In this short video, videographer Max Yuryev puts the Sony a6400 and the Fuji X-T30 to the test to compare and see which one has the best colors straight out of the box.
Instead of basing the contest on his views, in the first half, he also asks you the viewer to get involved. Yuryev plays 10 samples side by side on the screen and asks us to choose either A or B. From sample six onwards, he also adds a custom profile to each camera to see the difference with added contrast and saturation. To make sure the test was fair, Yuryev also matched exposures on each video clip.
Take the test, write down your results, and see which brand is the winner for you. Mine were a little mixed, but for me, overall, the Fuji came out on top. Yuryev's results were also a mixed bag. He preferred the skin tones on the Fuji, but the contrast and saturation on the Sony. My current camera is the Fuji X-T3 and the color on that camera is definitely better than my Nikon. Like anything, our results are subjective, so everyone's opinion will be different. Let me know your results and thoughts in the comments below.
Fuji has better color out of the box than Sony, but Sony color can be easily corrected. The same cannot be said for Canon.
These discussions aren't going away, are they?
Never. Cause people keep reacting.
"Reacting", or reading? I'm an "amateur enthusiast", not a professional photographer, and as such, I always feel I have much to learn to "improve". Articles like these, and often times some of the comments that follow, give me things to think about and try.
No, because reviewers and others like to talk about color science because it makes them look smarter than the other guy. TBH his shots looked either purple/magenta or green/yellow
All cameras will have their color choices tuned differently by the engineers at the factory. The fun names they put on presets are like car companies calling white "SnowstormGlow" it sounds fancy.
No one I know uses images SOOC for anything important anyway so it's sort of a moo point.
Both can be profiled to a neutral starting point as easily as Nikon or Canon or Pentax, etc. This is what I do so that my colors and style match between cameras. Every brand requires some different tweaks to get to that point, some I guess could be considered trickier than others (reds in Canon, greens in Nikon), but for the most part they're all easy enough across the board.
So I always find this constant "best color science" or whatever to be kind of weird.
At least if we're talking about raw files. JPEG is a different story... in which case, Fuji has better *potential* for good OOC JPEGs over Sony because they allow more control. Olympus (especially PEN-F) is even better. The Nikon Z's are really good too now, actually.
The best native raw color is Hasselblad though. Every camera is individually calibrated and the raw files are quite neutral. But they're far from the best for JPEGs.
Just don't worry about "color science" and shoot the best system for your needs/preferences. End of story.
This. For those shooting raw and processing their images, differences in so called "color science" is largely irrelevant.
Not true. I work in a studio where we shoot with Canon raw, and precision color correction, regardless of profiling, is futile.
Ignoring the fact that this comparison is only in regards to video, this is still not entirely true. Eg, I have a canon and a fuji camera. The raw files look different straight out of the gate, even when using the same 'Adobe Color' profile. Can I edit one to look like the other? Yes, but there's still something to be said for finding a camera that has color that works for you, even when shooting raw.
I said that there are differences - sometimes even huge differences - in raw file color. But they can always be profiled to match, though yes, some are a bit more difficult than others.
But I'd rather have a system that worked for me ergonomically and had the lenses that I needed than worry about something I can create a profile for and apply in 5 seconds - even if it takes a while to figure out that profile.
Now video is an entirely different story and I'll admit I didn't know this was about video because I didn't watch it... because I'm tired of these color "science" comparisons. But there's definitely validity in talking about video color.
Just reacting to the title here: it doesn't matter.
Learn to edit. All of the same colors are present in both cameras' files. Both have adjustable picture profiles.
"Both have adjustable picture profiles."
This is the most important part. Sites always test bare default settings, but there are a ton of other color profiles and adjustments for each, in every camera. If you don't like the default look, tweak it.
I tend to prefer the look of Sony's Deep Creative style, as it gives everything a bit of a lush, saturated look without blowing things out. Tweak that with maybe +3, 0, +1 and DRO 4 or 5, and you can get excellent results SOOC. Of course, I prefer RAW, where I have 100% control over how the image looks.
This isn't about what camera has better colors since it isn't compared scientifically, but what color he prefers.
When it comes to colors accuracy is what matters and it is measured in Delta-E. The X-T3 and X-T30 lead this category. https://www.pdnonline.com/gear/cameras/the-best-cameras-for-color-reprod...
¿Una comparativa de color sin realizar un Perfilado de Camara? ¿Sin una Carta de Color? ya sea ColorChecker o IT8.7, no es un a comparativa de fidelidad de color del sensor si no mas bien como saca los colores desde fabrica.... ¿Donde está el Delta-E de cada camara?
I won't get into the video side of things because I don't do video.
However vis a vis "color science" and photography, unless you're only shooting straight out of the camera JPEGS and calling it good, it simply doesn't matter. Really, it's pretty much meaningless.
The reason it's meaningless for those shooting raw is because they're going to process the image to their tastes anyway.
Also, you can profile different cameras and their "color science" with something like an Xrite ColorChecker and it will remove almost any perceptible difference. That's the whole idea behind profiling a camera; to provide a consistent baseline.
I guarantee that if I have two different shots of the same thing taken with two different cameras that I've profiled, by the time I get done processing them to my tastes you will not be able to tell a difference by looking at them.
If primarily shooting raw and processing your images, "color science" is the last thing to worry yourself over.
It's nice to have a camera work in your favor, however. With my fuji camera, the color tones inherited from the raw file tend to look better to me (than the Canon I also use), even before any adjustments, This is in Lightroom—in Capture 1 it's a different story... It also depends on what I'm shooting... and which lens I use. In any case, I often wish the Canon CR3 files looked nicer on import in LR.
I just use a Color Checker to create a profile and forget about it. That way I have a pretty consistent baseline from which to begin. That's really all I care about.
If you shoot raw its almost irrelevant. Every human sees color differently and people have different tastes. Also individual lenses render color differently This whole issue is stale and boring. I shot Canon digital for 17 years and now Sony. I don't notice a single measurable difference.