Jump to content

Recommended Posts

I own both an A7IV and, most recently, an A7CII.  I bought the latter because I was disappointed with the colors on my A7IV and saw that friends of mine who owned the A7C got much better colors with that camera than I get with my A7IV.  I went with the A7CII because of the 33 MP, matching my A7IV. 
 

I have to say that, without question, the colors on my A7CII are better than those of the A7IV.  I am, however, puzzled why that would be the case.  Does anyone understand why the A7CII would have much more vivid and deeper colors than the A7IV.  Here I am working with fully automatic mode because I wanted to see how both cameras performed “out of the box” 

 

I can send photos if that is helpful.  Any thoughts are appreciated.  

Link to post
Share on other sites

All I can think of is that SONY is using a different standard for these two cameras -- which does seem unusual.

There are LOTS of camera comparisons on-line, and perhaps there is an in-depth comparison of these tow cameras that might shed some light on your question.

Link to post
Share on other sites

  • 3 weeks later...

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
  • Posts

    • Hi Guys, I have a Sony a6000 bought second hand. It's working fine but the photo capture from video function in the playback menu is missing. I've updated the firmware to 3.21 from 1.00 but the option is still missing. I can now shoot in XAVCS but would like to grab still images from the video. Anyone please?
    • The 200-600 is heavy. If you're not used to the weight, it can be daunting over a period of time. Since the lenses are the same in speed, you aren't gaining any low-light performance. But as Pieter suggests, what about the short end? Is 200 going to be a problem? Are you shooting from the sidelines or from the stands? If after reviewing your most commonly used focal length you find 200 won't do it, then you could look at the Sigma 60-600 Sport. It's about the same price as the Sony and would give you more at the wide end but is a bit heavier yet.  Two other options would be the Sigma 150-600 and the Tamron 150-500. Both are similar in weight to the others, maybe a touch lighter.   Lastly, and if reach is your problem, then this may not work, you could look at the Tamron 50-400. It's an amazing lens, sharp from end to end, considerably smaller and lighter than the others, and costs less. I use it all the time, thousands of shots, and it never disappoints. But 400 may not be long enough for you.  FWIW, I have the 200-600. It gets taken out about 3 times a year, while the 50-400 goes with me every time. If you go with one of the larger lenses, plan on using a monopod just to help with supporting it for a few hours.     
    • Some questions to help you formulate the answer to your own question: In what sense do you feel your 70-350 is lacking? What do you hope to gain from this 'upgrade'? What % of your shots are in the 70-200 range? If this % is significant, the 200-600 is not an option unless you carry two cameras or don't mind lens swapping. What % of your shots is at 350mm and potentially could have benefitted from more reach? Do you need high resolution shots or is cropping in post an option to fix your compositions? Would carrying a lens over twice as big and over 3 times as heavy have a negative impact on your photography (think of fun, mobility, physical strain, packing volume)?
  • Topics

×
×
  • Create New...