The look of Sony A7 cameras: I have been marveling at the Sony images here and on Redditt. I just saw a YouTube video of a professional who sold his Sony and went with Fuji XT3. His...

Neverlost99 Loc: Sarasota

I have been marveling at the Sony images here and on Redditt. I just saw a YouTube video of a professional who sold his Sony and went with Fuji XT3. His comment was the Sony photos look so clear, but have an odd artificial look to them. Now I can't see one without seeing this 'hdr' looking photo. I am a newbie but looking to upgrade from my basic Sony alpha 5000 and kit lens and just wondering what the experts here think.

petercbrandt Loc: New York City, Manhattan

You should figure out what the photos are for; just personsl snaps(shirt pocket size camera) or the opposite end of the scale for advertising clients( Hasellblad 100mpx).

Michaele

l have had a sony a7r mk2 for several years. I have the 24-70 G master lens (together with some other lenses) and I can tell you that the photos are outstanding in resolution and color. The images are so sharp that the cropping becomes very easy and many single images become two and sometimes three different images. My only complaint, and many others have already written volumes about it, is the menu system. But, tutorials will lead you to customizing. Go for it.

lwerthe1mer Loc: Birmingham, Alabama

As a Sony a7iii and now, because of weight, RX100vi fan, I want to follow this discussion. I love the Sony cameras.

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

Unless you're looking at straight out of camera JPEGs from cameras at the same sensor size and pixel resolution, you're more likely seeing the photographer's editing abilities and the lens performance than anything native to the camera brand. Even the JPEGs involve the photographer's skills at camera configuration. Sony cameras are excellent. But, to think you can look at an image and say 'ah, that's uniquely Sony' is nonsense. If you want better images, become a better photographer (including the processing). Better equipment, larger sensors, and the sharpest lenses are all just tools of the trade.

Wingpilot Loc: Wasilla. Ak

The tools are important, for sure, but one has to know how to use those tools effectively. I'm a Sony fan and find that they produce very good out of the camera images, and a little editing can make them even better. If you are leaning toward full frame, (FE in Sony-speak) you about can't do any better than the Sony A7III. And if your budget is up to it, it's pretty hard to be Sony's G series or G Master series lenses. They're expensive, but worth it.

le boecere

petercbrandt wrote:

You should figure out what the photos are for; just personsl snaps(shirt pocket size camera) or the opposite end of the scale for advertising clients( Hasellblad 100mpx).

To me, this is great advice for anyone asking for input on a new camera, lens, etc. Without this information, and without knowing a purpose, everyone is just guessing.

Jerrin1 Loc: Wolverhampton, England

Neverlost99 wrote:

I have been marveling at the Sony images here and on Redditt. I just saw a YouTube video of a professional who sold his Sony and went with Fuji XT3. His comment was the Sony photos look so clear, but have an odd artificial look to them. Now I can't see one without seeing this 'hdr' looking photo. I am a newbie but looking to upgrade from my basic Sony alpha 5000 and kit lens and just wondering what the experts here think.

I own a Sony A9 and an A7III and used to own a Sony A7II: I have no problems with the images they produce; and never think HDR when viewing them. I have also owned Canon and Nikon DSLR cameras and Olympus EM1/EM1.2 mirrorless cameras, and have never has a problem with the images they produce either. A blind test carried out by Tony Northrup, revealed the majority of those who took part preferred Sony images, which came as a surprse to Tony Northrup and the Canon users, who assumed Canon would be the winner.

SonyBug

Neverlost99 wrote:

I have been marveling at the Sony images here and on Redditt. I just saw a YouTube video of a professional who sold his Sony and went with Fuji XT3. His comment was the Sony photos look so clear, but have an odd artificial look to them. Now I can't see one without seeing this 'hdr' looking photo. I am a newbie but looking to upgrade from my basic Sony alpha 5000 and kit lens and just wondering what the experts here think.

I now shoot with the Sony a7III for the specific reason that the quality of the pictures is better for the price than I can get any other way. But, and it's a big BUT, the lens is just as important as the camera body. There is a difference in lenses, and lots of research into lenses will get the results you want. The average shooter can not tell the difference, but it's there...

zug55 Loc: Naivasha, Kenya, and Austin, Texas

CHG_CANON wrote:

Unless you're looking at straight out of camera JP... (show quote)

I completely agree with this. I have been shooting with a Sony A7III for over a year and love it, but I don't think that there is a specific "Sony look."

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

zug55 wrote:

I completely agree with this. I have been shooting with a Sony A7III for over a year and love it, but I don't think that there is a specific "Sony look."

Having both a Sony a7II and Canon 5DIII, I can speak from experience about the image differences being the lens(es), not the sensors. There are subtle differences in the respective camera performance north of ISO-3200, but I think nikonbug's comment just above hit on a great point: that's a virtually identical performance between a Sony that sold originally for about half the cost of the Canon model. Today, the a7II with a 28-70 lens is selling new for $999 online. That's still less than prices of the discontinued 5DIII that are just beginning to show up around $1500 used.

Tomcat5133 Loc: Gladwyne PA

I think it is the experience and imagery that make you feel confident in your cameras.
I have had many Nikon cameras and lens. I will always admire the Nikon products.
But Sony won me over. I bought a NEX 7 took it to London and want wow this is good.
My Sony 6300 video footage and stills had me staring at my 27" monitor. Is this really
this good. I had the first a7s and now the a7s II which is still amazing every time I use
it. I have had numerous Sony's including my 5 year old 10 bit PXW X70 an pro small
camcorder that is great for doc style shooting.
I like all the other brand camera's mentioned. But Sony captured the mirrorless and
video users early. Canon had the first famous "indie" video DSLR the Mark II I believe.
Besides Sony's are expensive but less then most of the other brands.
The not quite perfect but amazing RX10 III I have the series is now up to 5.
I think showed me they could do something no other maker had done.

al13

I considered the Sony when I decided to go with a lighter camera but fell in love with the Fuji X-T3’s controls and old school feel. And love the results. I agree with all comments concerning the important of the user and lens.

Bob Locher Loc: Southwest Oregon

Whenever some one makes a significant change to their equipment they always have a justification for it - especially when afterwards they realize they might have made a mistake. "Odd, artificial look" might have related to the jpeg rendering - the person liked a different color balance, for example. I would ignore those comments; if you are happy with the Sony A5000 I'd certainly stay with Sony. I upgraded from a Sony A6000 to an A6500 and I love it.

balancr Loc: VA

As a Sony user I love the pictures but find the menu system wanting.

In line with some other comments I believe results are limited by the lens rather than the imaging system. Currently stopped by wanting to upgrade both body and lens but can't justify both. The first item that has a great special will probably win - either way it will be Sony.