5D mk2 vs Sony A7 ii

K

kymira

Member
Hi Im looking to upgrade from a 550D to a FF body. Im curious as to why most of the A7 ii's footage looks so "video" compared to the "filmic" look shot on 5dmk 2 or mk3. And Im not talking about raw video, just their regular native codec. Shouldn't the A7ii be far superior considering its a 7 year newer FF sensor?

Are they comparible shot under similar conditions?
I also shoot alot of stills, mostly studio portraits. Does the a7 ii outshine the older 5d in the stills department aswell?
 
The technical specs, or most of them, have no correlation to the 'look' ('video-like' vs. 'film-like') of the output.
Different people choose camera according to different preferences. Many even don't see the 'video-like' look of the output of the Sony and Panasonic cameras.
 
great films have been made with cameras of much lesser quality than your 550d while most of us can't do s*%t even with a 100-000$ camera.
Not sure where you are and what things cost there..
For video black magic pocket cinema camera has great image and can be found even for 500 euros here.

If you wanna have very high photograph capable camera you might be better off with canon 6d if you find it for around 1000$ or so. studio work i would stick with canon or nikon.....way more compatible gear to be found...sony is a new comer and just isn't there with the big boys

I have seen seriously beautifull work with your canon 550d so camera is not the bottleneck for you. I would't make a new camera my priority. Your camera is more than capable of very cinematic footage...just google some short films made with 550d. Some feature films have been made with 5d ii and 7d ( identical to your camera in video mode without hacking it has been used on high budget productions like house if i remember correctly.
For photographs the same goes....i dare most people to recognise a 5d mark iii from a canon 550d in most situations.

good luck
 
Last edited:
Interesting that you brought up the BMPCC. Like the Sony, it's a great little camera but unless you know how to grade properly and have an understanding of LOG formats your going to be sacrificing sharpness, dynamic range, resolution and other secondary image specs, for good color science and an overall pleasing image aesthetic that you get straight out of the camera from the 5D II.

Some cameras have a lot of potential and capability but you have to know what your doing and how to leverage the quality. Because of it's lack of LOG format, normal dynamic range and excellent color science the 5D II will arguably have the most pleasing looking image out of the box (aside from some moire in certain situations). The Sony has better technical specs but will require more grading to get the right look (and even then Canon probably still has better color.) Some people will be ambitious and go with the Sony, some will be realistic with how much post work they want to do and what their skillset is and just go with the 5D or equivelent camera.

In terms of Still photography, I do lots of it on a high end level. I haven't been convinced to go mirrorless yet. For the type of photo work I shoot, DSLR is still the way to go.
 
Don't get caught up in "FF" hype, remember the Hollywood standard is S35 which is basically the same as APS-C.

I'd rather recommend getting a Sony A6000 or Panasonic GH4 or Samsung NX1 any day of the week over a Sony A7 II.
 
I've been holding off the next camera purchase for a while now since I got the 5D3.... however, looking forward to seeing how the soon to come (in firmware) Sony 14 bit raw will affect their A7 cameras. I'm not completely won over by the A7S II, but I'm also getting a wee bit tired of the Canon.
 
In theory, RAW files bypass the camera manufacturer's color science.
Yet, as you said, it is to be seen in practice.
 
A7II has immense difficulties resolving even medium fine detail.

I'm not about pixel peeping but the A7II's false patterns was enough to be a distraction that I chose not to risk wasting footage by using it.
 
No worries its a common misconception. Coming from a photography prospective, I used to think so highly of RAW files. After working with LOG formats in video, it actually gave me a better understanding of what RAW really is, which is not all that different from high bit depth LOG footage and a LUT that isn't baked in throughout the imaging workflow until you export to a JPEG or other presentation format. Like film stocks, the sensor plays the biggest roll in how the image is captured.

I find that knowlege of still photography has really benefited my video skills and vice versa. gmar chatima tova ;)
 
egproductions said:
No worries its a common misconception. Coming from a photography prospective, I used to think so highly of RAW files. After working with LOG formats in video, it actually gave me a better understanding of what RAW really is, which is not all that different from high bit depth LOG footage and a LUT that isn't baked in throughout the imaging workflow until you export to a JPEG or other presentation format. Like film stocks, the sensor plays the biggest roll in how the image is captured.

I find that knowlege of still photography has really benefited my video skills and vice versa. gmar chatima tova ;)
Click to expand...

On a second thought, my first statement that RAW files bypass the camera's color science wasn't inaccurate.

There are 2 things that determine the color rendition of a camera:


  • The sensor complex (comprised of the sensor itself, the Bayer filter and other optional filters like IR and LP).
  • The color matrix interpretation, which is software-based and is applied by the camera, within the camera, to all files other than RAW.

The color science is the way the camera interprets colors out of the stream coming from the sensor. Thus, RAW files actually do bypass the camera's color scinence.

That being said, the sensor complex does have an impact on the color rendition, so it cannot be ignored, however RAW files give the ultimate freedom to shape colors (along all other image parameters) - within the limits of the sensor's build and output. Working with RAW files, the color rendition is being determined by the LUT(s) used (again, within the limits of the sensor's build and output).

Therefore, it's quite possible that a camera like the Sony a7s, which has ugly colors (to my eyes), may produce beautiful colors, should it output RAW files and with proper LUT(s).

Now, LOG files are entirely different from RAW ones. With LOG files, the color interpretation is being done within the camera, only with much flatter gamma curve and with much less saturation. So RAW files and LOG files are two entirely different animals.

Gmar Hatima Tova.
 
Joshua, I believe what you are talking about is Debayering which is true, happens after the fact with raw files and in camera with log files. Debayering does have an impact on image quality, however, I would argue that the impact of how an RGB image is debayered isn't very significant between available algorithms and doesn't significantly really impact the color characteristics of a camera.

I guess it comes down too what you are considering color science. I don't consider color profiles, picture styles or LUTs to be part of the color science of the camera because as you mentioned these things can be bypassed when shooting raw or log. I think when generally speaking of color science we are talking about the inherent color characteristics of a camera that are inherent to a camera and can't be bypassed or changed. In that sense Sony and Canon have very different approaches. Like you, I prefer Canon.

That being said, I've owned a BMPCC and currentyl own a 5D II and the FS7. I can make the FS7 colors look as good as the 5D II but only after proper grading and even then it's difficult. Of course the FS7 has many other advantages aside from color, otherwise I wouldn't own one.
 
Yes you are completely right. The thing that, is many people think that a better camera will give them significantly better shots, which is not true. If you have tought yourself the needed skills to a certain level a cheap camera like canon 550d or panasonic gh2 would be enough to make amazing images. So i always insist on not tbuying a expensive camera but rather invest in a few lenses and other gear and experiment. This is unless you are limited by some specific shortcomings of your camera. For example if you shoot parties in low light, maybe you should go for a 5d iii or a7s etc. But in most cases people who start are better of buying lighting gear, a nice tripod, learn the softwares, get tuutorials etc.
You have to go through fases...something like shooting wide open the whole time. You do that for a while and grow out of it. One more thing is the low light frenzy, in most cases you dont shoot high isos. Yes that is a phase but everyone comes to conclusion to use lights and learn to recognise good light. In that case a not so sensitive camera is a blessing because you are forced to look better to get your shot, predict the noise you will get and how/ if you can manage it in post, instead of cranking up the iso. Shadows and darkness is a creative choice....nowadays i see more and more people forgetting about shadows just because you can shoot in the dark and make it look like day time doen's mean you should.

There simply isn't something like the best camera for anyone, sometime the best camera is a small cheaper camera and not a red dragon.
 
Last edited:
The sensor definitely contributes to color science when shooting RAW.

The sensor has a colored filter array which determines what is considered red, blue or green. There is a lot of very sophisticated work that goes into figuring out which wave lengths go where and how to create the dyes to accomplish this. It's not easy, and is one of the reasons why cameras like the Alexa looks so good, b/c Arri learned a lot from making film scanners.
 
egproductions said:
Joshua, I believe what you are talking about is Debayering which is true, happens after the fact with raw files and in camera with log files. Debayering does have an impact on image quality, however, I would argue that the impact of how an RGB image is debayered isn't very significant between available algorithms and doesn't significantly really impact the color characteristics of a camera.

I guess it comes down too what you are considering color science. I don't consider color profiles, picture styles or LUTs to be part of the color science of the camera because as you mentioned these things can be bypassed when shooting raw or log. I think when generally speaking of color science we are talking about the inherent color characteristics of a camera that are inherent to a camera and can't be bypassed or changed. In that sense Sony and Canon have very different approaches. Like you, I prefer Canon.

That being said, I've owned a BMPCC and currentyl own a 5D II and the FS7. I can make the FS7 colors look as good as the 5D II but only after proper grading and even then it's difficult. Of course the FS7 has many other advantages aside from color, otherwise I wouldn't own one.
Click to expand...


Color science, as I understand it, is the way the camera represents colors.
There are 2 aspects that determine the way a camera represents colors:

  • The sensor complex;
  • The in-camera image processing, which includes Debayering, though it has much more than only Debayering. Some manufacturers use complex algorithms to manipulate color rendering and saturation differently at different exposure levels.

The fact is that, generally, each cameras manufacturer has a specific 'look'. That typical 'look' is maintained over different camera models and shooting profiles.
Though the sensor complex does have a part in that 'look', it's my take that the in-camera processing has the major impact on it. For instance, Nikon cameras use Sony sensors, yet Nikon and Sony have entirely different looks.

Again, the typical 'look' of the camera isn't being bypassed when using LOG files, it is being bypassed (at least to a large degree) when using RAW files.
With LOG files we get the impact of both the sensor complex and the in-camera processing; with RAW files there is no in-camera processing at all, only the impact of the sensor complex.

As for matching the Canon 5D II and the Sony FS7, can you make the Sony files look just the Canon ones without manipulating the Canon files?
 
Joshua_G said:
with RAW files there is no in-camera processing at all, only the impact of the sensor complex.
Click to expand...

Fair Enough. technical sensor specs aside, when shooting raw, Nikon v.s Canon sensors have a much different look. Sensor architecture plays a big role, otherwise BM would be able to compete with red or Arri.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top