gdanmitchell wrote:
I know that, at least in the obvious x-trans case, the filter array is different. I’m not so sure that is (or is not) the case with, say, Nikon where the Bayer array is used.
I’m also perplexed by how the other companies would theoretically (in the case of Fujifilm miniMF and Nikon FF at least) somehow have significantly better color filter arrays than Sony, who actually designs and builds the sensors… or that somehow different sensor cover glass would diminish Sony’s performance by not that of Fujifilm’s and Nikon’s Bayer sensor applications.
I’m also not impressed that the poster did not respond to my question.
For the moment, count be as skeptical about all of this. (It is all too easy to throw up a whole bunch of semi-incomprehensible “data” along with a lot of technical sounding writing and have it accepted uncritically by readers.)...Show more →
The links provided are fairly short reads and if you just want the down and dirty, take a look at the last link. Many times, my editing style works against preserving subtle tonal differences and keeping things realistic isn’t always my primary focus, but I suspect that this is pretty important when it comes to depicting skin tones, where we seem to be tuned into what skin looks like and painfully aware of when images diverge from our experience.
May 25, 2026 at 10:38 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
gdanmitchell wrote:
I know that, at least in the obvious x-trans case, the filter array is different. I’m not so sure that is (or is not) the case with, say, Nikon where the Bayer array is used.
I’m also perplexed by how the other companies would theoretically (in the case of Fujifilm miniMF and Nikon FF at least) somehow have significantly better color filter arrays than Sony, who actually designs and builds the sensors… or that somehow different sensor cover glass would diminish Sony’s performance by not that of Fujifilm’s and Nikon’s Bayer sensor applications.
I’m also not impressed that the poster did not respond to my question.
For the moment, count be as skeptical about all of this. (It is all too easy to throw up a whole bunch of semi-incomprehensible “data” along with a lot of technical sounding writing and have it accepted uncritically by readers.)...Show more →
Dan I share your skepticism especially when the poster seems to be part of the company that sells color profiles and does the testing. Any company that sells color profiles has an incentive to suggest that color separation/fidelity may be a problem. When data is being presenting by people who have a commercial interest in how the data is interpreted there is reason to be especially skeptical. In the camera world that is why I am more skeptical of sensor analysis from DXO, who has a commercial interest in selling software than I am of photons to photos that as far as I can tell has no commercial interest.
That said, I think Sony's sensor division may allow camera companies to specify the CFA for the sensors they build and have in effect a custom CFA. It seems even more likely and it appears they allow custom sensor stack cover glass (that often filters certain wavelengths of light). These custom features specified by the camera company could affect color, and there may be as the poster noted tradeoffs. One company may tradeoff a bit of color separation for a bit better high ISO performance and these may be related so that better color separation shows up in a cost to high ISO perforance. For example, it is possible that Nikon picks a CFA that slightly improves color separation and reduces high ISO performance. I don't know if that is actually happening but it is possible. If it does happen, however, we are talking very subtle and small shifts that probably matter only in a very small percentage of instances. Modern cameras mostly perform quite similarly. So, small differences are possible, but large ones doesn't at all fit with my experiencing of using many different camera company's products.
gdanmitchell wrote:
I know that, at least in the obvious x-trans case, the filter array is different. I’m not so sure that is (or is not) the case with, say, Nikon where the Bayer array is used.
I’m also perplexed by how the other companies would theoretically (in the case of Fujifilm miniMF and Nikon FF at least) somehow have significantly better color filter arrays than Sony, who actually designs and builds the sensors… or that somehow different sensor cover glass would diminish Sony’s performance by not that of Fujifilm’s and Nikon’s Bayer sensor applications.
I’m also not impressed that the poster did not respond to my question.
For the moment, count be as skeptical about all of this. (It is all too easy to throw up a whole bunch of semi-incomprehensible “data” along with a lot of technical sounding writing and have it accepted uncritically by readers.)...Show more →
On this topic of color I thought you might be interested in a comparison I recently did of Sony A7RV and Nikon Z8, both RAW files in Lightroom using Adobe Color profile and the eyedropper was used to equalize white balance. The test scene contains a wide variety of colors as well as expanses of neutrals. Each camera had its own system midrange zoom that I use for landscape work. Exposure in the center was equalized but the Sony has slightly brighter edges and corners because its lens profile applies more vignetting correction than does the Nikon lens profile.
Steve Spencer wrote:
That said, I think Sony's sensor division may allow camera companies to specify the CFA for the sensors they build and have in effect a custom CFA. It seems even more likely and it appears they allow custom sensor stack cover glass (that often filters certain wavelengths of light). These custom features specified by the camera company could affect color, and there may be as the poster noted tradeoffs.
BTW, there is some physical limitations for colour filters spectra. Like in the film era there was a limited version of dyes available for postive films and colour papers and chemicals. It should be able to sustain certain temperatures, manufacturing processes and many other conditions besided actual colour respose. So, it's not so easy -- just to choose arbitrary spectral response characteristic like you choose cheese in the supermarket.
Steve Spencer wrote:
One company may tradeoff a bit of color separation for a bit better high ISO performance and these may be related so that better color separation shows up in a cost to high ISO perforance. For example, it is possible that Nikon picks a CFA that slightly improves color separation and reduces high ISO performance. I don't know if that is actually happening but it is possible. If it does happen, however, we are talking very subtle and small shifts that probably matter only in a very small percentage of instances. Modern cameras mostly perform quite similarly. So, small differences are possible, but large ones doesn't at all fit with my experiencing of using many different camera company's products....Show more →
Oh, highest ranking D3 and D700 in the Cobalt websiter well-known for especially good noise performance (for 2008) not a colour.
Goodrich wrote:
What is your conclusion? One seems a little bit cooler than the other.
The nearest that Adobe produces to the camera manufacturer’s spec is Adobe Standard.
For my uses as a landscape photographer, and not a scientist taking measurements in a laboratory, the two are so close to each other that color is not a determining factor for me in choosing which one I shoot with.
Ross Martin wrote:
For my uses as a landscape photographer, and not a scientist taking measurements in a laboratory, the two are so close to each other that color is not a determining factor for me in choosing which one I shoot with.
Exactly.
I can sometimes see color differences between brands (and even models from the same brand) but they are small, don’t reflect one being better or worse, a dwarfed by the modifications we make in post and the variations in lighting, and can be largely negated by just using slightly different post-processing (raw conversion) settings.
Ross Martin wrote:
For my uses as a landscape photographer, and not a scientist taking measurements in a laboratory, the two are so close to each other that color is not a determining factor for me in choosing which one I shoot with.
I'm curious Ross, which one do you gravitate to and prefer to shoot at this point? In terms of ergonomics, features, RAW file flexibility, lenses, etc. I've noticed that you sold a bunch of Sony gear recently on the B&S board and then invested in the Nikon Z system. Now I see you have many Z system items for sale on the Nikon sell board. Are you planning to shoot both Sony and Nikon or going back to Sony? I'm always curious to hear your insights on gear.
Steve Spencer wrote:
That said, I think Sony's sensor division may allow camera companies to specify the CFA for the sensors they build and have in effect a custom CFA. It seems even more likely and it appears they allow custom sensor stack cover glass (that often filters certain wavelengths of light). These custom features specified by the camera company could affect color, and there may be as the poster noted tradeoffs.
I have no insider knowledge regarding Sony Semi operations. What I know for sure is that CFAs in the Sony A1 II and the Nikon Zf are probably identical. I took the camera profile made for the Nikon and modified it to work on the Sony, and now I get identical colors+curve in Lightroom for both cameras.
The Nikon's profiles work better as a starting point because they are closer to my subjective preferences. This saves me a ton of post-processing time and all my photos now have consistent look.
This is what "Adobe color" was supposed to be, but it's too bland and inconsistent across cameras for some reason.
Electronic shutter. I've read through this thread and watched/read the first wave of reviews and I still cannot get a clear sense of how improved the "stacked" sensor actually makes things. Surely that's the biggest single change.
Does it cure -- even mostly -- banding under artifical light, which made earlier electronic shutters useless for indoor use? With regard to motion distortion, is there a "feels like" shutter speed which would indicate the risk of distortion or blur. For example, if it takes 1/125 sec for the sensor scan to complete, would it be safe to use as you would do with a 1/125 mechanical shutter?
If anyone knows or can calculate would be interested to see. Otherwise, may just have to wait for the second wave of reviews once the camera is widely released.
This has to be the best review in regards to testing the capabilities of the camera so far.
I am so surprised by how much Sony got right on this release. The number of things the A7r series can't do keeps going down and seems to be only fast Sports basically.
This release I think puts Sony's leapfrog strategy into even clearer view. If the A7V is a 6 on speed and a 6 on resolution, the A1II a 10 on speed and a 10 on resolution, and the A9III a 12 on speed and a 3 on resolution, the A7RV was the inverse of the A9III. But now A7RVI is basically the A1II's numbers slightly shuffled.
That means they'll release the A9IV with 33mp, maybe slightly better compression modes for high speed, and all the doo-dads of the A7RVI. Once people adopt it, they'll release the A1III with a global shutter and a slight resolution bump. And then sell the A7V until the wheels fall off.
May 27, 2026 at 08:37 AM
Steve Spencer Offline • • • • • • • Upload & Sell: On
boblombardi wrote:
This release I think puts Sony's leapfrog strategy into even clearer view. If the A7V is a 6 on speed and a 6 on resolution, the A1II a 10 on speed and a 10 on resolution, and the A9III a 12 on speed and a 3 on resolution, the A7RV was the inverse of the A9III. But now A7RVI is basically the A1II's numbers slightly shuffled.
That means they'll release the A9IV with 33mp, maybe slightly better compression modes for high speed, and all the doo-dads of the A7RVI. Once people adopt it, they'll release the A1III with a global shutter and a slight resolution bump. And then sell the A7V until the wheels fall off....Show more →
Most of that I agree with but the Sony A7r VI would be a 6 on speed and a 12 on resolution. That is a nice bump up, but I see exactly zero evidence that the A7r VI is faster than the A7 V. For sensor scan speed the A7V is slightly (and practically probably trivially) faster, and of course we know on resolution the A7r VI is only a very small bump over the A7r V.
BigBabyMoses06 wrote:
I just want Sony to kill off the A1 lineup by making the A9R, 50mp, global shutter, do everything camera
I don't think they would kill off the a1 lineup if they make that camera. They would call it an A1 whatever model it is. I actually think they will make that camera and it will either be the A1 III or the A1 IV (maybe the A1 V), but I think they have some sensor development to do before they can release it. In time we will have global shutter cameras, probably for all lines of cameras.
BigBabyMoses06 wrote:
I just want Sony to kill off the A1 lineup by making the A9R, 50mp, global shutter, do everything camera
... and the next wave of complainers will immediately label it as "too slow for BIF!" and demand a next-next-gen A9 with 240fps continuous 16-bit RAW shooting. With flash sync too!
Seriously, we already have **serveral** do-everything cameras on the market. If someone feels they "need" something extra, that's just GAS-induced delusions speaking. Instead of getting a next-generation of whatever, I recommend a cold plunge instead.
It's funny you say that, I was going to say A7RVI was a 12 in resolution and 6 in speed, but didn't want to post so many numbers. But if the A9IV gets a resolution bump, it'll be the inversion in numbers of the A7RVI. At least that is the shell game they seem to be playing.
Steve Spencer wrote:
Most of that I agree with but the Sony A7r VI would be a 6 on speed and a 12 on resolution. That is a nice bump up, but I see exactly zero evidence that the A7r VI is faster than the A7 V. For sensor scan speed the A7V is slightly (and practically probably trivially) faster, and of course we know on resolution the A7r VI is only a very small bump over the A7r V.
Steve Spencer wrote:
I don't think they would kill off the a1 lineup if they make that camera. They would call it an A1 whatever model it is. I actually think they will make that camera and it will either be the A1 III or the A1 IV (maybe the A1 V), but I think they have some sensor development to do before they can release it. In time we will have global shutter cameras, probably for all lines of cameras.
Agreed.
The A9III is still top of the game for it's very specific use cases, namely pro sports and certain studio/lighting environments. Possibly BIF but I'd bet an A1II would be better here. Your kids sports game will be served just fine by basically any camera over the past little bit.
There is 1-2 generations of sensors before the A9 line and A1 line could _potentially_ merge. From a business perspective that might not make sense however as the folks who need the A9 capabilities may continue to need specialization that line pushes, whereas the A1 line is high end generalist that you can take from sports/action under bad LED lights, to back country landscapes, to BIF, to street photography. I am mildly skeptical they would merge the two though as an A9III shooter would likely feel a step back by moving to the A1II, and the inverse would also probably be true.
For the A7rVI though, it's a step forward and aligns on a central suite of capabilities across the "current gen Sony FF bodies" but getting out and shooting with what you have or spending $4500 on a class/clinic/trip would likely lead to better results than the upgrades in the rVI for most people.
