• 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 a7 Unity-Gain ISO

Sony a7 Unity-Gain ISO

February 22, 2014 JimK 2 Comments

Using the methods described in this post, I computed the 14-bit Unity Gain ISO of the a7 at about 525, the 13-bit Unity Gain ISO at 1050, and the full-well capacity at about 86000 electrons. These are very good numbers. I’m a little suspicious, because the same tests gave unreasonably good results for the a7R, and there may be some optimism in the a7 results, but I’m reporting them anyway. I don’t want to allow the sins (if that’s what they are) of its sibling to prejudice me against the a7.

a7 UGISO 3 stops down

Why two separate UG ISOs? The a7 advertises itself in the EXIF data as a 14-bit camera. The data that comes out of Rawdigger is 14-bit data. The calculations are done on that basis. When we want to compare the a7 to other sensors, it makes sense to not make the resolution of the analog to digital converter part of the calculation, and normalizing everything to a 14-bit ADC is convenient.

However, when deciding how far to turn up the ISO, the resolution of the ADC is important, and from that perspective, the Unity Gain ISO of the a7 is about 1000. That means that turning the ISO knob up past 1600 or 3200 will not be useful compared to pushing in post-processing.

For comparison to other cameras, I offer the following graphs.

Here’s how the Unity Gain ISO varies with pixel pitch for a group of cameras that I’ve measured:

UGISO vs pix pitch

Here’s the full well capacity for the same group, plotted against sensel area, assuming 100% fill factor:

FWC vs sensel area

Here’s the engineering dynamic range that can theoretically be achieved plotted against sensel area:

DR vs sensel area

This dynamic range is defined as the ratio of this highest signal the sensor can measure to the point at which the signal and the photon noise have the same value, assuming perfect amplification and a perfect ADC. In practice, such a large dynamic range is unattainable.

To put cameras with different sized sensels on an even footing, here’s the engineering dynamic range you’d get if you res’d images from all the cameras down to 12 megapixels using averaging methods:

DR at 12MP vs sensel area

Conclusion? The a7 has a state-of-the-art sensor.

The Last Word

← Sony a7 post-push images in the shadows Leica 50 ‘lux on the M240, Sony 55 FE on the Sony a7 →

Comments

  1. n/a says

    February 22, 2014 at 12:24 pm

    typ – subject shall be Testing the Sony a7, part 8

    Reply
    • Jim says

      February 22, 2014 at 12:26 pm

      Fixed. Thanks!

      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.