Thanks for your replies.
If you kept one of the dslrs, you could take some photos under controlled conditions and determine what the difference if any is.
Yes, but I got rid of them a long time ago. I'm a big fan of mirrorless systems - there's no going back for me.
I moved from the 6D Mark II to the R5 and for me the images from the R5 are fantastic IMO. I process them in Lightroom.
That's a big leap, a big improvement. I've never had a 6D mark II. I've had many, many Canon cameras: 350d, 400d, 450d, 80d, 5d mark II, 6d, R, RP, and now R5 - hey, I still have the best shots from all of those cameras in the Lightroom cloud, so I can compare certain colors/tones. Obviously, this isn't a one-to-one comparison of the same shot from the same conditions.
If you’re using RAW images, I recommend using the profiles from colorfidelity, formerly known as huelight. They make the result really close to what DPP4 or the in-camera JPEGs will give you.
The default Adobe colours for Canon cameras released the past 6 years have not been to my liking, the R5 profile was kinda OK, but the M6II and R7 profiles turn my kids into zombies. CF profiles remove the undead pallor from their skintone
I will consider buying these profiles (I wonder what they are made of).
I once owned a Fuji GFX100S. Loved the camera and the resolution, but if you frequently change lenses outdoors do realize that the original GFX100S did not cover the sensor when powered off. Maybe Fuji provides this feature in the updated version, but I would check to ensure if such a feature is important to you.
Yes, I change lenses often, and with such a small focal length coverage on the GFX I would probably do it more often. I am aware of the lack of a sensor cover (and a larger one at that) when changing lenses - it is quite a big inconvenience.
I'm buying an XT-4, 16 1.4 and 56 1.4 for an upcoming trip. I have no plans to fully dive into the lens lineup, Canon has me covered there. I just don't want to buy a smaller full-frame RF camera, as I keep my R6 for diving. The RF APS-C offerings just don't work for me, and the that fuji kit can be had very affordably through MPB if you buy the well used stuff.
The GFX side of things, every month I build a kit on B&H for both Fuji and Hasselblad, I have dreams and desires and then I look at what the cart costs.
Rinse and repeat... now, I'm probably going to be doing it again today... thanks for that.
Hah. I realize the huge costs of these systems. I would probably have to get rid of the R5 and lenses to be able to afford it. I'm afraid of that, because it's a one-way street.
I've been thinking about the Sony A6700 and 10-20 mm recently, as a smaller camera that I could have with me in most situations.
I too absolutely like the R5 II's colors (LR Classic).
Well, I even downloaded files from R5 mark II and I see that it has better, improved colors in my opinion, but its cost does not justify the change. This is the cost for which I almost have GFX 100s II. I downloaded files from different cameras and tried to process them. I don't know what it is (a larger sensor or more bits of color?) but when processing photos with GFX they are subject to greater manipulation without artificial colors coming out. For example, when I boost vibrance in full frame cameras quite quickly blue or magenta, green look strange and artificial. In the case of GFX colors can be boosted but it looks much more natural, as if we were pouring water into a deeper container.
So, you'd rather switch camera systems rather than software systems?
My quick thought would be to try the recent version of DPP and then also try DXO or CaptureOne.
Or updating to the R5 II (or R1 or R6 II, etc)? Each Canon camera has slightly different colors. It is odd to me when people talk about "Canon Colors" as if it is ubiquitous consistent thing. I have seen core color shifts with each camera, most noticeably from the 5DIII to 5DIV (which favored blue/greens comparatively). I have already seen side by sides of the R5 vs R5 II and the R5 II is different. I actually might prefer the core colors out of the R5 II (as an R5 owner, that hurts a bit). This guy seems to be popping up in my feed all of a sudden, but I did watch his comparison of the R5 II and R5. He does note a color
shift in the landscape, I actually see more of a difference in the proceeding
portrait comparison, which he said were the same.
The colors in DPP are better (this confirms that it's not just the camera but the Lightroom profiles), but this program is unusable due to its slowness.
I thought about medium format some time ago. These sensors have an incredible ability to edit, extract details from complete black shadows. I think that sometimes one photo can replace the bracketing process in landscape photography. But the main reason is the colors.
