• 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 / a7RIII / Comparing a7RIII, D850, and D5 sensitivity

Comparing a7RIII, D850, and D5 sensitivity

July 29, 2018 JimK 5 Comments

This is one in a series of posts on the Sony a7RIII. 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 “a7RIII”. This post is equally about the Nikon D850. You can get to the other posts about that camera in the same way;  just look for “D850”.

In the last post, I compared the shadow noise performance of the Nikon D850 and Sony a7RIII. I did so looking at the set ISO, and made the implicit assumption that the two camera’s sensitivities corresponded to the camera-set ISO. But is that true? I decided to find out. I took an Otus 55/1.4, set it to f/4, and mounted it to the D850 and the a7RIII in turn. I also threw in the D5. Full disclosure. I use my D850 with the grip. I picked up the D5 thinking it was the D850, mounted the lens, clipped it into the tripod, set it up, and tripped the shutter. Only when I went to open up the memory card door did I realize my error. I made a series of exposures at ISO 100 and half a second with all three cameras. I brought the raw files into RawDigger and looked at the mean green channel signals in one small area in the images. Then I calculated what that said about the relative sensitivities of the three cameras.

At the same ISO setting, the D5 is about 1/6 stop less sensitive than the a7RIII. At the same ISO setting, the D850 is almost 1/3 stop more sensitive than the a7RIII. Compared to the a7RIII, the base ISO of the D850 is about 1/3 stop different, not the 2/3 stop you’d think if you just looked at the numbers on the cameras.

Some caveats:

  • I don’t know which camera has the most accurate ISO setting. In fact, as far as I’m concerned, what with all the ways a manufacturer can rate the ISO sensitivities of sensors, I’m not sure that question has much meaning.
  • Sample space of one of each camera. ‘Nuff said.
  • Controls for the experiment were not perfect. Only one exposure per camera.
  • I only looked at the green channel. That may not be a good stand-in for the sensitivities of the red and blue channels.

 

 

a7RIII, D850

← Comparing a7RIII and D850 shadow noise vs ISO setting Goodbye to the darkroom sink →

Comments

  1. CarVac says

    July 30, 2018 at 5:13 am

    Is this sensitivity with respect to DNs? Or relative to highlight clipping?

    Reply
    • JimK says

      July 30, 2018 at 8:13 am

      As it turns out, with these cameras the difference between those two measures is immaterial. Nikon does WB prescaling, so I’d have to think about how to deal with some of those issues had I used the red and blue channels.

      Reply
      • Jack Hogan says

        August 4, 2018 at 6:30 am

        How about checking SNR^2 around 1-5% of full scale at base ISO? That should give us an approximate signal in e-, sidestepping gain issues.

        Reply
  2. Vic Buhay says

    September 18, 2018 at 9:55 am

    Other than the resolution, are your results above just an adjustment of the slope of the amplifier – different gains on each of the sensor amplifiers?

    Reply
    • JimK says

      September 18, 2018 at 10:31 am

      When the manufacturers pick the base-ISO gain for a camera, they base it on including as much of the well capacity as they can while obtaining sufficient linearity. If they make the gain too high, images have too much photon noise. If they make it too low, there is unacceptable nonlinearity before the ADC clips.

      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 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
  • Ivo de Man 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.