• 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 — EDR vs a7II

Sony a6300 — EDR vs a7II

March 12, 2016 JimK 6 Comments

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

I’ve received a request for some context on some of the a6300 graphs I’ve been posting. I’m pleased to respond. Let’s compare the engineering dynamic range of the a6300 to its Sony stablemate, the a7II.

a6300 a7ii edr

In one sense, it’s a fair comparison. Both are 24 MP cameras, so there’s no need to scale the results to level the resolution playing field.  And, here’s the bottom line: at ISOs of 400 and above, the a6300 comes out the winner, thanks to the dual conversion gain trick.

I wouldn’t expect the photographic dynamic range (PDR) to be so even, though, since I suspect the full well capacity of the full frame a7II is higher than its APS-C cousin, and photon noise is usually more important than read noise for PDR..

Still, credit where credit is due. Good job, Sony.

By the way, as I’ve mentioned before, the a6300 shouldn’t get any credit for the boost in EDR that happens above ISO 10000. The camera achieves that bump through the highly-dubious trick of digital low-pass filtering.

The Last Word

← Sony a6300 — self heating Sony a6300 — in-camera file renaming →

Comments

  1. matthias says

    March 13, 2016 at 1:01 am

    hi jim

    what about a third and fourth curve overlay of the a7s and a7r ii?

    would be interesting comparo. the a6300 seems to perform better or on par with other sensor manufactors full frame offerings – look at the “new” panasonic sensor used in the leica q or sl… one can see this a bit when reviewing the studio scene of dpr when comparing the fuji pro 2 (a6300 sensor) with the leica q.

    kind regards,
    matthias

    Reply
    • Jim says

      March 13, 2016 at 8:03 am

      That would require either (sometimes controversial) compensatory mathematical correction, or a long-winded explanation, since the two cameras you mentioned have different resolution than the a7II/a6300.

      Jim

      Reply
  2. CarVac says

    March 13, 2016 at 7:35 am

    What do you mean by the full well capacity being better improving the dynamic range on the A7?

    Do you mean that while the circuitry induced noise that dominates in the deep shadows is roughly equal, but the noise in the midtones caused by shot noise will be better for the full frame camera? (Since shot noise SNR drops half a stop for each stop brighter, rather than the full stop decrease in electronics noise per stop brighter)

    In which case, dynamic range will still be about the same, being limited by the shadows but the full frame camera will deliver an overall cleaner image.

    Reply
    • Jim says

      March 13, 2016 at 7:41 am

      I was making a distinction between engineering dynamic range (EDR), and photographic dynamic range (PDR). EDR = fullscale / noise floor. PDR is fullscale divided by whatever relative exposure gives an acceptable signal to noise ratio.

      http://blog.kasson.com/?p=8259

      http://blog.kasson.com/?p=8280

      Jim

      PS I’ve edited the original post to make the point you raise clearer. Thanks.

      Reply
  3. Harvey says

    December 29, 2017 at 1:32 pm

    Some of this discussion, including EDR vs. PDR, is over my head. In layman’ terms, am I correct in interpreting that below 400 ISO, the files from the A7 II, in 14-bit mode, can be pushed harder than the files from the A6300, in 14-bit mode?

    Reply
  4. Harvey says

    December 29, 2017 at 2:08 pm

    My question above has been answered in the thread below:

    https://www.dpreview.com/forums/thread/3980120?page=2

    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.