• 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 / The Last Word / Camera resolution and 4K viewing — a7S, a7III, a7RIII, a7RIV

Camera resolution and 4K viewing — a7S, a7III, a7RIII, a7RIV

October 18, 2019 JimK 2 Comments

This is the seventh in a series of posts on the effect of camera resolution on the quality of downsampled images. The series starts here.

I’m beginning to see then end of this series of posts, and am beginning to mentally write the conclusions section, but there are a couple more things I’d like to do. For this test, I broadened the selection of cameras to the following:

  • a7S, 12 MP
  • a7III, 24 MP
  • a7RIII, 42 MP
  • a7RIV, 61 MP

I tested them all with the Sony/Zeiss 35 mm f/1.4 Distagon FE. Here are the other particulars:

  • EFCS
  • f/4
  • A exposure mode, -1 EV exposure compensation
  • About 1/6 second, determined by camera
  • ISO 100
  • AF-S
  • Flexible spot
  • Focus priority
  • Medium spot size, on the Siemens Star
  • Three shots with each setup, with the best picked for this presentation
  • Developed in Lightroom, PV 5
  • Adobe Color profile
  • White balanced to third gray patch from left on Macbeth chart
  • Sharpening set to: amount 30, radius 1, detail 0

Here’s the shot:

Crops of the star, at a bit less than 200% magnification for the a7RIV, and correspondingly more for the other cameras to keep the field of view the same. Be sure to look at these with your browser set to 100% magnification, or else you’ll be looking at the browser’s resampling in addition to what I’ve done. Better yet, download the files and put them into a Photoshop layer stack.

a7RIV

 

a7RIII

 

a7III

Note that the anti-aliasing filter in the a7III is much weaker for horizontal features than it is for vertical ones.

a7S

Not a lot of surprises here. More resolution is better, and a finer pitch means less aliasing, all else equal.

Some text:

a7RIV

 

a7RIII

 

a7III

 

a7S

 

A portion of the Macbeth chart so you can get an idea of smoothness, and a fine checkerboard in the upper right corner:

a7RIV

 

a7RIII

 

a7III

 

a7S

 

By the way, some photographers have said that they’re having a hard time getting more detailed pictures from the a7RIV than the a7RIII images. Not me. A 20% increase in resolution isn’t life-changing, but it’s nothing to sneeze at, either.

How much of the high-resolution differences survive downsampling to 4K? That’s the subject of the next post.

 

The Last Word

← Camera resolution and 4K viewing — natural images, QImage downsampling Camera resolution and 4K viewing — a7S, a7III, a7RIII, a7RIV, downsampled →

Comments

  1. Erik Kaffehr says

    October 19, 2019 at 12:20 am

    Hi Jim,

    I sort of see that aliasing and bayer demosaic artifacts are handled much better with higher resolution sensors and downscaling of the image does not help a lot with that.

    In some MTF oriented experiments I felt that the MTF of an image was pretty much preserved over downscaling.

    Thanks for your efforts and I really look forward to your findings.

    Best regards
    Erik

    Reply
  2. viptube says

    November 6, 2019 at 9:22 am

    The Siemens star shows the differences most clearly. As the resolutions go up, the false color decreases, and the star is resolved nearer the center.

    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.