• 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 / a7RIV / Chromaticity shifts with the a7RIV, Z7, and GFX 100

Chromaticity shifts with the a7RIV, Z7, and GFX 100

March 13, 2020 JimK Leave a Comment

Yesterday, I reported on test shots of both the Macbeth Colorchecker 24-patch target (the CC24), and the Colorchecker SG 140-patch target (CCSG), made with the following setup:

  • Sony a7RIV, Nikon Z7, Fujifilm GFX 100
  • Zony 55, Nikon 24-70/2.8 Z-mount lens, Fuji 120 mm f/4 macro
  • Godox/Flashpoint AD600 Pro strobes, set to 1/64 power.
  • 12-inch reflectors
  • 45-degree strobe angle
  • Base ISO
  • f/11 – f/16
  • Foba camera stand
  • Arca Swiss C1

One of the findings was that, with the Lumariver 2.5 D reproduction profile, the average error was around one-and-a half Delta-E 2000 with the Z7 and a7RIV, and about twice that with the GFX 100.

Today I’m going to take that same data and slice it a different way, looking at the chromaticity shifts of all three cameras when paired with each other. I’ll use the profiles created using the ColorChecker SG target. The sample set is the CC24. In all cases, the white circles are the reference values, which I obtained by measuring the CC24 target that I photographed with an X-Rite i1Pro 1D.

One thing that jumps right out in the above CIELab plot is how, especially in the yellows and cyans, the Nikon and the Sony are quite close to each other. There’s a systematic difference in the blues, where the a7RIV shifts a bit away from magenta.

In the yellows, blues, and cyans, the GFX shifts take their general direction the same way as the Z7, but the shifts are more pronounced for the Fuji.

Since the Z7 and the a7RIV are closer to each other than to the GFX 100, the bottom plot looks a lot like the middle one.

Addendum:

Here’s how the cameras look compared to each other without regard for the actual spectrophotometer-read values:

The Z7 and the a7RIV are remarkably close to each other, as shown by the last column.

a7RIV, GFX 100, Nikon Z6/7

← Camera differences in color profile making Sony 20mm f/1.8 focus curvature →

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Your email address will not be published.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.