• 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 / GFX 50S / Fujifilm GFX & Sony a7RII moire

Fujifilm GFX & Sony a7RII moire

April 20, 2017 JimK 9 Comments

This is the 40th in a series of posts on the Fujifilm GFX-50S. The series starts here.

We have seen that the GFX sensor produces much sharper images than the a7RII sensor, with both the Fuji native lenses and some selected Zeiss full frame lenses. It is even sharper sometimes on a cycles/pixel basis, not just cycles/picture height. This is probably because of Fuji’s smaller-than-normal microlenses.

But there’s a potential downside to all that sharpness: aliasing. If the aliasing occurs with a subject with strong spatial frequency components within a factor of 10 or 20 of the sampling frequency, the result is difference frequency artifacts in the captured image. Fabric is a sometimes-troublesome subject because of such high-frequency regular structures. So I decided to see how the GFX and the a7RII did with some fabric.

I set up this scene:

I put the Fuji 63 mm lens on the GFX and set it to f/5.6. The a7RII got an Otus 55 set at f/4, which is the equivalent aperture. Since the Otus is sharper than the Fuji normal lens (but, on-axis, not by much on the GFX sensor), this is giving the GFX a tiny advantage, but I wanted to get the field of view about equal. I did back up a bit for the a7RII shots to help with that. I made several images, focusing in a different place for each one.

Then I gave each image close-to-identical development in Lightroom, with modest contrast, clarity, and vibrance boosts. The white balance and exposure settings needed to be different for a more-or-less decent visual match.

Then I went looking for moire. Here’s what I found, at an enlargement magnification that makes the images from both cameras the same height as measured in percent of the sensor pixel height. This has the effect of magnifying the a7RII images more than the GFX ones, and making the field of view of the crops smaller. I think it’s fairer to show them that way than on a equal per-pixel basis. You will be looking at the captures that showed the most moire for each camera.

GFX

 

a7RII

This is an image where the difference is striking. Possibly some focus distance differences were involved, but I could consistently get moire in this area of the striped shirt with the GFX, and hardly any with the a7RII.

GFX

 

a7Rii

Here is a case where the a7RII is a little worse.

 

GFX

 

a7RII

The GFX is substantially worse here.

GFX

 

a7RII

 

Again, the GFX is worse.

Netting it out, the GFX is more susceptible to moire, as the earlier testing predicted. But the difference is certainly not night and day.

By the way, here’s the first scene I set up:

There turned out to be very little moire in that one, because the patterns in the fabric were for the most part too coarse to cause it. Of course, if could have backed up further that would have worked fine.

Nerdy addendum:

In a comment to this post, Jack Hogan wondered how the visual results would correlate with the amount of energy above Nyquist in a slanted edge test. Here are the results with the 63 on the GFX at f/5.6, and the Otus 55 on the a7RII at f/4, as demosaiced by dcraw with Imatest default settings:

 

From the slower rise distance for the Fuji lens on the GFX, it looks like the Otus is crisper. But MTF at Nyquist is about the same. It’s not obvious that the area under the curve above Nyquist is much different.

Why is this not more instructive?

I think that, because of the Bayer color filter array on each sensor, we have to look at lower frequencies as sources of the aliasing artifacts. But that doesn’t seem to help in this case, either. It seems like both sensors ought to alias about the same with this set of lenses at thes apertures.

 

I don’t have apples and apples, but I did look at the green channel of two files made with the Cognisys rail with the Otus 85 on both cameras, at the point in the series where the green channel MTF50 peaked.

First, the a7RII image:

Next, the GFX one:

You can see that the MTF at the Nyquist frequency is higher in cycles/pixel for the GFX. Not much, but higher. And, due to the different numbers of pixels in the two sensors, the GFX MTF50 measured in cycles/picture height is proportionately higher. If you want to calculate that from the graphs above, you’pll have to double the number of pixels in the height of each image from that reported by Imatest, since it is only looking at the Gr plane in this case.

GFX 50S, The Last Word

← Fujifilm GFX 50S focusing — summary to date GFX vs a7RII — visibility of improved IQ →

Comments

  1. Jack Hogan says

    April 20, 2017 at 1:38 pm

    Correlating this to MTF energy above Nyquist would be neat (with MTF Mapper, the same setups and H/V slanted edges in place of fabric).

    Reply
  2. Sean W. says

    April 20, 2017 at 2:10 pm

    Just have fun taking pictures and stop with this tests

    Reply
    • JimK says

      April 20, 2017 at 2:11 pm

      No one is making you read them, right? Why deny me my simple pleasures?

      Reply
      • JimK says

        April 20, 2017 at 2:17 pm

        Seriously, I’m doing this as much for me as for the folks reading my blog. I want to find out where this camera fits in my photography, and how a can get the most out of it.

        Reply
  3. Caspar says

    April 20, 2017 at 6:46 pm

    These tests are fascinating! Please don’t get discouraged.

    Reply
  4. Michael Demeyer says

    April 20, 2017 at 8:12 pm

    Keep up the rigorous testing Jim. It’s good to see someone actually trying to understand the causes of behavior/performance instead of just commenting on it.

    Michael

    Reply
  5. Bergat says

    March 24, 2019 at 11:16 am

    I see the photos made with gfx always more clear

    Reply

Trackbacks

  1. Fujifill GFX 50S — summary says:
    May 23, 2017 at 1:01 pm

    […] small microlenses that are part of what makes the sensor so sharp would cause a lot of aliasing; they do cause some, but it’s not much worse that 100% fill factor cameras. I was a little put off by the ¼ second scan time in ES mode, but upon reflection, I’m glad they […]

    Reply
  2. Sony Tidbits... - sonyalpharumors sonyalpharumors says:
    May 29, 2017 at 9:39 pm

    […] DSLR-A900, Sony’s first full-frame camera (Dpreview). Fujifilm GFX & Sony a7RII moire (Blog Kasson). Sony ranks 7th in the List of The World’s Most Reputable Companies In 2017 by Forbes. Are […]

    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.