the last word

Photography meets digital computer technology. Photography wins -- most of the time.

  • site home
  • blog home
  • galleries
  • contact
  • underwater
  • the bleeding edge
You are here: Home / The Last Word / Sony a7 shutter shock testing with the ISO 12233 target

Sony a7 shutter shock testing with the ISO 12233 target

February 13, 2014 JimK Leave a Comment

In the last post, I went through the reasoning that made me decide that the Betterlight scanning back isn’t the right tool for the firehouse project. Thinking about a scanning back got me onto another way to get really high resolution: stitching. I figure for macro work, I’m not restricted to the usual “swing the lens around the nodal point” approach. I could try lateral and vertical shifts of the camera. That should be easier to stitch than rotations. I could use a tripod column for the vertical shifts and a long rail for the lateral ones.

However, if I’m to use available light, there’s a potential problem: all that shifting gear – and even rotating gear – makes the rig unsteady, and thus prone to having vibration affect image sharpness. So I need a camera that doesn’t vibrate much. I have an ancient (by digital photographic standards) Hasselblad H3D-39 that I haven’t used in years. With its leaf shutter, it shouldn’t shake much. I dug it out of an infrequently accessed cabinet, and attempted to fire it up. The camera part appears to work, but not the back. I’ll see if it’s fixable at a price that’s not almost what it’s worth when working.

Then I thought of another possibility, the Sony alpha 7, henceforth known as the a7. Not the R version, but the cheaper 24 megapixel camera with the electronic first curtain shutter. It should be nearly vibration-free. I could shoot three by three arrays, and with generous overlap I’d have 100 or 120 megapixels. I could probably expose such an array in a minute or two. I might even be able to focus stack two or three layers, but that’s a low-probability thing because the stitching will probably introduce distortion that varies from array to array.

Anyway, it’s worth a try. I got an a7 to experiment with. The first thing I did was check for shutter shock using the ISO 12233 target. Those of you you’ve been reading this blog for a while know the drill, but I’ll repeat it here for newcomers.

I set up this gear: Leica 135mm f/3.4 APO Telyt on an a7 with a Metabones adapter, RRS a7 L-bracket, Arca Swiss C1 Cube, RRS TVC-44 legs. Release was with the 2 second self-timer.  ISO 100, lens set at f/5.6. ISO 12233 target with the camera at a distance to yield an active area 775 pixels high. Thus, the lines labeled “8” represent 1 line pair per pixel pair.

Target illumination for the continuous lighting images was provided by a single Fotodiox LED-200WA-56 lamp, using the supplied reflector. Lighting for the strobe images came from a Paul Buff Einstein 640 watt-second flash set to 2.5 watt-seconds. At this power setting, the flash duration is about 1/13000 second. As a further measure to mitigate shutter shock affecting the strobe images, the camera was set to trailing curtain synch and the shutter to 2 seconds.

For the continuous-lighting pictures, the camera was set to 1/400 second with Fotodiox at maximum output. An exposure was made. Then the shutter was set 1/3 stop slower, the Fotodiox adjusted to give the same meter reading, and another shot taken. That process was repeated all the way to the lowest non-zero Fotodiox output and 1/3 second.

I processed the images in Lightroom with the default settings, corrected for minor exposure differences, and exported the files to Lightroom as layers. I labeled the layers with the exposure times and compared them. The images that I’m posting here are crops from the upper right-hand corner, enlarged 3x using nearest neighbor, and JPEG’d. Because of the way that Photoshop handles EXIF data from images composed of multiple layers, the EXIF data for the posted images is bogus. If anyone would like to see the Photoshop stack, please contact me.

Here’s the strobe-lit image:

strobe a7 135

There are a few things worth noting:

  • Because this is a 24 megapixel camera, the pixels are bigger than the pixels of the a7R or the D800E. If you’re going to compare these ISO 12233 images to those of the other two cameras – and I encourage you to do so – you should keep that in mind. The a7 appears sharper than the a7R under similar strobe-lit circumstances, but that’s because it’s got bigger pixels.
  • There is much less aliasing than with the a7R, even with the bigger pixels, because of the a7’s anti-aliasing filter. However, there are still some muted false color artifacts (look above the “6” and the “7” in the horizontal lines) and some luminance errors (look what appears to be vertical black lines above the “8”).
  • The horizontal lines are better resolved than the vertical ones. Since the strobe duration is so short, I put this down to an anti-aliasing filter that operates more strongly in one orientation than the other.
  • On the horizontal lines, the camera/lens combination is resolving at the sensel level, albeit with moderate contrast. This is very good performance, especially considering the presence of the anti-aliasing filter.
  • On the vertical lines, the camera/lens combination is just barely resolving at the sensel level.

At 1/400 second, the image is very close to the strobe-lit image, with slightly lower contrast that is probably the result of the different lighting angles:

400th a7 135

At 1/100 second, usually a bad shutter speed for the a7R, we’ve lost a tiny bit of resolution. That results in less aliasing in the horizontal lines above the “8”. You’d never see this in a photograph of something other than a test target:

100th a7 135

1/3 second is slightly better in the horizontal lines and slightly worse on the vertical ones. Again, you’d never see this in a photograph of something other than a test target:

third a7 135

This is remarkable performance. The a7 is less prone to vibration blur than the D800E with the mirror locked up. However, the D800E starts off with a disadvantage, since by virtue of its greater pixel density it takes less motion to cause the same amount of blur when you’re pixel peeping. And, of course, the a7 is less prone to vibration blur than the a7R.

The Last Word

← More BetterLight testing with the ISO 12233 target Does Sony raw compression damage images? →

Leave a Reply Cancel reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

March 2023
S M T W T F S
 1234
567891011
12131415161718
19202122232425
262728293031  
« Jan    

Articles

  • About
    • Patents and papers about color
    • Who am I?
  • Good 35-70 MF lens
  • How to…
    • Backing up photographic images
    • How to change email providers
  • 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 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 Fujifilm GFX 100S pixel shift, visuals
  • Sarmed Mirza on Fujifilm GFX 100S pixel shift, visuals
  • lancej on Two ways to improve the Q2 handling
  • JimK on Sony 135 STF on GFX-50R, sharpness
  • K on Sony 135 STF on GFX-50R, sharpness
  • Mal Paso on Christmas tree light bokeh with the XCD 38V on the X2D
  • Sebastian on More on tilted adapters
  • JimK on On microlens size in the GFX 100 and GFX 50R/S
  • Kyle Krug on On microlens size in the GFX 100 and GFX 50R/S
  • JimK on Hasselblad X2D electronic shutter scan time

Archives

Copyright © 2023 · Daily Dish Pro On Genesis Framework · WordPress · Log in

Unless otherwise noted, all images copyright Jim Kasson.