the last word

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

  • site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge
You are here: Home / a7III / Correcting a7III and Z6 shadow noise for sensitivity

Correcting a7III and Z6 shadow noise for sensitivity

April 19, 2019 By JimK 1 Comment

This is one in a series of posts on the Nikon Z6 and Z7. You should be able to find all the posts about that camera in the Category List on the right sidebar, below the Articles widget. There’s a drop-down menu there that you can use to get to all the posts in this series; just look for “Nikon Z6/7”. This post is also about the Sony a7III; it’s in the drop-down menu, too.

In the last post, I showed that the shadow noise characteristics of the Sony a7III and the Nikon Z6 were as similar as two peas in a pod. But the cameras have slightly different sensitivities. In the green raw channel, it takes about 10% more light to register the same brightness with the a7III than with the Z6. Can we correct the curves to represent that?

We can’t take the high road, which would be to use an ISO setting of 10% higher on the a7III than on the Z6, because the cameras don’t allow the level of precision. I think the next best thing would be to shift the horizontal axis of the less-sensitive camera’s points so that it moves 10% to the right.

Here’s a set of raw green channel uncorrected curves:

 

And here’s set with the a7III points corrected:

Not much difference, really.

Here’s a pair at ISO 8000. First, uncorrected:

And then corrected:

 

Except at ridiculously dark values, the corrected curves are right on top of each other. The changes are small enough that they are inconsequential, but this was something I had to check out.

← Sony a7III and Nikon Z6 shadow noise — numbers Choosing f-stops and focus distance for landscapes →

Comments

  1. Jack Hogan says

    April 19, 2019 at 11:44 pm

    I notice that there are still residual 0.1-0.2 stop differences in DR, which presumably could be a bit wider still around SNR = 1, say. How many pixels does log2( SNR) = 0 represent again?

    Such differences have been the cause of gladiator deaths in well known fora 🙂 Just kidding, I totally agree with you, this basically puts the discussion to rest.

    Jack

    Reply

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published.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

January 2021
S M T W T F S
 12
3456789
10111213141516
17181920212223
24252627282930
31  
« Dec    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
  • 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 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 Sony a7RIV with pixel-shift vs Fujifilm GFX 100
  • Ludwig Haskins on Sony a7RIV with pixel-shift vs Fujifilm GFX 100
  • Anthony New on Camera resolution and 4K viewing — summary
  • Ilya Zakharevich on Does repeated JPEG compression ruin images?
  • JimK on Does repeated JPEG compression ruin images?
  • JimK on Does repeated JPEG compression ruin images?
  • CarVac on Does repeated JPEG compression ruin images?
  • JimK on Detectability of visual signals below the noise
  • JimK on Does repeated JPEG compression ruin images?
  • Bill Claff on Detectability of visual signals below the noise

Archives

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.