Sony α7 V's Photographic DR competes with GFX 100 II's

[lunaticitizen]

As per the title.

Source: https://www.photonstophotos.net///Ch...ony%20ILCE-7M5

The α7 V: 12.45
The GFX 100 II: 12.55

Of course, the GFX 100 II's sheer resolution will still result in less moiré compared to the Sony.

If Sony Semiconductor Solutions develops a 44x33 sensor based on this one, I think it will lift 44x33 MF to Phase One territory.

What do you think?

[Manfred M]

As per the title.

Source: https://www.photonstophotos.net///Ch...ony%20ILCE-7M5

The α7 V: 12.45
The GFX 100 II: 12.55

Of course, the GFX 100 II's sheer resolution will still result in less moiré compared to the Sony.

If Sony Semiconductor Solutions develops a 44x33 sensor based on this one, I think it will lift 44x33 MF to Phase One territory.

What do you think?

If you dig a little deeper, it turns out that Sony "cheated" on the stats. Sony has (for a long time) not produced pure raw files, but does digital manipulation on the data before writing the raw files. I remember the first time that they were caught doing this was the infamous "lost stars" in astrophotography. The noise reduction algorithms on the raw data was a bit too aggressive and photographers started noticing that the night skies were devoid of stars that they were expecting in their captures. Sony did eventually correct this through firmware updates.

https://www.fujirumors.com/sony-tric...dynamic-range/

This has been confirmed by Bill Claff, who does the Photons to Photos website.


Sony is not the only camera company that does this. The mFT cameras from Panasonic apply lens corrections automatically in the raw data. I defintely saw this on my GX-7 with the 18-180mm lens. I suspect Olympus might do the same thing as the Panasonic and Olympus lenses can be used on either camera brand. Leica's original contract with Panasonic required that all Leica branded lenses do not use in-camera lens correction algorithms.

Just another minor issue, the sensor in both the 102 MP Fujifilm GFX cameras and the Hasselblad X2D cameras was introduced by Sony in mid 2019. In all cases, the sensor stacks have been updated, but the actual sensor itself is 6+ years old. It's the same story with the 53.4 x 40.0mm sensors used by Hasselblad (H6D-100c) and Phase One. Phase One is the only company that uses the 150MP sensor.

Us medium format shooters would love to see an updated set of sensors for this format.

[lunaticitizen]

If you look again at that site, you can see that Bill Claff has updated his findings. No perceptible noise reduction on the raw files of the Sony (no triangle down on the graph).

The URL I provided in my opening post also contains the updated version.

If Sony Semiconductor develops 44x33 sensor based on this tech, at least at the base ISO Fujifilm or Hasselblad will have similar Photographic DR to the 7-year-old IMX411 used by Phase One.

[Manfred M]

If you look again at that site, you can see that Bill Claff has updated his findings. No perceptible noise reduction on the raw files of the Sony (no triangle down on the graph).

The URL I provided in my opening post also contains the updated version.

If Sony Semiconductor develops 44x33 sensor based on this tech, at least at the base ISO Fujifilm or Hasselblad will have similar Photographic DR to the 7-year-old IMX411 used by Phase One.

Thanks - I see that DPReview also published information on the partially stacked Sony sensor with Bill Claff's data.


https://www.dpreview.com/news/578868...e-breakthrough

My understanding is that the 102 MP IMX461 sensor used by Hasselblad and Fujifilm and the 150 MP IMX411 sensor used in the Phase One IQ4 backs are very close cousins. They use the same technology and 3.76µm pixel pitch. The difference is size / pixel count (11 648 px x 8 736 px vs 14 204px x 10 652 px) and sensor size (43.8mm x 32.9mm vs 53.4mm x 40.0mm).

Funny that we are getting excited that a newly introduced sensor can compete with one introduced in 2018 (the first production cameras that used this sensor came out in 2019). The medium format sensors are pure BSI and the new sensors use partially stacked technology.

[DanK]

Funny that we are getting excited that a newly introduced sensor can compete with one introduced in 2018 (the first production cameras that used this sensor came out in 2019

Not really, I think. Lots of people (I'm one) don't want to carry medium format gear. It's good news when technology allows greater DR in smaller sensors.

One of my regrets in moving from FF to MFT was that it cost me about one stop in DR. In some landscape work, that extra stop matters, but then again, one can bracket.

[Manfred M]

Lots of people (I'm one) don't want to carry medium format gear.

Which is primarily why I use it as a studio camera. When the body (which weighs less than my Nikon D810 DSLR) and the lenses (which are heavier than my full-frame lenses) sit on a tripod or camera stand, weight is not an issue.

On the rare occasions I use it in the field, I generally only use a single lens to moderate the total weight I carry.

[lunaticitizen]

Phase One should be really worried; if Sony Semiconductor has no interest in developing the successor of the IMX411 then one of their major bragging points (high DR) will disappear and people will have harder time justifying the cost of their system.

Current FF cameras already have enough DR for my use cases. I'd be very glad if Sony further improves the image stabilization on their cameras.

[DanK]

Which is primarily why I use it as a studio camera. When the body (which weighs less than my Nikon D810 DSLR) and the lenses (which are heavier than my full-frame lenses) sit on a tripod or camera stand, weight is not an issue.

I know you want the medium format for resolution, which can be as much an issue in studio work as in any other genre. But the OP is about DR. DR isn't usually an issue in studio work because one can control the lighting. It's an issue outdoors. So IMHO, that's why some people may get excited about that level of DR appearing for the first time in a FF camera.

There is a matter of diminishing returns, however. The higher the DR, the less often one will need it. I rarely found DR problematic with my R6 II, which tops out at a bit under 12 stops at base ISO, which is 100 for that camera. I have found it an issue more often with the OM-1 II, which tops out at a bit under 10 stops at its base ISO, which is 200. (By ISO=200, the two cameras are only about one stop apart.) I'm not sure I would often notice the extra 3/4 stop, or whatever it is, that the new Sony has above the R6 II.