• 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 / Sony a6300 — Batis 85/1.8 MTF50 vs a7RII

Sony a6300 — Batis 85/1.8 MTF50 vs a7RII

March 13, 2016 JimK 4 Comments

This is part of a long series of posts about the Sony a6300. The series starts here.

You’re probably not gonna use your Otus 85 on an a6300, so sharpness comparisons between the two cameras probably aren’t of much practical use. But you might use your Batis on the a6300. How much sharpness do you give away by going to an APS-C camera? I’m not presenting the results for the sharpest f-stops of the lens, but I happen to have f/1.8 and f/5.6 results for the a6300 from the last post, and I can go back and dredge up ones for the a7RII.

At f/1.8:

 

6300mf18a

a7rii18mf

Ignore the horizontal axis. Just look at how high the peaks are. The green peak for the a7RII is at about 1275 cycles.picture height, and the peak for the a6300 is at a little under 900 cy/ph.

At f/5.6:

6300mf56a

a7rii56mf

The green channel peaks at 1000 cy/ph for the a6300, and 1400 cy/ph for the a7RII.

In this little contest, the a7RII has two things going for it. It has more pixels top to bottom, and it has a greater dimension top to bottom. The latter lets it take advantage of more of the lens’ field, and the former let’s it sample what the lens can deliver more finely.

Note that the a6300 results, while definitely a step down from the a7RII ones, are by no means bad.

 

The Last Word

← Sony a6300 — AF with Batis 85/1.8 Sony a6300 — silent shutter speed →

Comments

  1. JunzInc says

    March 13, 2016 at 7:18 pm

    Hi Jim,
    As always, I appreciate all the efforts which you put in for doing these great experiments.

    I am very interested in seeing the comparison of the same lenses on the A6300 vs the A7II. Both cameras being same resolution and that they are APS-C vs Full Frame would let me know how much going Full Frame is going to benefit the sharpness of the images from the same lenses even though the FoV will not be the same.

    Best Regards
    JM

    Reply
  2. VL says

    March 13, 2016 at 9:35 pm

    Thanks for repeating this test on a different camera. I think it would be a great idea to report your findings to Zeiss. I’m not sure how accessible they are to customer feedback but your analysis seems rigorous enough that they should least consider looking at the data.

    Reply
  3. Michael Demeyer says

    March 13, 2016 at 10:22 pm

    Jim,

    I guess this is the expected result if the lens out resolves the 6300 sensor in the middle of the frame. However, it would be interesting to look at resolution near the edge of the frame with the two cameras at appropriate distances to have the target equally sized, as a % of the image. In other words, with equal fields of view – which means the 6300 would have to be further from the target.

    I’m wondering how much the higher resolution of the A7ii compensates for the fall-off in image quality at the edges of the image circle. In contrast, the edges of the APS-C sensor are likely in a better performing part of the Batis image circle and, therefore, might provide a higher effective resolution even though the overall image has fewer pixels.

    Does that make sense? Bigger sensor is good, but it means you have to make a lens that performs over a larger image circle. There is always some kind of trade-off, yes?

    Michael

    Reply
  4. Jack Hogan says

    March 14, 2016 at 1:35 am

    Excellent Jim. When looking at MTF comparisons on a per picture height basis, if everything else is the same the only thing that matters is the number of pixels in the height of the sensors. Based on the a7RII’s excellent results with the same lens one would therefore expect the a6300’s f/5.6 green channel to peak at 1400*4000/5320 = 1056 cy/ph. The a6300 falls about 5% short of that. Lots of reasons why that could be (remember the animation). Is the a6300’s sensor BSI?

    Jack

    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.