save what’s possible. But you are right, I shot many images with my phone as I had nothing else with me in certain situations and people would bet it was a DSLR
Hey Julia! Love your channel! Being a Sony, Nikon, canon shooter, 1 thing that always bothers me about the Sony files is the way it handles highlights. Sony files highlights are just always a bit harsh to me. Doesn’t look as soft as either my Nikon or canon..... maybe I’m just weird 🤷♂️
Beware, Pictures Profiles do affect RAWs, it's been proved by other youtubers. After having shot videos, better reset to PP off before shooting pictures ( RAW & JPG ).
Hello Julia, thank you for your great vídeos! Sorry, this vídeo has 4 years, but do you remember by any chance how you use WB on your a7iii? AWB, AWB with any particular modification, WB profiles like Daylight, shadow, etc.?? I have had my camera for a year and I hate the skin tones every time and makes me so sad and it is so much work to fix it or many times make even worse... Could you help me please if you remember? Thank you so much!
this video needs to be circulated among all sony skin tone haters, not only is it easier to achieve the same look as the canon but dare i say, the sony images look cleaner and slightly more appealing than the canon, i did a similar test using my sony a7rii and zeiss loxia 35mm and a canon 5dmkiv paired with a canon 35mm l series lens, showed the sooc images to 8 people and every one of them not only preferred the sony images but were in awe of the colour science/photo quality, personally i think lenses make all the difference in the world, would love to see julia test out some premium manual lenses on her sony a7iii, particularly the loxia lineup
Thank you and yes I agree that lenses make a difference, didn't mention it in this video but when I use the Canon 85mm f1.2, the images look a lot more pink compared to Canon 35mm. Just to keep it simple though I only wanted to look at the 2 35mm lens as those were the best/closest comparisons I had! And thanks for the suggestion, I've been meaning to use some manual and vintage glass on my Sony soon :D
Have you tried C1 auto adjust, I saw a video on that with Irene Rudnyk, she used the free express version and C1 fixed the raw files automaticly and then some minor fixes after.
Julia, thank you so much for the amazing content. Please forgive me if I missed this in the video, but what lens did you have on the Sony for this comparison?
![ทางเดินชีวิต - ธีเดช ทองอภิชาติ x อ.ไข่ มาลีฮวนน่า [Official MV]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/1f3wcG16dd4/mqdefault.jpg)
![ง้อ (ALRIGHT) - FOURTH Prod. by URBOYTJ [ OFFICIAL MV ]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/Qs8ZeV6Dqj8/mqdefault.jpg)
The color science anyone prefers now days is just a easy post processing fix no matter what camera it comes from. It's just personal preference on what you want... from camera to post processing software. Art is subjective and it's beauty is in the eye of the beholder.
Its not easy. Hence why wedding photographers will have 2 sets of photos 1 with editing and grading and 1 documentary style. Thats where color science matters. These examples are controlled so it really doesnt matter but bulk editing sony files is a pain in the ass.
But I like your quotes of "wokeness" rofl...
"Hey Everyone"
- Oh my heart ...
Could you do a video showing different skin tones of people of color? (Black, Asian, Indian tones) I think that would be a cool video to see the range from the two cameras! 💜✨
TheOctavian that video will get thumbs downed in a heartbeat. Sad reality
@@theyseemetrollintheycantwi1514 I would imagine she might have a hard time finding someone not caucasian in Sydney AU, to begin with. That's like going to the GAP looking for the FUBU hats...
Yes for sure! I can make another video in the future when I have some more examples to share 💛
Photo-Me-Ike FUBU 😂😂😂 I ain’t no she was in Sydney. Makes sense now
By implication you think white people are devoid of colour 🤦♂️
fun little fact with the Sony bodies is you can tune white balance in camera to save on workflow time. For example, I have my auto white balance set to be much warmer than Sony would choose and I also increase the pink for stylistic purposes.
Sony looks more "pinkish" comparing to Canon even after color correction. Nevertheless, I like Sony more. I'm Canon user btw.
Not true. If you color balance your camera then the Raw photos come out pretty even. If you start with a camera profile then yes they are different but you just have a different path to get to your look. In the end Camera color makes no difference unless you are a person that prints JPGs out of camera or rely on camera profiles for your look. Then again, you can use any preset balanced for your camera to achieve the same result.
I agree with you. I’m a canon user but I actually liked the pinker tones of the Sony. The heavier green kinda look alittle zombie-ish.
I hated that green tint! I sold my canon
Roger Huston definitely not. Color balance isn’t nearly enough.
SONY IS CRAP. they should focus on the playstation.... still lagging ages behind canon.
Very interesting. I've often felt that people just say Sony's colours are off cause they heard someone else say it and they follow the narrative. Either that or they used the v1 or v2 A7 models which weren't as good. I've always felt colour science is really only a problem if one shoots jpeg and doesn't edit their work.
Sony user here. The Sony skin tones were a lot greener before the the third generation came out. That's when Sony changed their 'color science'. Ironically, canons skin tones are a little green compared to the new Sony models. And this color science matters only if you shoot jpegs because when you process your photos, you're not gonna end up with the same colors SOOC.
This bad Sony colors thing will still get brought up even in 5 years from now.
I'm with you. Seems like the color science thing in canons favor coincides with every time they release a underwhelming camera. Marketing hype
People think it’s just a matter of a single tint one way or the other, but Sony still has more awkward transitions in those mid to lower tones.
One thing I have found is that different lens manufacturers have different color temps (I.e. Tamron is generally warmer, Sony cooler, etc)
Sigma is cooler toned as well. If I recall right, in theory, the blueish tone reduces chromatic aberrations?
yeah man, I've noticed that too. Lenses make the biggest difference in terms of skin tones IMO. My favourite for skin tones is my Helios 44-2. That thing just makes skin look superb.
Jeah indeed. The color differences in lenses is quite noteable. Even on Lenses from the same family/line. We compared the Canon 24-70 2,8L II and the 70-200 2,8L II which should be pretty much the same. but the magenta was noteable different.
Awesome job matching the skin tones. I used to criticize Sony skintones like eveyone else. But these new Gen 3 cams (A7RIII/A7III) and even 4th gen (A6400/A7RIV) are much more pleasing straight out of cam (in Natural light)
Photo-Me-Ike what’s your opinion of the overall look of the Sony photos compared to Nikon, canon etc.
A really important video that needed to be made, Julia. Personally, I found the Sony raw image looking more natural than the Canon. I was quite pleasantly surprised actually.
Color science thing is way overblown by Canon users. Thank you for shining some light on this subject.
You are forgetting that the Sony skin tones and colors were absolute garbage before their current 3rd gen cameras. Go shoot with an a7 or a7ii and behold the awful skin tones and colors. Unless you like your models to look like they have jaundice
And still Canon & even Panasonic colors look much better than Sony's. I personally was aghast how dismal Sony looked when the 3 were cut in a sequence.
@Izabalphoto That sounds like some serious concrete scientific evidence. Thanks for sharing your findings.
Sony made major adjustments to color science when the A7r3 came out, and further refinements with the A73. They've gotten a LOT better, but the perception about bad color persists because of how bad their early offerings were.
My Sony files always have a greenish tint compared to my Canon files. Opposite to your results. But a very easy fix like you stated.
I get that to, green tint on my Sony A7ii
Hi please correct me if I'm wrong. You are not really comparing colors of Canon vs Sony but rather Adobe's interpretation of those RAW images. In LR you can assign color profiles of Sony or Canon to the RAW files to simulate the real brands colors or maybe even better you should compare jpges out of two brands or use native Sony and Canon RAW converters to really compare the colors.
Other than that nice video that shows that with any camera we can achieve same results.
JPEG would be the real comparison
Thanks! I have the raw + jpg sooc, which look the same as the images I included in this video. I also made sure to look at them both on a bunch of different programs so that any software or profiles don't ruin the integrity of my personal observations!
Thank you! I'm so sick and tired of people talking about the "Canon skin tones". I used to be a Canon shooter and switched to Sony about a year ago. I shoot weddings and landscapes and I love the way that the Sony looks and edits in both genres, if that makes sense. I enjoy even more how easy it is to quickly get a good color grade in video from the A7 III, I use Cine4.
People are so stuck in their ways. Canon used to win Skin Tones HANDS DOWN, but times have evolved and now other manufacturers stepped up their games.
I think that hype comes from the old Nikoj vs. Canon
I'm a canon user but I think Sony wins this round, but a lil lightroom editing fixes that up right away. My fuji blows them both out of the water though =p
Don't lie yourself lol 😉
JS MANA CHANNEL exactly what I thought lol
He is correct Fuji is so underrated. The colors from Fuji Straight out of Camera are better than Sony for sure. I have had Sony cameras and they are all the same. The skin tones are off. It takes a ton of work to try to fix skin tones.
I'm super keen to try Fuji soon!
Size 10 Soles I don’t know what “a tonne of work is”. Julia literally made 1 -2 minor tweaks.
Color tones are affected by the lens not the sensor. I find canon lenses have warmer (more orange) tones than for instance sigma lenses on the same canon camera
I think exactly the same, the real difference is the lens
I adapted all my Canon glass to my Sony and the colors were way different. The colors on A7ii are way different than my A7iii with all the same glass as well so I would say this theory is a bust.
@@garthzutautas125 sensors and processors have been updated with every generation of Sony cameras (mainly because they were pretty terrible to start). It's a mix of all the parts of the camera that get you a RAW file to start with. Some are better than others and everyone has their preference.
stephen heraldo Okay cool I’m just letting original poster know that colours come from the sensor and not the lenses. The lenses can have a slight affect on colour but the colour science is related to the electronics and it the glass.
@@garthzutautas9063 I think mean to reply to the original poster as well. I think we're all in agreement that it's all parts of the camera/lenses that affect color, and each manufacturer has their preferred color formulas, just like back in the film days.
Sony wins hands down.
The Sony dro is very fantastic.
Maybe if you're shooting in JPEG
@@jheelan I shoot raw always, even in Jpeng Sony is fantastic.
Just so everyone is clear on this, color straight out of the camera when shooting still photos is more important if you are just shooting JPG files. When shooting raw, you fine-tune the color with the raw convertor. Speaking of that, I shoot Sony and use Capture One for my raw processing. The Capture One people have worked extensively with Sony to get great processing results.
I think you totally miss the point. BTW I shoot in the past with Canon. Later with olympus and now with Sony..
1. The changes in RAW are meaningless and profiles usually do nothing to raw. Only JPG.
Many people shoot in JPG and there the color science of every brand makes a big difference. Many people just want to click and get a JPG. Your test should be with jpg with default changes instead.
2. For myself and other I asked on line I have a big problem with sony white balance when using FLASH as the main source of light (not just fill flash). The camera tend to produce in RAW and JPG very strange colors usually shifted dramatically towords the orange. I try some setup in the camera to prefer white as I was recommended to do but with no real success.
The white balance in sony A7III is so bad that usually I play manually with the white balance in the sceen I plan to shot and adjust it to stay there as long I am using FLASH.
I don't remember ever having such issues with the Olympus or Canon.
This is the part where I hate my sony A7III not to mention the missing fully articulating LCD. However for portrait shot with the eye focus it is ggggrrrreeeeaaattttt!!!!!!!!!
The intersection of people shooting only jpeg and people who are fussy about skin tones is surely incredibly small.
Malenky I’m not sure about that. I think a lot more people are shooting JPEG then you think. I run a photo group on Meetup and you would be shocked at how many people don’t even have RAW converter software of any type. Not everyone is looking for pro results but they do want nice skin tones. With that in mind what comes directly out of the camera is important to those people.
Joe Alfano Photography i think many are actually shooting JPEG. I myself also tend to shoot 90% jpeg except for special shooting of one time moments, just to be save. But even then I never needed the RAW files. I try to get my shots right in the first place and usually never need to make so many corrections to it that a RAW file would be needed. In the end I often feel like I am wasting disk space. Don’t get me wrong I absolutely know of the benefits of RAW. But it’s just that all the time i used it (mostly shooting in Jpeg + RAW pairs) i was absolutely satisfied with the jpeg. Last time I was even pretty surprised how much information was left in the jpeg when I tried to bring back detail from highlights. There are occasions where I would still always use Raw, like landscape photography. But for most other things, after years of shooting in Raw, I started to omit that and use Jpeg most of the time
Alexander Winkler I agree. When digital cameras first came out RAW was more important. The processors in these first cameras were basic compared to today’s standards. You would get much better results processing the images off camera with software. With the advances in camera processors and their ability to produce outstanding JPEGs the need to use RAW converters has lessened dramatically. Sure RAW still has advantages but for most end use JPEGs are just fine.
So glad you made this video. There are those that go on and on about “color science” when it’s really more about “editing science”. Thanks for pointing that out. Even when importing Sony RAW files into LR you can make a custom import preset to make them look exactly like Canon files. I shot Canon for several years and to be honest I like Sony color a bit more.
Thank you! Even easier if you really like what Canon looks like you can just change the Sony tint in the camera :D I personally like what sony raws look like, so I just leave them as is!
This is odd, I use both cameras as well and my findings are the opposite- canon had more pink tint whereas the Sony is greener. The main issue is the luminance in combination with color of skin tones, the Sony looks more "plasticky", digital. I prefer the 5D MKIV color science.
I’m not sure the monitor is calibrated. Maybe both of you will have different colors compared to others.
Sony cameras, buy two of A7S3s and tint will be different.
I'm a Canon user by starting to like Sony more and more. Thanks for the video Julia!
Sony certainty not bad..but you see true difference when you shoot difficult skin tones like south Asian people like India...
Yoh should watch Sean Tucker's video on this. Its very interesting
@@kentaaruga4765 I am already a subscriber of his channel and already watched his video on similar topic. It is difficult to prove difference of Canon color science..many people claims that they can match colors in post processing..not entirely false...It is as difficult as proving Nikon or Sony users that there always be green tint in shadow area and yellow in skin tones. I think you should stay with whatever you like Sony, Nikon, Canon...Fuji...whatever it may be...
SONY defects in color science are from mixed lighting conditions, especially at night or in the studio. It's a pain in the neck to correct them all.
Must be a lot of Sony shooters here in the comments. It should be clear just from these examples that they aren’t the same and that a simple white balance tweak/tint isn’t enough. Look at the saturation and tonality differences in the skin tone transitions. It’s not as bad as the older Sonys, or the Panasonics, but it’s still visible.
I think it’s more than just a different color tone you can easily fix. Shooting Portraits side by side often reveals unwanted color tones especially in dark areas like shadows on the skin. Sony tends to produce green tones and others on the skin. You may not see it without comparing it to a canon image, but if you do the differences are often pretty obvious. The problem is you can’t just fix those afterwards without heavily manual work on each area. Something no one usually wants to do
Hmm, that's is the secret sauce that Canon has. All of us are trying to get this in the post, but why? There still seems to be a reason we all don't know why do we have to try a look at Canon colors. I am a Nikon shooter and have a Canon picture profile in my camera. It's just easy to get around the post to try and get this science if you have the Canon picture profile. It's only us photographers know this not the clients. But why do we still crave for it? Is still my question.
Not all of us.. Just you and I guess your friends. I shoot Nikon and love the look I get from it and have no need to make my Nikons look like the Canon. Or else I would just buy a Canon..
The other thing people have to consider is that their photos will be viewed on so many different devices with varying display types, so being too nit-picky about the colours seems a bit pointless when the goal is to share the photo via social media. So just get it looking how you want it to without spending half of your day making micro adjustments, get it uploaded, then start working on something new!
you are about to hit 500K. just waiting for it girl ❤️ more power to you.. you are so geniune and hardworking.. love your work.. and yes you are looking so pretty as well .. XOXO
Thank you so much!!
Hello from Kyiv Ukraine. I am a Sony shooter. I always shoot a colour checker for the first shots of each group to be sure of exact colour match between cameras/lenses and to get the correct white balance. I not saying you should but this is what I do and it takes no time at all. You can balance the colours between camera brands using this.
I mentioned this briefly in the video that you can change the white balance/tint in the camera so you don't have to do it in post :)
Canon people are going crazy about this Canon color science thing, and I don't get it. I've always though the 'Canon colors' they talk about, are way too warm to start with, but of course that's just my opinion. Also, after the Sony edit, Canon colors just looked grey in comparison, and Sony way better, IMO.
your cat so cute - do not most pros shoot raw mostly - so there is always post work - yes I feel my a7 3 is always a bit cooler - but as I mod in post I does not bother me - Canon is sometimes to warm - but yes your comments are spot on -
It doesn't bother me either since I always do post work on my photos anyway, just wanted to answer some questions I noticed a lot of people having! Some people think that Sony sooc makes it harder to edit in post, but there's really such a minimal difference that you can change in the camera anyway so i wanted to show that :)
Thank you for this. Can you do this with someone with dark or brown skin? That's where I feel Sony has trouble. Even shooting in raw and trying to post-process, I can never get it to look natural or as pleasing as Canon. Would love to switch to Sony otherwise. Sony has been amazing with their releases.
Yes for sure! I can do this video again in the future when I have some more comparisons to share :)
Well - it is interesting.....I guess the answer to the never ending conundrum lies in this: if you are rushing out of the house which camera would you be inclined to pick up?
I think the Sony is better in all cases out of the camera. But the most beautiful is Julia herself and she has the most beautiful smile on the internet and a lovely voice to listen to.
You have to compare with the same optics. Glasses also have a color rendering.
I shoot both brands and found out Canon produce better skin tones(less edit) overall in many different type of lighting and different types of skin tones. Sony does a good job on some, but doesn’t stay as consistence as the Canon can do. Sure you can edit them to the liking, but Canon really makes you work less which is a big deal if you shoot a lot in a session. If most of the photos are gonna be graded stylistic, then the color out of camera is not that big of a deal.
Finally somebody do a video explain this. Any camera have wrong or right color is just preference. Thank you so much for doing this ❤️ video. I was almost to the point to do this video myself because I'm so tired of people talking about this.
My wife always complained about the photos from Sony A73 but never complained about the photos from Canon EOS RP. We are Asians.
That’s an interesting point. I wonder if those awkward Sony color transitions in the mid to low skin tone areas are more prominent in Asians.
Interesting since the A7iii is the most sold FF camera in Japan by far.
When you get skin tone that are pink or red it sometimes means the sensor is letting in IR contamination. Its worth checking your blacks to see if one is more black or brown than the other to confirm if it really is IR contamination at play? In your test my prefernce is Canon image straight out of the camera.
Fun comparison. I think both had pros and cons. I shoot Canon and am very happy with it. I will say I think the thought of a universal "Canon color" is a bit off. I have noticed a bit of a difference in color between my Canon bodies. For example, the 5DIII was a bit warmer and had seemed to accentuate red tones. The 5DIV I have found favors blue/greens as you observe in your video. I enjoyed both, and found the 5DIV colors are typically better for skin tones, especially when using a flash.
would’ve loved to see a comparison on a range of skin tones
I'd love to make another video or even a blog post sharing some more comparisons when I have them :)
GREAT PHOTOS JULIA I THINK I PREFER THE SONY CAMERA LOOKS SO DEATAILED REALLY COOL
Thank you!
Also try to take portrait shots with warm incandescent lamps on the street and indoors on both cameras, then you will understand that SONY RAW cannot be processed ((. Skinton turns out to be strange. While Canon gets the colors right in one click.
Yes I get lots of green/jellow skintones
I loved the little Lightroom tip for the skin tone! I am a new A7iii user, hope to see more on location videos from you with the A7iii.
very good, I really enjoyed the comparison and how you explain the differences in the details. congratulations!
1) The comparison of the girl against the wall - cameras were at different shutter speeds. Camera sensors will react differently to color sensitivity at different levels of exposure. Under/overexposing, technically, will cause a camera to represent color slightly different. One camera was at 1/480 of a second, the other was at 1/320. Hard to make a color comparison if your settings aren't the same across the board.
2) The photo before that - even though you said they look the same, they didn't. The left was clearly bluish. What was the white balance setting for any of these photos? Manually set or automatic?
3) What would have better displayed accurate skintone representation across cameras would have been a look at histograms and vectorscopes and using power windows/masks to isolate skin on their face.
Hey great video Julia. I have a Sony A7iii and agree with your thoughts on this subject. Thanks for making a video about this.
Thank you!
I think it's cool that you're willing to show people how to color match the two. New subscriber
I like Sony’s colour straight out of camera bcoz it looks more natural & True Tone & white looks white specially image shown in harsh sun light her tees white stripes are looks perfectly white & black stripes looks perfectly black. Thanks for comparison it’s so guided video.👍🏻🙏🏻
I've always wanted to see this. So helpful! I love how organized your videos are, by the way.
Thank you!
@@juliatrotti You're so welcome!
Quick tip :) you can create custom camera profiles with X-rite Color Passport and than the colors science will match perfectly between the Canon and Sony. You have to use one and the same lens and the same light source (I use a flash).
Second thing - lenses can produce different colors and the difference in WB can be due to the different lenses.
PS you should try the A7rII or rIII ;) it is so much better for shooting in good light. Not because the pixel count but because of the colors. There are more colors :). I think that you will like it, I almost never use all of the 42m pixels but I really like the colors that I get out of it. And the option for a heavy crop is awesome sometimes.
Your comment about the lenses is spot on. Different brands especially....
"Colour science" in RAW really isn't a thing. There's no actual "colour science" in these RAW files. It comes down to the RAW engine you're using to display or rather *interpret* these files. E. g. Sony files look drastically different between LR and C1, much better and realistic in C1 imho. That at least was the case until LR6, can't really comment on newer versions.
I have the raw + jpg files sooc, looked at them on multiple programs on my computer and everything I mentioned in this video still applies! I needed to use the raws to edit though :)
@@juliatrotti Of course it still applies. It's just kinda important to note that "colour science" does not exist as what people think it is, at least as long as they shoot RAW. The "colour science" is done by differently interpreting the "1s and 0s" in the RAW files with a program.
I definitely agree about the differences between raw converters. That’s left out of videos like these, and often means these videos are comparing less than ideal scenarios for one or both of the brands.
EnormousSmartass color science still involves the manufacturers decisions and various hardware as well. But that’s a moot point if the raw converters are programmed differently as well.
i dont know why, but when comparing a9 vs eos RP, although a9 is way more better in overall details, with same setting Canon RP looks better.
to fix Canon set the WB to Amber and Magenta a bit.
First want to say love your videos! Great information! but don't hate me because Im going nitpick a little and curious on your thoughts : ) The second example used different shutter-speeds and like the 1st one, the 3rd comparison is allowing more light to hit the models face with the hair pulled back on the Sony image. Seems like the Sony a7 iii had more light in the three images than the canon. Could that be causing some of the minor differences being seen?
At identical setting the Sony is still a little brighter, I had a 5DIII and an A7III
Thank you! Since I have the rest of the photos to look at as well, I picked photos to show the overall colour cast I could see in the rest of the photos shot in the same location. So while the lighting might be a little bit different I made sure to pick photos that I could see the same colour cast in throughout regardless of the lighting. So for example in the 3rd example, I had some photos where her hair was out of her face like the Sony shot (it was out of focus so I didn't include it) but it had the same colour cast as the one shown in the video with her hair causing more of a shadow. Hope that makes sense!
Awesome video!..
U totally busted the "Canon colors are better" myth.
I really like Sony sharpness, color depth, dynamic range over Canon..
Lots of love 🙏🏼 🇮🇳
My Canon EOS 5 (A2/A2e) has the best skin tone...or is that cheating?
This is incredibly subjective, just as film is. However, if I was a portrait/fashion/wedding photographer I would have moved over to Sony by now.
Thank you, a great video as always.
Haha, not cheating at all! My favourite film stock is AGFA 200 which you'll rarely ever hear anyone say that. It ain't the sharpest or accurate with colours but the way it renders greens in landscape/travel shots and purples during sunsets is simply a look I love. It's why our personal family and travel albums are all filled with photos shot on agfa. Still always shot on a 35mm focal length, we can't shake that one no matter the camera. 😄
Dan Podbierezki I used to like the Fuji Pro 160ns, it had a strong pink/magenta tint, a pure portrait film but I loved it for 120 landscapes. Alas it’s been withdrawn, but considering Acros is coming back ns might make a return.
AGFA 200 is the backbone of many a family album, it was wonderfully of the time. I’m convinced that when I remember the 70s and 80s my brain shot the memories with AGFA.
I really like your content. I just about to start to photograph and you're channel is a great help to learn a lot of new stuff
sony has way more purple and orange in the skintones (even after your fix), remindes me very much of the crappy colors nikon produces....
I'm a huge fan of your work and love your videos Julia. Having both an A7RIII and a 5D Mark IV (Thanksgiving special impulse buy got me), I hear it all the time about the skin tones. I don't think anyone could have explained it better than with this video. Great job, loved it!
Thank you so much!
m a Canon user and I feel that canon slightly underexposes each photo because of some calibration of its light meter or so. But I don't mind the greener tint (i got to know after seeing in this video side by side with sony). The pinkish tint of sony looks good but it will definitely be limited to just portraits since the CANON looks more true to life & that is what u need when shooting RAWs✌️
Julia, please make a video on these two cameras to see how they perform, features, pros and cons of both. Thx
still relevant, at least to me! thanks for the effort and the sharing. i am an appreciative subscriber. i hope you and dan stay well. thumbs up.
I really love skin tone of my daughter that I have gotten from Sony A7III with 24mm GM and 85 mm f1.8. It made me never thought to get back to Canon.
you will definitely , someday you wish to go back to Canon after the release of Canon R5 ,that will break Sony .. RF Series already has the best line up of lenses by far ..
You can cancel out the difference in brands by shooting a Colour Checker Passport!. I have to shoot one for colour critical work as I’m red green colour blind!.
Unfortunately the color differences are a lot more complicated than that. You can make them both more similar, but still not the same.
The 2nd generation of Sony E mount cameras had more a greenish look in their pictures. Lots of people told me Canon is more pinkish/red. Seems like it's the other way around now...
I like how you call photos “frertters”. You’re lovely.
Really nice comparison (it's hard to find these on youtube), thanks a lot, really sums up the whole thing between those two brands. At the end, the differences are slightly and easily adjustable in post, so thanks a lot for that!
Thank you so much!
Hey julia cool video,your audio is always on point,which audio set up do you use?!
You are the best Julia! 🔝🔝♥️
I love this! Because I use a canon R6 (and 5div as backup) right now but id love to get the A7c as my backup for the autofocus but also because it would be a nice travel camera. I was worried about consistent editing but this made me feel so much better!
I like dslr’s picture profile... there’s like substance, character into the photos. Sony is more into modern digital photos, and Dslr’s are more into film like look.
I like your videor and photor
Great comparison I prefer the look of the Sony pictures. 👍 It's sad that I had to sell my A7iii will be getting the A9 hopefully soon.
Thank you for sharing. I love your video so much because you make me easy to find the right camera for me...
Nice, someone who understands color
I just edited a portrait shot on MI A1 cheap smartphone and everyone was like dude thats a Canon DSLR Shot . So yeah if you know how to do post processing then what you should really be consider during buying a Camera is the dynamic range. Rest of the stuff you can edit them .
Jay Nikam the Dynamic range in todays cameras of usually much better then anyone usually needs. Except if you got the shot completely wrong and try to save what’s possible. But you are right, I shot many images with my phone as I had nothing else with me in certain situations and people would bet it was a DSLR
Which camera your using now for this video... Video clarity was awesome and you looking amazing... 💜
Cool! A great review on Skin tones using two different cameras :)
What are the benefits of using two different brands of cameras at a shoot? As opposed to just using two Canons or two Sony’s with different lenses?
This makes me feel so much better about my purchase. Thank you!
At 6:19 what adjustment would you recommend to change the white balance of sony's camera system to best look like canon's SOOC?
Excellent. Thank you for running these tests!
Great video content, thanks for making these!
Julia this is so imp info.
I never liked sony colors.
By this, can sony really achieve canon colors?
It's sooo useful! Thank you so much!
Adobe color vs camera neutral or faithful will produce different colors/contrast in lightroom tho
Hey Julia! Love your channel! Being a Sony, Nikon, canon shooter, 1 thing that always bothers me about the Sony files is the way it handles highlights. Sony files highlights are just always a bit harsh to me. Doesn’t look as soft as either my Nikon or canon..... maybe I’m just weird 🤷♂️
I agree most of my photos I have to edit with dramatic highlights.
Beware, Pictures Profiles do affect RAWs, it's been proved by other youtubers. After having shot videos, better reset to PP off before shooting pictures ( RAW & JPG ).
They do affect raws, but as soon as you import to Lightroom, bridge or any other raw editing program you can reset back to default!
is it just me or do the highlights roll of a bit smoother on the canon?
I personally like the canon colors but that doesn't make sony any bad. Both are nice
Very hard to judge on youtube, but as a sony user, I'll biasedly choose sony :P
If you are ever in Brisbane and want to play with a Zeiss loxia, hit me up. I have both the 35mm f/2 and 50mm f/2.
Hello Julia, thank you for your great vídeos! Sorry, this vídeo has 4 years, but do you remember by any chance how you use WB on your a7iii? AWB, AWB with any particular modification, WB profiles like Daylight, shadow, etc.?? I have had my camera for a year and I hate the skin tones every time and makes me so sad and it is so much work to fix it or many times make even worse... Could you help me please if you remember? Thank you so much!
this video needs to be circulated among all sony skin tone haters, not only is it easier to achieve the same look as the canon but dare i say, the sony images look cleaner and slightly more appealing than the canon, i did a similar test using my sony a7rii and zeiss loxia 35mm and a canon 5dmkiv paired with a canon 35mm l series lens, showed the sooc images to 8 people and every one of them not only preferred the sony images but were in awe of the colour science/photo quality, personally i think lenses make all the difference in the world, would love to see julia test out some premium manual lenses on her sony a7iii, particularly the loxia lineup
Thank you and yes I agree that lenses make a difference, didn't mention it in this video but when I use the Canon 85mm f1.2, the images look a lot more pink compared to Canon 35mm. Just to keep it simple though I only wanted to look at the 2 35mm lens as those were the best/closest comparisons I had! And thanks for the suggestion, I've been meaning to use some manual and vintage glass on my Sony soon :D
Just use a COLORCHECKER PASSPORT to calibrate you camera or just use C1.. way easier!
Have you tried C1 auto adjust, I saw a video on that with Irene Rudnyk, she used the free express version and C1 fixed the raw files automaticly and then some minor fixes after.
@@dennishumbla5431 C1 auto adjust works pretty good as a starting point..
nice review. what about a new video Sony a7iv vs Canon r6?
Julia, thank you so much for the amazing content. Please forgive me if I missed this in the video, but what lens did you have on the Sony for this comparison?
What should I choose to start my photography business? Canon 6D mark II or Sony a7 II (for potraits and small events)