Find me a $300-$400 camera with best color accuracy

[iKingRPG]

I need something that can shoot good color at least equal to/better than high end smartphones. Resolution varies. Also something that handles light good and let's you manually adjust the iso. Feel free to ask questions. Thanks!

[cc143]

What do you mean by handles light well? Like high iso performance? 

 

If that is not a concern and colour accuracy is the most importsnt aspect, then a used 5d (mk1) should be your best bet. 

 

Or alternatively, just buy the cheapest Canon dslr off ebay you can find, since if you go crop, you will probably get something newer and be able to afford some decent glass as well.

 

Failing that, used fuji xt10 or xpro 1 with an 18-55mm should be doable...

[iKingRPG]

5 hours ago, cc143 said:

What do you mean by handles light well? Like high iso performance? 

 

If that is not a concern and colour accuracy is the most importsnt aspect, then a used 5d (mk1) should be your best bet. 

 

Or alternatively, just buy the cheapest Canon dslr off ebay you can find, since if you go crop, you will probably get something newer and be able to afford some decent glass as well.

 

Failing that, used fuji xt10 or xpro 1 with an 18-55mm should be doable...

Yeah but I don't just mean high iso performance. Something that actually can take sharp photos when on high iso like night but not too dark. Thanks for the recommendations I will look into them.

[IronMan77]

If $400 is really your maximum budget then the Nikon D3400 kit with 18-55mm lens, currently $399 on Amazon. 

[cc143]

23 hours ago, iKingRPG said:

Yeah but I don't just mean high iso performance. Something that actually can take sharp photos when on high iso like night but not too dark. Thanks for the recommendations I will look into them.

Well the best thing around for that would probably be some used FF sony, like original a7s, but I rather doubt it would fit in your budget. Glass is pretty damn expensive as well. 

 

The d750 is a great low light performer, and prices have been coming down, also nikon f is the 2nd most common lens mount, so there's some pretty decent choices out there. but still waaay too much for 

 

I'd recommend you go Canon for anything in the d3400/d5600 range, and nikon if you don't need video for everything else at the moment, although, Canon's  glass is cheaper and honestly modern bodies are waaay too good these days, so neat picking over differences makes no sense. 

 

Another option could be an a6000, but I'm not so sure about the colour accuracy. 

[Bustapalapeno]

On 11/12/2018 at 10:28 AM, cc143 said:

Well the best thing around for that would probably be some used FF sony, like original a7s, but I rather doubt it would fit in your budget. Glass is pretty damn expensive as well. 

 

The d750 is a great low light performer, and prices have been coming down, also nikon f is the 2nd most common lens mount, so there's some pretty decent choices out there. but still waaay too much for 

 

I'd recommend you go Canon for anything in the d3400/d5600 range, and nikon if you don't need video for everything else at the moment, although, Canon's  glass is cheaper and honestly modern bodies are waaay too good these days, so neat picking over differences makes no sense. 

 

Another option could be an a6000, but I'm not so sure about the colour accuracy. 

Sony’s color science from that generation puts a little too much green in the skin tones. However, this is a very minor thing that only photography nerds will notice. Basically any “real’ camera is going to be very color accurate. Pretty much none of them boost saturation or do HDR effects except in special modes. Any camera you get will have very good color. Missing your white balance will make a 1000x bigger effect on color accuracy than differences between cameras. 

[cc143]

24 minutes ago, Bustapalapeno said:

Sony’s color science from that generation puts a little too much green in the skin tones. However, this is a very minor thing that only photography nerds will notice. Basically any “real’ camera is going to be very color accurate. Pretty much none of them boost saturation or do HDR effects except in special modes. Any camera you get will have very good color. Missing your white balance will make a 1000x bigger effect on color accuracy than differences between cameras. 

You usually have quite a bit of leeway when shooting RAW to correct for WB so long as lighting isn't too difficult and you are not that far off. What I'd mostly be worried about is noise patterns in high ISOs, I have always preferred Canon's rendering of noise in that regard because it gives a purpleish magenta noise vs say Nikon, which may sometimes have a bit more dynamic range, 1-2 stops and noise will be less, but I remember the pattern being much more visible because of the way it is rendered. That said, I've heard the opposite from people who shoot nikon a lot, so it could be a get used to it sort of thing. I guess it would depend on the scenario too, for concerts and clubs I always preferred my Canons, even though noise appears in much lower ISOs than other brands. 

 

I'm also not too sure about the rendering of skin tones, yes you can correct in post, but I find that the tone is easier to work with and more flattering on Canon sensors, the way Sony for example renders the tones there's a bit too much contrast in the colours on the skin, which in my experience makes post processing more difficult, but it could be better for monochromes. I have found that with Canon and Fuji which I have sho t most extensivly, the workflow is pretty similar and if you for any reason need to shoot jpgs or video without grading the workflow in post is pretty fine. 

[Bustapalapeno]

21 hours ago, cc143 said:

You usually have quite a bit of leeway when shooting RAW to correct for WB so long as lighting isn't too difficult and you are not that far off. What I'd mostly be worried about is noise patterns in high ISOs, I have always preferred Canon's rendering of noise in that regard because it gives a purpleish magenta noise vs say Nikon, which may sometimes have a bit more dynamic range, 1-2 stops and noise will be less, but I remember the pattern being much more visible because of the way it is rendered. That said, I've heard the opposite from people who shoot nikon a lot, so it could be a get used to it sort of thing. I guess it would depend on the scenario too, for concerts and clubs I always preferred my Canons, even though noise appears in much lower ISOs than other brands. 

 

I'm also not too sure about the rendering of skin tones, yes you can correct in post, but I find that the tone is easier to work with and more flattering on Canon sensors, the way Sony for example renders the tones there's a bit too much contrast in the colours on the skin, which in my experience makes post processing more difficult, but it could be better for monochromes. I have found that with Canon and Fuji which I have sho t most extensivly, the workflow is pretty similar and if you for any reason need to shoot jpgs or video without grading the workflow in post is pretty fine. 

If you are shooting raw, none of this talk about color science matters at all. “Color science” pretty much applies exclusively to JPEG processing. When you are looking at RAW, the differences between bayer filter designs and signal processing between cameras is so extremely minimal it basically doesn’t matter. The one exception is the scenario @cc143 mentioned of high ISO noise and banding discoloration. @iKingRPG, if you plan on shooting RAW files, pretty much nothing from this thread about color accuracy matters. That has been my experience. 

[YellowJersey]

@cc143 Yep, nothing I can add to that.

 

 Also consider getting a colour checker card so you can match colours in post. https://www.xrite.com/categories/calibration-profiling/colorchecker-passport-photo

[iKingRPG]

On 11/15/2018 at 4:03 PM, Bustapalapeno said:

If you are shooting raw, none of this talk about color science matters at all. “Color science” pretty much applies exclusively to JPEG processing. When you are looking at RAW, the differences between bayer filter designs and signal processing between cameras is so extremely minimal it basically doesn’t matter. The one exception is the scenario @cc143 mentioned of high ISO noise and banding discoloration. @iKingRPG, if you plan on shooting RAW files, pretty much nothing from this thread about color accuracy matters. That has been my experience. 

i might just me confused, but ok so i mean if i am taking a picture of someone in a dim room next to a window, the iso lowers for the bright window, and makes the person darker. this is an issue when recording in a car. I am considering a Sony Alpha a6000. Sorry if i wasn't using the right words before.

[Bustapalapeno]

So this is a metering issue. On a camera, and even on most smart phones, you can set it so that the camera adjusts the brightness for a particular point. So on your phone, just tap on the person's face, and the window will turn white while their face is exposed properly. This is called spot metering. The alternative is to change the camera settings manually to adjust the brightness. Again, smartphones can do this to some extent with "pro" camera apps. 

 

The problem is that cameras can only "see" a certain range of brightness. When part of the scene is very dark, and part of it is very bright, it can't see both, so it picks one. More expensive cameras have a wider range. You can also use HDR or Exposure bracketing to get a wider effective range. 

 

Even a "real" camera like the a6000 won't be able to make a good image right away from that kind of scenario. You will have to bracket, or pick which part of the scene to expose for.

[cc143]

12 minutes ago, iKingRPG said:

i might just me confused, but ok so i mean if i am taking a picture of someone in a dim room next to a window, the iso lowers for the bright window, and makes the person darker. this is an issue when recording in a car. I am considering a Sony Alpha a6000. Sorry if i wasn't using the right words before.

Well that is not a problem with colour reproduction but with exposure, you have a backlit subject and are using evaluative metering, which causes the camera to meter for the brightest thing in the frame essentially, making the exposure such that the subject is underexposed. 

 

If you are using auto iso while taking stills, the way around that is by using spot metering, or focus point metering depending on if that is available on the camera and locking exposure if you need to focus again. 

 

If you are shooting video, the only way to do that is to use manual focus as far as I`m aware. I`m not sure if the metering system will work in the same way in video, you could also use exposure compensation, but then you are better off exposing manually anyway. 

 

I have owned the a6000 and can`t but advise against it, although I`m sure others will disagree, in my experience it was not usable. You would be better off using an entry level dslr. I persnoally far preferred using my 50d or even my 350d to that thing. Ergonomics are impossible, battery life is non existent, menus overly complicated, the kit lens abominable, you can`t adapt because no adapter works well with the damn sensor, the native lenses are way too expensive in comparison to the competition, the evf leaves much to be desired. That`s just off the top of my head. On paper it looks great, in the real world, I`d rather go with a 15 year old dslr. 

[iKingRPG]

1 minute ago, Bustapalapeno said:

So this is a metering issue. On a camera, and even on most smart phones, you can set it so that the camera adjusts the brightness for a particular point. So on your phone, just tap on the person's face, and the window will turn white while their face is exposed properly. This is called spot metering. The alternative is to change the camera settings manually to adjust the brightness. Again, smartphones can do this to some extent with "pro" camera apps. 

 

The problem is that cameras can only "see" a certain range of brightness. When part of the scene is very dark, and part of it is very bright, it can't see both, so it picks one. More expensive cameras have a wider range. You can also use HDR or Exposure bracketing to get a wider effective range. 

 

Even a "real" camera like the a6000 won't be able to make a good image right away from that kind of scenario. You will have to bracket, or pick which part of the scene to expose for.

Ok. So does this have to do with something in the lens, sensor, or how it processes it? I don't know much about cameras. You could take one image dark and one light and edit them together but idk if it would turn out good or be confusing to look at with different lightings... I could also take HDR image and lighten in photoshop but ehh.. I'm looking for something that does good in the first place and has capability of shooting RAW.

[cc143]

1 hour ago, iKingRPG said:

Ok. So does this have to do with something in the lens, sensor, or how it processes it? I don't know much about cameras. You could take one image dark and one light and edit them together but idk if it would turn out good or be confusing to look at with different lightings... I could also take HDR image and lighten in photoshop but ehh.. I'm looking for something that does good in the first place and has capability of shooting RAW.

No its simply how the camera will expose for that particular image. You need to bracket if the difference in exposure is extreme and you want to use more of the dynamic range, which is essentially how an HDR image will work, you will take a number of exposures at different exposure settings, say ISO100, 200, 400 and 600 and combine them in post to get the entire dynamic range in the scene. 

 

When you use your camera to automatically expose, it will evaluate the scene and decide upon the oprimal exposure settings to get the majority of the scene exposed. The problem is that in contrasting light, like a subject with the light source directly behind them, if the difference in lighting is too much, the camera will have to average it or try to expose for the light source. 

 

To get around that you must have the camera expose for the subject rather than the entire scene, which is done using spot metering, i.e. the exposure is set according to the lighting in a particular spot of the image, i.e. your subject. 

 

Most cameras now actually have a wide dynamic range, enough so that by decreasing the highlights and boosting the shadows you can get a lot of the lighting in the scene, but that won't work if the difference is too extreme. In that case, you bracket, i.e. take multiple exposures at different exposure settings and combine them to achieve a higher dynamic range. 

[Bustapalapeno]

5 hours ago, iKingRPG said:

Ok. So does this have to do with something in the lens, sensor, or how it processes it? I don't know much about cameras. You could take one image dark and one light and edit them together but idk if it would turn out good or be confusing to look at with different lightings... I could also take HDR image and lighten in photoshop but ehh.. I'm looking for something that does good in the first place and has capability of shooting RAW.

To continue with what @cc143 said, there basically is no camera with which you can take a picture of a person in front of a bright window, and have it come out looking good without significant editing. Pretty much all cameras with interchangable lenses will shoot RAW

[LyondellBasell]

On 11/27/2018 at 4:07 PM, iKingRPG said:

Ok. So does this have to do with something in the lens, sensor, or how it processes it? I don't know much about cameras. You could take one image dark and one light and edit them together but idk if it would turn out good or be confusing to look at with different lightings... I could also take HDR image and lighten in photoshop but ehh.. I'm looking for something that does good in the first place and has capability of shooting RAW.

Just to further what cc and Busta have said: in the scenario you've given (and in all scenarios) it's not so much about having a camera "that does good in the first place".

Any camera will do exactly what you tell it to.

I understand you're a beginner at photography. Pick up an entry level DSLR like a t5i or a t6i, and learn to use the priority modes and manual settings.

 

To get a good picture out of what you're describing, you need to expose properly for your subject. Whether this is done automatically through choice of metering mode, or manually via selection of the correct shutter speed, is up to you. One of the things I enjoy most about photography is learning how the different levels of light can affect my end result, and how to use these levels artistically.

 

Pick up a budget camera, and experiment, and learn. The end result is satisfying and fun! Your best piece of gear is your mind.

[iKingRPG]

On 12/5/2018 at 1:13 AM, LyondellBasell said:

Just to further what cc and Busta have said: in the scenario you've given (and in all scenarios) it's not so much about having a camera "that does good in the first place".

Any camera will do exactly what you tell it to.

I understand you're a beginner at photography. Pick up an entry level DSLR like a t5i or a t6i, and learn to use the priority modes and manual settings.

 

To get a good picture out of what you're describing, you need to expose properly for your subject. Whether this is done automatically through choice of metering mode, or manually via selection of the correct shutter speed, is up to you. One of the things I enjoy most about photography is learning how the different levels of light can affect my end result, and how to use these levels artistically.

 

Pick up a budget camera, and experiment, and learn. The end result is satisfying and fun! Your best piece of gear is your mind.

This might sound dumb, but for my project (me making a comedy skit with my family) should I rent an arri Alexa or a red camera or are they too complicated?

[LyondellBasell]

24 minutes ago, iKingRPG said:

This might sound dumb, but for my project (me making a comedy skit with my family) should I rent an arri Alexa or a red camera or are they too complicated?

I think, given the material you'll be filming and the intended method of publishing, an Alexa is overkill. I don't even know that you'd be able to rent an Alexa mini, lens, tripod, batteries, etc. for less than $1500/day.

 

Let's pull back on the scope.

 

Go watch DSLRGuide on YouTube. His video "cinematic film look on a DSLR" is filmed on a Canon t3i.

I'm not saying that's what you need to buy, but I think it's a perfect demonstration that you need to focus far less on the camera and more on learning photography/cinematography. 

[cc143]

17 hours ago, iKingRPG said:

This might sound dumb, but for my project (me making a comedy skit with my family) should I rent an arri Alexa or a red camera or are they too complicated?

So hang on, you don't know how to properly expose, but you believe you can work a cinema camera properly and are willing to bet $1000 on it? 

 

are you trolling us right now or are you being serious?

[iKingRPG]

7 hours ago, cc143 said:

So hang on, you don't know how to properly expose, but you believe you can work a cinema camera properly and are willing to bet $1000 on it? 

 

are you trolling us right now or are you being serious?

I was being serious I figured I could watch a YouTube vid or something cuz ive seen for 50 rental for a Alexa. That's why I was asking if it is too complicated. Sorry if I sound stupid

[cc143]

1 hour ago, iKingRPG said:

I was being serious I figured I could watch a YouTube vid or something cuz ive seen for 50 rental for a Alexa. That's why I was asking if it is too complicated. Sorry if I sound stupid

Gear makes no difference if you don't know how to use it. An Alexa is a complex cinema camera, that only makes sense in high production value projects. Even people who actually know how to use it probably wouldn't in such a project because its impractical. 

 

You are trying to fly a bloody space shuttle and don't even know how a kite works! Get a cheap camera that does what you need, learn how to use it properly and you'll get much better results than if you go out and rent an Alexa, unless the 50 includes an entire film crew with it.