• site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge

the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

You are here: Home / The Last Word / a7II self-heating for long exposures

a7II self-heating for long exposures

August 17, 2015 JimK 1 Comment

In this post, we saw a pronounced self heating effect in the dark noise of successive 30-second exposures with the Sony a7RII. I repeated the test with the predecessor camera, the a7R, and found far less effect.

A reader postulated that the difference might be lower thermal conductivity between the sensor and the camera chassis because of the in-body image stabilization (IBIS) in the a7RII.  That made sense to me, so I thought that I’d run a test with the A7II, which also has IBIS, to see if it showed radical increases in dark-field noise when operated to produce long sequences of 30 second exposures.

I set the camera’s shutter speed to 30 seconds, which is as long as it will go. I set the shutter mode to single shot.  I set the ISO to 3200, which is higher than I’d use myself, but seems to be some kind of astrophotography standard. I hooked the camera to an intervalometer that was set to 1 second, so that would be the greatest time interval between exposures. I turned off lens corrections amd IBIS. I turned off long exposure noise reduction.  I stopped the lens down to f/22 and affixed the lens cap. I made 140 exposures.

I measured the standard deviation of a central 400×400 pixel sample:

 

 

a7ii 30 sec seqa

[Note: the original curve set posted was inadvertently done at ISO 800, Thanks to Horshack from DPR for pointing out the error.]

The effect is less pronounced than with the a7RII, 0.8 stops on this curve vs 1.4 or 1.5 on the a7RII curve. It looks like the difference is either between the characteristics of the sensor in the a7RII being different from those in the a7R and a7II, or the fact that the a7RII puts out more heat. Since the battery life is more-or-less the same, I’m betting on the former.

Here’s something that’s interesting. It doesn’t relate to the main point of these tests, but it may indicate a caveat for the test method. When I first ran the above sequence, I picked up an a7II that had been modified for infrared photography without realizing it. I got these curves:

sh a7II 30 IR

Notice the increased noise in the red channel. I went back and looked at the sample images. The channel discrepancy varies with the location of the 400×400 sample square in the frame. The camera is making an image of something, but I can’t tell what. Looking at the demosaiced image doesn’t help much.

_DSC0015

At this point, this is a mystery to me.

[The material below was added later]

Horshack, from DPR, analyzed the raw files from the IR camera and discovered that the source in the variation of the sigma levels was do to a population of hot pixels. The red ones happened to dominate in the 400×400 sample region chosen. I still don’t know why this camera has so many hot pixels.

The Last Word

← a7R self-heating for long exposures Comparing a7RII and a7II long exposure self heating →

Comments

  1. JG says

    August 17, 2015 at 5:39 pm

    Kirlian photography, perhaps? If so, perhaps Steve Huff might be able to shed some (ahem) light on this for you…

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

May 2025
S M T W T F S
 123
45678910
11121314151617
18192021222324
25262728293031
« Apr    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
    • How to shoot slanted edge images for me
  • Lens screening testing
    • Equipment and Software
    • Examples
      • Bad and OK 200-600 at 600
      • Excellent 180-400 zoom
      • Fair 14-30mm zoom
      • Good 100-200 mm MF zoom
      • Good 100-400 zoom
      • Good 100mm lens on P1 P45+
      • Good 120mm MF lens
      • Good 18mm FF lens
      • Good 24-105 mm FF lens
      • Good 24-70 FF zoom
      • Good 35 mm FF lens
      • Good 35-70 MF lens
      • Good 60 mm lens on IQ3-100
      • Good 63 mm MF lens
      • Good 65 mm FF lens
      • Good 85 mm FF lens
      • Good and bad 25mm FF lenses
      • Good zoom at 24 mm
      • Marginal 18mm lens
      • Marginal 35mm FF lens
      • Mildly problematic 55 mm FF lens
      • OK 16-35mm zoom
      • OK 60mm lens on P1 P45+
      • OK Sony 600mm f/4
      • Pretty good 16-35 FF zoom
      • Pretty good 90mm FF lens
      • Problematic 400 mm FF lens
      • Tilted 20 mm f/1.8 FF lens
      • Tilted 30 mm MF lens
      • Tilted 50 mm FF lens
      • Two 15mm FF lenses
    • Found a problem – now what?
    • Goals for this test
    • Minimum target distances
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Printable Siemens Star targets
    • Target size on sensor
      • MFT
      • APS-C
      • Full frame
      • Small medium format
    • Test instructions — postproduction
    • Test instructions — reading the images
    • Test instructions – capture
    • Theory of the test
    • What’s wrong with conventional lens screening?
  • Previsualization heresy
  • Privacy Policy
  • Recommended photographic web sites
  • Using in-camera histograms for ETTR
    • Acknowledgments
    • Why ETTR?
    • Normal in-camera histograms
    • Image processing for in-camera histograms
    • Making the in-camera histogram closely represent the raw histogram
    • Shortcuts to UniWB
    • Preparing for monitor-based UniWB
    • A one-step UniWB procedure
    • The math behind the one-step method
    • Iteration using Newton’s Method

Category List

Recent Comments

  • JimK on How Sensor Noise Scales with Exposure Time
  • Štěpán Kaňa on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Štěpán Kaňa on How Sensor Noise Scales with Exposure Time
  • JimK on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Geofrey on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • JimK on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Geofrey on Calculating reach for wildlife photography
  • Javier Sanchez on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • Mike MacDonald on Your photograph looks like a painting?
  • Mike MacDonald on Your photograph looks like a painting?

Archives

Copyright © 2025 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.