• 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 / Nikon D810 vs Sony a7RII dark-field noise

Nikon D810 vs Sony a7RII dark-field noise

August 7, 2015 JimK 13 Comments

Some of you asked for this:

D810 comparison

The red, green, and blue raw channels are all on top of each other. The D810 curve is the one that starts at ISO 32 and goes to ISO 50K. The a7RII  curve is the one that starts at ISO 50 and goes to ISO 100K. These curves are not corrected for resolution differences, and thus shows the a7RII at a slight disadvantage.

The disadvantage is log2(sqrt(42/36)) = 0.11 stops.

Isn’t it amazing that you can just stick that in your browser and get the answer!

log2advantage

What’s the interpretation?

  • The D810 has better base ISO  read noise and EDR.
  • The cameras are neck and neck at ISO 100.
  • At ISO 640, the a7RII pulls ahead and stays ahead.
  • The a7RII improvement at ISO 32000 and above is bogus, accomplished through in-camera spatial low-pass filtering.

 

The Last Word

← a7rII read noise vs shutter speed a7RII read noise spectra at high ISO settings →

Comments

  1. Douglas Dubler says

    August 8, 2015 at 6:41 am

    Love the images on the banner. Are they posted anywhere where I can see them full screen?

    Reply
    • Jim says

      August 8, 2015 at 6:56 am

      Not full screen, but you can see many more and larger one in the gallery section of the web site.

      http://www.kasson.com/galleries/index.php

      Jim

      Reply
  2. Dan says

    August 9, 2015 at 1:26 am

    Hi, a Chinese tester seems to found something interesting, at 1/60s shutter, the A7R2 is found to have better dynamic range than the D810 as shown in the below picture:
    http://goo.gl/G2Mx1Z
    The data seem to be in agreement with yours. But at 30s shutter, they found that the situation is reversed and the A7R2 seems to lag a lot, due to severe color noise:
    http://goo.gl/wSuG9E
    Can you confirm this or any comment?
    Thanks!

    Reply
    • Fafner says

      August 10, 2015 at 12:08 am

      The first image seems not to refer to an 810.

      Reply
      • Jim says

        August 10, 2015 at 6:51 am

        The D810 curve is the one that starts at ISO 32 and goes to ISO 50K. The a7RII curve is the one that starts at ISO 50 and goes to ISO 100K.

        Reply
  3. Sugasmune says

    August 9, 2015 at 5:44 am

    Your test doesn’t say anything about real DR because the camera has automatic DR optimizer for hardware based file size reduction that even firmware update can’t alter. It’s auto changed between 12 – 13,5 EV stop at best.

    Reply
    • Jim says

      August 9, 2015 at 7:36 am

      If you’re talking sbout Sony rsw compression, it doesn’t affect dynamic range in cameras that have as much read noise as the a7x ones do.

      http://blog.kasson.com/?s=sony+raw+compression

      If by “real” dynamic range you mean photographic dynamic range, I’ll be publishing those numbers shortly.

      Jim

      Reply
  4. Alex says

    August 9, 2015 at 9:54 am

    If you add the “disadvantage” the A7RII has, wouldn’t that actually put it ahead of the D810 at ISO 100?

    Reply
    • Jim says

      August 9, 2015 at 10:14 am

      Good point. But we should remember that looking at such small differences, while interesting, doesn’t significantly affect real photography (as opposed to testing).

      Jim

      Reply
  5. Igor says

    August 12, 2015 at 3:03 pm

    Could the kinks on the AR7II curve be related to the NR in RAW files?

    Reply
    • Jim says

      August 12, 2015 at 8:26 pm

      The kink above ISO 25600 is. The one at the ISO 500 to ISO 640 transition is most likely the result of a change of conversion gain by switching out a capacitor in parallel with the photodiodes.

      Reply
  6. Jon McGuffin says

    August 13, 2015 at 2:33 pm

    At what point do these minute and miniscule differences become completely unimportant to the end product and thus are an honest waste of time to even test? Please don’t take offense, I appreciate the time and data given, I just think we’re splitting hairs here so close that it has no practical value.

    Reply
    • Jim says

      August 13, 2015 at 2:43 pm

      If you don’t care about the results, I suggest you find a more profitable use of your time. Modern cameras are remarkable photographic tools, and great photographs are made every day by people who neither know nor care how to get everything possible out of them.

      Goodbye and good luck.

      Jim

      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.