• 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 / Nikon Z6/7 / More on Nikon Z7 EFCS exposure variation

More on Nikon Z7 EFCS exposure variation

January 15, 2022 JimK 2 Comments

In the previous post, I looked at how the electronic first-curtain shutter (EFCS) in the Nikon Z7 caused exposure differences from the top to the bottom of the frame. A reader pointed out that the optimum electronic first curtain timing depends on the lens exit pupil. I don’t have a lot of lenses that I can use with the oscilloscope that I used for yesterday’s post, and the results obtained from that test weren’t very quantitative. So I came up with a different test.

I aimed the camera at a backlit window shade and defocused it.

I brought the raw images into RawDigger, and selected some medium-sized areas at the very top and bottom of the images, in the center of the image as measured from left to right. I ran all the tests with EFCS on and a shutter speed of 1/2000 second, which is the highest shutter speed that Nikon allows for EFCS on the Z, and the worst case for exposure unevenness.

I made an exposure with the CV 125/2.5 wide open and focused at infinity. Then I focused the lens at 1:2, compensated approximately for the bellows factor with the ISO setting, and made a second exposure. As a test of the methodology, I made a shot with the lens set to 1:2 and the same ISO as the first shot.

Here’s what happened:

The results for the two images with the focus set to 1:2 are identical. That’s what I expected, but it’s always good to check. The results for each of the raw channels are identical. Also as expected. The ratio in stops between the top of the image and the bottom with the lens focused at infinity is 3.6. with the top brighter than the bottom. When the lens is focused at the closer distance, which moves the exit pupil away from the lens, the ratio in stops is 4.9. The CV 125 is a dumb (but excellent) lens, and therefor the camera has no way of knowing where the exit pupil is.

Next I tried a lens that, if the firmwares cares about it, should have a known exit pupil location, since it’s a native lens. I picked the (also excellent) Nikon 24-70/2.8 S. I tested it wide open at 24mm, 35mm, and 70mm. I focused the lens at infinity.

Now the situation is reversed. The bottom of the image is brighter than the top. At 24 and 35 mm, it’s a bit more than a stop brighter, and at 70 mm, it’s a bit less than a stop brighter.

At this point, I have no way of telling whether the difference between the two lenses is because the exit pupil is closer to the sensor with the Nikon lens, or because the camera knows the exit pupil location and changes the electronic first curtain timing.

My last test in this series was with the Nikon 50mm f/1.8 S lens, focused at infinity. In this test, I varied the f-stop, which in theory should affect the shading.

There is small f-stop sensitivity, and the ratio between the top and bottom is lower than with the zoom, with the bottom brighter.

With the Nikon 70-200mm f/2.8 S zoom, it looks like this:

As the exit pupil moves away from the sensor, the ratio decreases, to the point where, at 200mm, the ilumination is very close to even.

I don’t think the camera compensating for the lens (if it is, it’s doing a poor job of it); I think we’re just looking at differences based on the lens designs.

Nikon Z6/7

← Nikon Z7 scan time and exposure variation in EFCS and MS Are you completely satisfied with your gear? →

Comments

  1. CarVac says

    January 17, 2022 at 1:01 pm

    In response to your reply to my comment on the last post, I’m not really able to test this because I only have two native lenses for my Canon, plus it’s an SLR with a smaller crop sensor (both my FF cameras are older and have no EFCS whatsoever).

    I’ll see if I can ask people I know who have native lenses to test this.

    Reply
  2. CarVac says

    January 17, 2022 at 5:12 pm

    Someone I know tried it online with a 6D and 40/2.8 pancake (short exit pupil distance) and 70-200/4 at 1/4000 in live view with EFCS.

    40mm: https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/734780592431956054/932800765955833936/unknown.png

    70-200@70: https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/734780592431956054/932800583063191562/unknown.png

    70-200@200: https://media.discordapp.net/attachments/734780592431956054/932800719604559923/unknown.png

    It looks like it corrects pretty decently put perhaps not perfectly? Certainly better than the Z7 which has a faster sync speed and a lower max EFCS speed.

    Canon also must feel confident in their ability to correct this unevenness because their RP has no fully-mechanical shutter capability at all, it only has a second curtain. Effects on bokeh with fast lenses remain, of course.

    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.