Shocked by A7ii vs A6300 noise comparison

Started Mar 17, 2016 | Discussions
ERN812 Contributing Member • Posts: 620
Re: Voodoo explained

So can we say that the a7ii is only about a half-stop better than the a6300 in low light?  I've been wanting to upgrade from my a57 for awhile, for essentially two reasons--better low-light performance (I would like to have a relatively clean iso 3200 file) and better autofocus, specifically the eye-af feature to aid in getting good focus on pictures of my young and active kids.

I played around with the a6000 some, but didn't think it was enough of an IQ upgrade at high iso to justify switching.  I had my sights set on saving up for an a7 series, but haven't pulled the trigger because I'd had doubts about the a7ii autofocus (and lack of continuous eye-af) and because the a7rii was pretty pricey.  If the a7ii has only a half-stop on the a6300, it seems like the a6300 might be an attractive upgrade for me.

But this thread has gotten pretty technical so maybe I'm misunderstanding what people are saying.

 ERN812's gear list:ERN812's gear list
Sony a7R III Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS Zeiss Batis 25mm F2 Zeiss Batis 85mm F1.8 +2 more
bclaff Forum Pro • Posts: 11,685
Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR)

ERN812 wrote:

So can we say that the a7ii is only about a half-stop better than the a6300 in low light?

Here is the Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR) as measured from files provided by Jim Kasson .:

At ISO 400 and above they appear to be almost identical.

-- hide signature --

Bill ( Your trusted source for independent sensor data at http://www.PhotonsToPhotos.net )

JimKasson
JimKasson Forum Pro • Posts: 33,370
Re: Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR)

bclaff wrote:

ERN812 wrote:

So can we say that the a7ii is only about a half-stop better than the a6300 in low light?

Here is the Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR) as measured from files provided by Jim Kasson .:

At ISO 400 and above they appear to be almost identical.

Thanks, Bill. I'm going to try to get to PDR today myself. I've rewritten the code for fewer exposures, but I need to work out the exposure protocol. I'm using a reflective target. With a D5000 illuminant (I can go as high as D6000, but not D6500) do you think a CC30M would be a good idea to even out the raw channels?

Jim

-- hide signature --
 JimKasson's gear list:JimKasson's gear list
Nikon Z7 Fujifilm GFX 100 Sony a7R IV Sony a9 II +1 more
bclaff Forum Pro • Posts: 11,685
Re: Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR)

JimKasson wrote:

bclaff wrote:

ERN812 wrote:

So can we say that the a7ii is only about a half-stop better than the a6300 in low light?

Here is the Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR) as measured from files provided by Jim Kasson .:

At ISO 400 and above they appear to be almost identical.

Thanks, Bill. I'm going to try to get to PDR today myself. I've rewritten the code for fewer exposures, but I need to work out the exposure protocol. I'm using a reflective target. With a D5000 illuminant (I can go as high as D6000, but not D6500) do you think a CC30M would be a good idea to even out the raw channels?

I think evening out the channels is a good idea so that a single exposure captures the channels more evenly (that's why my target is "magenta").

BTW, Read Noise in DN and Input-referred Read Noise are also just posted at my site.

Regards,

-- hide signature --

Bill ( Your trusted source for independent sensor data at http://www.PhotonsToPhotos.net )

JimKasson
JimKasson Forum Pro • Posts: 33,370
Claff Photographic Dynamic Range
2

bclaff wrote:

ERN812 wrote:

So can we say that the a7ii is only about a half-stop better than the a6300 in low light?

Here is the Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR) as measured from files provided by Jim Kasson .:

At ISO 400 and above they appear to be almost identical.

That's very similar to what I get, too, with different samples and different methodology:

-- hide signature --
 JimKasson's gear list:JimKasson's gear list
Nikon Z7 Fujifilm GFX 100 Sony a7R IV Sony a9 II +1 more
bclaff Forum Pro • Posts: 11,685
Re: Claff Photographic Dynamic Range
2

JimKasson wrote:

bclaff wrote:

ERN812 wrote:

So can we say that the a7ii is only about a half-stop better than the a6300 in low light?

Here is the Photographic Dynamic Range (PDR) as measured from files provided by Jim Kasson .:

At ISO 400 and above they appear to be almost identical.

That's very similar to what I get, too, with different samples and different methodology:

Gee. Independent confirmation ... that's almost "science". 

-- hide signature --

Bill ( Your trusted source for independent sensor data at http://www.PhotonsToPhotos.net )

ERN812 Contributing Member • Posts: 620
Re: Claff Photographic Dynamic Range

http://www.imaging-resource.com/news/2016/03/22/sony-a6300-first-shots

To add another qualitative comparison to the one that started this thread, the a6300 appears to compare well to the a7ii at ISO 6400 in the above post.

 ERN812's gear list:ERN812's gear list
Sony a7R III Sony FE 55mm F1.8 Sony Vario-Tessar T* FE 16-35mm F4 ZA OSS Zeiss Batis 25mm F2 Zeiss Batis 85mm F1.8 +2 more
SLindberg New Member • Posts: 1
Re: Shocked by A7ii vs A6300 noise comparison

Shot in Jpeg or Raw? I have personally seen quite big differences at 400 iso. Check the comparison Image Quality here on Dp to see the difference im talking about.

Arizona Sunset
Arizona Sunset Veteran Member • Posts: 3,795
Re: Shocked by A7ii vs A6300 noise comparison
6

SLindberg wrote:

Shot in Jpeg or Raw? I have personally seen quite big differences at 400 iso. Check the comparison Image Quality here on Dp to see the difference im talking about.

Congratulations, you’ve unlocked DPR’s  “Thread Resurrection Award”.

 Arizona Sunset's gear list:Arizona Sunset's gear list
Canon G7 X II Sony RX1R II Sony RX100 VI Apple iPhone 7 Plus
Seeky Senior Member • Posts: 1,066
Re: Shocked by A7ii vs A6300 noise comparison
1

SLindberg wrote:

Shot in Jpeg or Raw? I have personally seen quite big differences at 400 iso. Check the comparison Image Quality here on Dp to see the difference im talking about.

The case was already closed. But I guess it is OK to bring up new evidence if your findings differ substantially from what has been concluded in this thread.

But I don't see a "quite big difference" at ISO 400 in the DPReview studio shot comparison. Please define quite big difference; 1 stop? 0.5 stop? The measured PDR difference is 0.4 stops, not what I would call a big difference.

-- hide signature --
 Seeky's gear list:Seeky's gear list
Sony SLT-A57 Fujifilm X-T1 Sony a7 II Sony a7 III Sony DT 18-55mm F3.5-5.6 SAM +14 more
Keyboard shortcuts:
FForum MMy threads