• 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 / a7III / a7III, a7RIII, a7II, a7SII, a9 PDAF striping

a7III, a7RIII, a7II, a7SII, a9 PDAF striping

March 16, 2018 JimK 10 Comments

Rishi Sanyal of DPR made some test exposures of a centrally-positioned circular light source with several cameras: the Sony a7III, a7RIII, a7II, a7SII, and a9. In all cases, he used a Sony 85/1.8 wide open. The exposure was set to expose the light source sufficiently far so as to generate a lot of flare.

I put shots from all the cameras through my Matlab code that detects PDAF striping. I used different options and parameters than I’ve used before, so data from this series of tests should be compared only with other data from the same test.

Here are the results of my visual test, which puts detected stripes in the raw G channel into the sRGB blue plane, and the results from the  raw G2 channel into the sRGB red plane,

a7III

 

a7RIII

 

a9

 

a7II

 

a7SII

My conclusion: the a7III suffers from this defect about the same amount as the a7RIII and the a9, and a great deal more than the a7II and the a7SII. Since there have been few complaints (but not zero) about the a7RIII and a9 PDAF striping, I don’t think this is a big deal.

We can be a bit more quantitative:

a7III

 

a7RIII

 

a9

 

a7II

 

a7SII

 

Not a lot of difference among the a7III, a7RIII, and a9.

There’s not much to see in the red raw planes, so I’ll spare you those. I’ll also ignore the a7II and a7SII from here on in.

The other green raw plane:

a7III

 

a7RIII

 

a9

 

The a7RIII is slightly better.

The raw blue planes:

a7III

 

a7RIII

 

a9

 

Again, the a7RIII is a bit better. Rishi thinks that’s because it’s got more rows, but not more PDAF pixels. That sounds good to me.

In any event, I think this effect, while real, is something that will not damage images in most all a7III use cases.

 

a7III, a7RII, a7RIII, a9

← GFX FW 3.0 focus bracketing with the 120/4 macro Sony a7III PDAF striping vs aperture →

Comments

  1. CarVac says

    March 17, 2018 at 3:29 am

    Isn’t the A7ii supposed to have phase detect? Why is it completely immune?

    Reply
  2. Joe Fizer says

    March 24, 2018 at 11:31 am

    I am confused. What are you photographing and how will this effect my day to day shooting?

    Reply
    • JimK says

      March 24, 2018 at 11:37 am

      What are you photographing

      Rishi was photographing a studio LED light.

      and how will this [affect] my day to day shooting?

      Hard to say, at this point. Do you shoot into bright lights a lot?

      Reply
      • Joe Fizer says

        March 24, 2018 at 12:59 pm

        Sometimes doing street shooting at night.

        Reply
        • JimK says

          March 24, 2018 at 1:00 pm

          Have you seen any issues, now that you know what to look for?

          Reply
  3. ZaltysZ says

    March 25, 2018 at 2:57 am

    Can it be it is not solely PDAF related, but BSI+PDAF? Hence A7II being immune despite having PDAF.

    Reply
  4. Cliff says

    March 25, 2018 at 11:23 am

    a7ii has 117 PDAF points, a7Riii 399, while a9 and a7iii 693 That may have something to do with it, although BSI certainly is a variable.

    a6300/a6500 have 425 points on an APS-C sensor. If PDAF points are the culprit, it seems with the smaller sensor and resulting higher density of points it would stripe worse than the ff cameras.

    These cameras, and other Sonys also have varying numbers of on sensor CDAF points. Is there a reason they are not under consideration?

    Reply
    • JimK says

      March 25, 2018 at 11:55 am

      These cameras, and other Sonys also have varying numbers of on sensor CDAF points. Is there a reason they are not under consideration?

      CDAF pixels do not require masking nor interpolation, and seem to be unrelated to what we’re seeing here.

      Reply
      • Cliff says

        March 25, 2018 at 3:22 pm

        Thank you, and density on the a6300/a6500 fall below the a8/a7iii, they’re just smaller. Duh, my bad. Still, there are enough of them that testing one might illuminate the question of BSI causation.

        Reply
  5. Simeon Kolev says

    April 16, 2018 at 4:30 am

    I am curious about the A7rII because until now the only camera with serious problem was the A6000. It was so easy to create stripes with any lens. I have never seen this effect with the A7rII and A7rIII. I will test them more these days. Maybe with the Lens Turbo II adapter it will show it in real life much easier since the adapter rear element is pretty close to the sensor.

    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

  • bob lozano on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • DC Wedding Photographer on Goldilocks and the three flashes
  • Wedding Photographer in DC on The 16-Bit Fallacy: Why More Isn’t Always Better in Medium Format Cameras
  • JimK on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • Renjie Zhu on Fujifilm GFX 100S II precision
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • Ivo de Man on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF
  • JimK on Fuji 20-35/4 landscape field curvature at 23mm vs 23/4 GF

Archives

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

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.